I have at times been critical of some people's choices of literature. This was certainly unfair of me, but like most, I would shrug and say 'But there's so much BETTER out there.' And I would be right. However, that isn't really the relevant issue.
Last night, quite late, I pulled 'Soulless,' the first book in the Parasol Protectorate trilogy. This is, for lack of a better term, a steampunk fantasy. It's also a paranormal romance, but I didn't know that at the time. I had bought the first book when it first came out, because the cover was interesting and the dusk jacket sounded intriguing. The second two books I got for free from the library, so at least I can say I didn't spend an overabundance of money on them.
Let me be clear. These are not BAD books. I have a hard time criticizing most authors because obviously they have been published and I have not. Clearly, someone saw something of worth here. Furthermore, I read the WHOLE thing THAT night. So apparently that someone was me.
It is simply that I would feel uncomfortable RECOMMENDING this series to 95% of anyone I know.
Problem one is the passive voice. I have recently finished all of RA Salvatore's Legacy of the Drow and as I pointed out to some people, it is also written very passively. The reader is not shown that something is the case, they are simply told. Sometimes, this is very understandable. When you are introducing the reader to a fantasy world, it can be hard to fit in all the lore and culture and traditions simply through action and dialogue. However, there are other times where it would have been easy to demonstrate, or even worse, where some fact HAD been demonstrated which makes the information dump rather...patronizing. It isn't that it's boring, it's that it is just THERE. It doesn't pull the reader in as much as it could. This is particularly annoying with character development. I want to watch the character develop, I want to see her change and grow and act. I don't want to simply be TOLD she is such and such way. Perhaps this is some haughtiness brought over from too many English classes, but more than once passage made me wince at its passivity.
The character in question is one Alexia Tarabotti. She is a 26 year old spinster in Victorian England, because, as mentioned, this is a steampunk novel. Her father, whom she has never met, was Italian, making her a bit too tan, her temperament a bit too fiery and her nose a bit too big for English sensibilities. Also, she has no soul. Hence, the title.
I do appreciate the way the supernatural is handled. Every series does it a bit differently, whatever foundation they have to use to justify there being vampires and werewolves and ghosts and such. In this series, attempting to change humans (day folk) into one of the supernatural, usually ends in that person's death unless they have extra/abundant soul. This means that the kind of people usually chosen to serve the hives (vampires) or the packs (werewolves) are artists, thespians, poets and singers. They are the most likely to survive the process. Also there can be ghosts.
Alexia is a preternatural, someone with no soul at all. Furthermore, if she touches a supernatural creature, they instantly become human and mortal. The werewolves call her a curse-breaker because, despite people volunteering to be bitten, they still consider their lot a curse, and the vampires call her a soul-sucker.
Being soulless and therefore the opposite of an artistic type, Alexia is incredibly pragmatic. She loves books and science and is quite fine being a spinster. She has two half sisters who are, of course, beautiful and vapid.
This is another thing that bothers me, although not justs about this book specifically.
I can understand an author's dilemma. If you make the hero/ine smart AND pretty, well, now s/he is OP, too good, maybe even, God forbid, a Mar(t)y S(t)ue. However, if you make her plain but with 'a great personality,' well, now you are feeding into all stereotypes, especially if the characters that ARE pretty are also stupid. I get that the idea sometimes is that plain girls (or boys, but there's not as often an issue) cultivate better personalities, or read more and therefore become smarter BECAUSE they are not as attractive and therefore less social, but the other half of that coin is the implication that there's no natural inclination towards intelligence. Or at least it is limited. Simply because an attractive girl doesn't NEED to be smart doesn't mean she wouldn't WANT to. I've seen this handled a variety of ways, to greater and lesser success. Honestly, I wish I had some good answers, but I don't know what the best solution would be. I guess, I just felt like it was a bit too pat in this book.
Which leads to the next problem. The universe is great, I particularly enjoy the way the author weaves the supernatural into explanation for historical events and how she justifies the more steampunky elements. However, the plot is entirely predictable. Within the first few pages, I knew basically what the focus was going to be and also who the romantic interest was. Because she hated him. OBVIOUSLY. That's how that works right? All those movies and books and songs can't be wrong.
