Hugo novellas, part 1
Aug. 3rd, 2023 08:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnIn order of how much I had to say about them:
-When the Tiger Came Down the Mountain (Vo) - Second Singing Hills novella about a cleric who collects stories. Not a Hugo nominee, but I wanted to read it so I could read the actual Hugo nominee (the third novella, which is currently on hold at the library). I liked it quite a lot, though not nearly as much as the first one, I think because it just didn't tap into my particular tropes quite as much (which is of course not Vo's fault).
-Ogres (Tchaikovsky) - Slight novella about a society in which the ogres lord it over the humans. It was pretty easy to figure out the main conceit, but I wasn't sure how it was going to end (and I liked the ending twist). Tchaikovsky continues to be a writer whose writing is very easy to read, which I appreciated.
The interesting thing about this one was I came away feeling like the novella was more deeply pessimistic about human nature than perhaps the author intended: humans can fix fairly dire problems, but humans are also infinitely corruptible, and in fact all the evidence available in the book is that these fixes only take place through profoundly hierarchical and subjugative means. Climate change and its horrors are overcome, but only by literally enslaving most of the people. A hero arises and fight back against some of the excesses of the slavery, but when offered a chance to be one of the masters... takes it.
The end is, I think, supposed to be hopeful, with its statement that sometimes you have to burn it all down. But given the events of the book, and that no one in the book seems to have thought at all about how to do it differently, I'm really not confident that what rises from the ashes is going to be any less hierarchical and subjugative than what was there beforehand... just that probably different entities are going to be at the top and the bottom.
-Even Though I Knew the End (Polk) - a queer noir story, set earlier in the last century, with a noir ex-warlock investigating murders in an alt-Chicago with demons and angels.
So the conceit is awesome, and I really enjoyed the writing here which I thought did live up to that conceit -- there is some lovely word-evocation and worldbuilding detail. My quibble is that I felt like there was something deeply incoherent about the worldbuilding and plotline.
-It is the Worst Thing Ever to bargain your soul away to the devil. The main character does so to save her brother's life, and then is treated like a pariah. It's really not clear why. It's her own soul, it doesn't affect anyone else, it seems honestly less bad on a societal level than, idk, littering. Is this supposed to be a parallel with being queer and homophobia? (...which is kind of a weird parallel, I don't think I'm quite comfortable with queerness equated with selling one's soul to the devil??) or is there something legit horrible that I missed?
-in general, I am having a hard time with a story where you can sell your soul to the devil, there are fallen angels and stuff, and yet the whole theological basis of selling your soul isn't at all a thing?? The author wasn't interested in going there, okay, it's my problem and not theirs, but it bothered me!
-The plot revolves around a fallen angel getting back to Heaven by killing people with no souls, which is (I guess) OK because they have no soul (note that the entire book is from the POV of the hero who sold her soul, and I can't tell the difference between her and someone with a soul), but the killing also involves taking control of a person with a soul, which effectively kills that person. It seems like that would, uh, invalidate the whole getting-back-to-Heaven part?? This is briefly alluded to, but not really addressed.
-I also called what the end would be too, which is that the noir hero sells her soul again so that her dead lover comes back. She and her lover are all "yeah, totally worth it" to be together for ten years (after which hero will die by the terms of the contract) even though it is also explicitly stated that hero is going to Hell and lover is going to Heaven. (Presumably forever!) Is ten years really worth forever? This could have been lampshaded for me very easily -- just give me a paragraph about how it is very different in Heaven than on Earth, maybe reference the scripture on how they don't marry or are given in marriage or whatever, I'd buy it! But as it was, I was like "uh, this seems like you are totally not thinking ahead??"
But even though those things bothered me, the writing was still strong enough that I liked it a lot!
-When the Tiger Came Down the Mountain (Vo) - Second Singing Hills novella about a cleric who collects stories. Not a Hugo nominee, but I wanted to read it so I could read the actual Hugo nominee (the third novella, which is currently on hold at the library). I liked it quite a lot, though not nearly as much as the first one, I think because it just didn't tap into my particular tropes quite as much (which is of course not Vo's fault).