The love interest in question is a werewolf because as mentioned, this is a paranormal romance which makes it about a half-skip to furrydom. Not only is he a wolf, he's Scottish AND a noble. Which means he gets to be gruff and tantalizingly sensual while also being gorgeously tailored. He (Conall Maccon is his name) is the head of the Bureau of Unnatural Registry, effectively the Scotland Yard and Immigration office of the supernatural. Together, they are every stereotype.
Don't get me wrong, I read almost every single Amelia Peabody book. I like the stereotype, it's fun. It's also old. I can't stress enough that these were THE SAME TWO CHARACTERS. The only difference is that Amelia solved mysteries while opening tombs in Egypt and having her books ripped off by The Mummy 2.
I kept waiting to be surprised, thinking this was all a way to lull me into a false sense of security and then BAM, plot twist. And...that just didn't happen. They fought and she pretended not to notice how attractive he was, he lost control (near the full moon of course) and kissed her, which she responded to, they kept being interrupted and after they won the day, they got married and had sex in the carriage. While not necessarily a LOT of detail is given, I must say, it was more explicit than I expect from a book that doesn't have a girl in leather on the cover and an author who's last name starts with H.
I know this is all harping, and I want to stress that there are a lot of good aspects. The secondary characters are actually quite fun. Conall's Beta (his second in command) is something like Charles from Metalocalypse, the one always counted on to get things done. Alexia has a host of interesting friends, like her Ivy who wears the most ridiculous hats, and my personal favorite, Lord Akeldama.
Lord Akeldama is what would happen if you had Varus from Game of Thrones was played by Stephen Fry channeling Percy Blakeney. He's a very old vampire, EXTREMELY camp, with a ring of informants who are all, of course, perfectly coiffed young men. He has the best lines, I should post them later.
There is a good deal of slang, which is fun, lots of rich descriptions of clothing. Clearly, the author has a good handle on the basic history of the era. The science is sound and the over all FEEL of the universe is well executed. I had no problems with the production design, in other words. All my issues were basically with the script.
Okay, to come back to my point. These are not terrible books, I wouldn't even say they were bad. But I don't think they are particularly good, and I would be embarrassed to suggest them to most people for fear they would judge my reading tastes of questionable character. But here's the thing.
We don't always NEED great books. I don't know about you, but I could only read Dune so many times a year. Man cannot live on space operas alone, as the Good Book says. People may make annual readings of Lord of the Rings, but it isn't like that's the only thing they read. We need some cookies and milk to go with our meat and potatoes. We read bad books for the same reason we watch stupid shows: so we can just relax, not think, not feel heavy. Sure, we'd like people to go through our collection and note our brilliant documentaries and thoughtful cinematic entries, but it doesn't change the fact that every now and again, we'd rather watch Street Fighter than Memento.
I don't want to be thought of as the kind of person who only reads bodice rippers (extremely hard to actually do, just for the record). Yet I shouldn't be ashamed that I got a good few hours of fun from a simple paperback. I wouldn't even be embarrassed to lend it if someone asked for it, because they may very well have fun with it too.
And who knows, maybe those people I'm judging, the Twilight and 50 Shades types, maybe that's what they read those series for. So I will endeavor in the future to not be so judgmental, because we all have our guilty pleasures, the things we escape into, even when escaping our usual literary preferences. Our personal lines are rather arbitrary. There is a difference between liking something and thinking it is great literature.
So enjoy your snacks, your lexicographical bonbons. The heady meals will always be there when you want to come back.
EDIT: I should note that as I was thinking of writing this, I was interrupted. By myself. Opening the second book. And then reading it for four hours straight. So now I have read two of three, and figured might as well complete the set. The second book was, in some ways, a lot better, though you will find yourself irritated that all the 'secrets' are super obvious to you and yet apparently invisible to our allegedly brilliant heroine. Also there's hella drama at the end, which means I HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES ME HATE MYSELF AUGHWHY.
Last night, quite late, I pulled 'Soulless,' the first book in the Parasol Protectorate trilogy. This is, for lack of a better term, a steampunk fantasy. It's also a paranormal romance, but I didn't know that at the time. I had bought the first book when it first came out, because the cover was interesting and the dusk jacket sounded intriguing. The second two books I got for free from the library, so at least I can say I didn't spend an overabundance of money on them.
Let me be clear. These are not BAD books. I have a hard time criticizing most authors because obviously they have been published and I have not. Clearly, someone saw something of worth here. Furthermore, I read the WHOLE thing THAT night. So apparently that someone was me.
It is simply that I would feel uncomfortable RECOMMENDING this series to 95% of anyone I know.
Problem one is the passive voice. I have recently finished all of RA Salvatore's Legacy of the Drow and as I pointed out to some people, it is also written very passively. The reader is not shown that something is the case, they are simply told. Sometimes, this is very understandable. When you are introducing the reader to a fantasy world, it can be hard to fit in all the lore and culture and traditions simply through action and dialogue. However, there are other times where it would have been easy to demonstrate, or even worse, where some fact HAD been demonstrated which makes the information dump rather...patronizing. It isn't that it's boring, it's that it is just THERE. It doesn't pull the reader in as much as it could. This is particularly annoying with character development. I want to watch the character develop, I want to see her change and grow and act. I don't want to simply be TOLD she is such and such way. Perhaps this is some haughtiness brought over from too many English classes, but more than once passage made me wince at its passivity.
The character in question is one Alexia Tarabotti. She is a 26 year old spinster in Victorian England, because, as mentioned, this is a steampunk novel. Her father, whom she has never met, was Italian, making her a bit too tan, her temperament a bit too fiery and her nose a bit too big for English sensibilities. Also, she has no soul. Hence, the title.
I do appreciate the way the supernatural is handled. Every series does it a bit differently, whatever foundation they have to use to justify there being vampires and werewolves and ghosts and such. In this series, attempting to change humans (day folk) into one of the supernatural, usually ends in that person's death unless they have extra/abundant soul. This means that the kind of people usually chosen to serve the hives (vampires) or the packs (werewolves) are artists, thespians, poets and singers. They are the most likely to survive the process. Also there can be ghosts.
Alexia is a preternatural, someone with no soul at all. Furthermore, if she touches a supernatural creature, they instantly become human and mortal. The werewolves call her a curse-breaker because, despite people volunteering to be bitten, they still consider their lot a curse, and the vampires call her a soul-sucker.
Being soulless and therefore the opposite of an artistic type, Alexia is incredibly pragmatic. She loves books and science and is quite fine being a spinster. She has two half sisters who are, of course, beautiful and vapid.
This is another thing that bothers me, although not justs about this book specifically.
I can understand an author's dilemma. If you make the hero/ine smart AND pretty, well, now s/he is OP, too good, maybe even, God forbid, a Mar(t)y S(t)ue. However, if you make her plain but with 'a great personality,' well, now you are feeding into all stereotypes, especially if the characters that ARE pretty are also stupid. I get that the idea sometimes is that plain girls (or boys, but there's not as often an issue) cultivate better personalities, or read more and therefore become smarter BECAUSE they are not as attractive and therefore less social, but the other half of that coin is the implication that there's no natural inclination towards intelligence. Or at least it is limited. Simply because an attractive girl doesn't NEED to be smart doesn't mean she wouldn't WANT to. I've seen this handled a variety of ways, to greater and lesser success. Honestly, I wish I had some good answers, but I don't know what the best solution would be. I guess, I just felt like it was a bit too pat in this book.
Which leads to the next problem. The universe is great, I particularly enjoy the way the author weaves the supernatural into explanation for historical events and how she justifies the more steampunky elements. However, the plot is entirely predictable. Within the first few pages, I knew basically what the focus was going to be and also who the romantic interest was. Because she hated him. OBVIOUSLY. That's how that works right? All those movies and books and songs can't be wrong.