-Ogres (Tchaikovsky) - Slight novella about a society in which the ogres lord it over the humans. It was pretty easy to figure out the main conceit, but I wasn't sure how it was going to end (and I liked the ending twist). Tchaikovsky continues to be a writer whose writing is very easy to read, which I appreciated.
The interesting thing about this one was I came away feeling like the novella was more deeply pessimistic about human nature than perhaps the author intended: humans can fix fairly dire problems, but humans are also infinitely corruptible, and in fact all the evidence available in the book is that these fixes only take place through profoundly hierarchical and subjugative means. Climate change and its horrors are overcome, but only by literally enslaving most of the people. A hero arises and fight back against some of the excesses of the slavery, but when offered a chance to be one of the masters... takes it.
The end is, I think, supposed to be hopeful, with its statement that sometimes you have to burn it all down. But given the events of the book, and that no one in the book seems to have thought at all about how to do it differently, I'm really not confident that what rises from the ashes is going to be any less hierarchical and subjugative than what was there beforehand... just that probably different entities are going to be at the top and the bottom.
-Even Though I Knew the End (Polk) - a queer noir story, set earlier in the last century, with a noir ex-warlock investigating murders in an alt-Chicago with demons and angels.
So the conceit is awesome, and I really enjoyed the writing here which I thought did live up to that conceit -- there is some lovely word-evocation and worldbuilding detail. My quibble is that I felt like there was something deeply incoherent about the worldbuilding and plotline.
-It is the Worst Thing Ever to bargain your soul away to the devil. The main character does so to save her brother's life, and then is treated like a pariah. It's really not clear why. It's her own soul, it doesn't affect anyone else, it seems honestly less bad on a societal level than, idk, littering. Is this supposed to be a parallel with being queer and homophobia? (...which is kind of a weird parallel, I don't think I'm quite comfortable with queerness equated with selling one's soul to the devil??) or is there something legit horrible that I missed?
-in general, I am having a hard time with a story where you can sell your soul to the devil, there are fallen angels and stuff, and yet the whole theological basis of selling your soul isn't at all a thing?? The author wasn't interested in going there, okay, it's my problem and not theirs, but it bothered me!
-The plot revolves around a fallen angel getting back to Heaven by killing people with no souls, which is (I guess) OK because they have no soul (note that the entire book is from the POV of the hero who sold her soul, and I can't tell the difference between her and someone with a soul), but the killing also involves taking control of a person with a soul, which effectively kills that person. It seems like that would, uh, invalidate the whole getting-back-to-Heaven part?? This is briefly alluded to, but not really addressed.
-I also called what the end would be too, which is that the noir hero sells her soul again so that her dead lover comes back. She and her lover are all "yeah, totally worth it" to be together for ten years (after which hero will die by the terms of the contract) even though it is also explicitly stated that hero is going to Hell and lover is going to Heaven. (Presumably forever!) Is ten years really worth forever? This could have been lampshaded for me very easily -- just give me a paragraph about how it is very different in Heaven than on Earth, maybe reference the scripture on how they don't marry or are given in marriage or whatever, I'd buy it! But as it was, I was like "uh, this seems like you are totally not thinking ahead??"
But even though those things bothered me, the writing was still strong enough that I liked it a lot!
no subject
Date: 2023-08-14 01:05 am (UTC)It's fun to see people who want to retain Christianity's worldbuilding but not have Christianity be literally true dancing around questions like "what repels vampires". (Stephen King had "any symbol the bearer has enough faith in", which raises as many questions as it answers.) Jim Butcher has an organization literally called "the Knights of the Cross", which, iirc, one member joins through the redemptive holiness of Star Wars fandom.
Thanks for the canon recommendations! Not to worry--- your prompts are amazing and I always check them, but if we don't end up on the same page in any given year, I wouldn't think either of us would be offended.
no subject
Date: 2023-08-15 05:06 am (UTC)Hm. Have you read John M. Ford's The Dragon Waiting? Which has a fifteenth-century magic AU in which Christianity never got a foothold as a major religion, and is rather a minor sect. It was written in the 80's, so has aged somewhat, and also Ford was one of those writers I was extremely into in my formative high school/college years so I probably can't talk about him in an unbiased way... but I'd be interested to know what you thought.