The love interest in question is a werewolf because as mentioned, this is a paranormal romance which makes it about a half-skip to furrydom. Not only is he a wolf, he's Scottish AND a noble. Which means he gets to be gruff and tantalizingly sensual while also being gorgeously tailored. He (Conall Maccon is his name) is the head of the Bureau of Unnatural Registry, effectively the Scotland Yard and Immigration office of the supernatural. Together, they are every stereotype.
Don't get me wrong, I read almost every single Amelia Peabody book. I like the stereotype, it's fun. It's also old. I can't stress enough that these were THE SAME TWO CHARACTERS. The only difference is that Amelia solved mysteries while opening tombs in Egypt and having her books ripped off by The Mummy 2.
I kept waiting to be surprised, thinking this was all a way to lull me into a false sense of security and then BAM, plot twist. And...that just didn't happen. They fought and she pretended not to notice how attractive he was, he lost control (near the full moon of course) and kissed her, which she responded to, they kept being interrupted and after they won the day, they got married and had sex in the carriage. While not necessarily a LOT of detail is given, I must say, it was more explicit than I expect from a book that doesn't have a girl in leather on the cover and an author who's last name starts with H.
I know this is all harping, and I want to stress that there are a lot of good aspects. The secondary characters are actually quite fun. Conall's Beta (his second in command) is something like Charles from Metalocalypse, the one always counted on to get things done. Alexia has a host of interesting friends, like her Ivy who wears the most ridiculous hats, and my personal favorite, Lord Akeldama.
Lord Akeldama is what would happen if you had Varus from Game of Thrones was played by Stephen Fry channeling Percy Blakeney. He's a very old vampire, EXTREMELY camp, with a ring of informants who are all, of course, perfectly coiffed young men. He has the best lines, I should post them later.
There is a good deal of slang, which is fun, lots of rich descriptions of clothing. Clearly, the author has a good handle on the basic history of the era. The science is sound and the over all FEEL of the universe is well executed. I had no problems with the production design, in other words. All my issues were basically with the script.
Okay, to come back to my point. These are not terrible books, I wouldn't even say they were bad. But I don't think they are particularly good, and I would be embarrassed to suggest them to most people for fear they would judge my reading tastes of questionable character. But here's the thing.
We don't always NEED great books. I don't know about you, but I could only read Dune so many times a year. Man cannot live on space operas alone, as the Good Book says. People may make annual readings of Lord of the Rings, but it isn't like that's the only thing they read. We need some cookies and milk to go with our meat and potatoes. We read bad books for the same reason we watch stupid shows: so we can just relax, not think, not feel heavy. Sure, we'd like people to go through our collection and note our brilliant documentaries and thoughtful cinematic entries, but it doesn't change the fact that every now and again, we'd rather watch Street Fighter than Memento.
I don't want to be thought of as the kind of person who only reads bodice rippers (extremely hard to actually do, just for the record). Yet I shouldn't be ashamed that I got a good few hours of fun from a simple paperback. I wouldn't even be embarrassed to lend it if someone asked for it, because they may very well have fun with it too.
And who knows, maybe those people I'm judging, the Twilight and 50 Shades types, maybe that's what they read those series for. So I will endeavor in the future to not be so judgmental, because we all have our guilty pleasures, the things we escape into, even when escaping our usual literary preferences. Our personal lines are rather arbitrary. There is a difference between liking something and thinking it is great literature.
So enjoy your snacks, your lexicographical bonbons. The heady meals will always be there when you want to come back.
EDIT: I should note that as I was thinking of writing this, I was interrupted. By myself. Opening the second book. And then reading it for four hours straight. So now I have read two of three, and figured might as well complete the set. The second book was, in some ways, a lot better, though you will find yourself irritated that all the 'secrets' are super obvious to you and yet apparently invisible to our allegedly brilliant heroine. Also there's hella drama at the end, which means I HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES ME HATE MYSELF AUGHWHY.
