cahn

Hiiiii I'm still alive!

4/5. This book was recommended by my kid's high school guidance counselor office in one of the daily mass emails we get from her school. I suppose the subtitle of this one may as well be, "Why your kid won't get into the super-elite school you think they ought to get into," which is the not-so-subtle messaging to parents (and I think has something to do with why the counselor office recommended it). This seems to boil down to the premise that the current incentive system (both in terms of generally how the school is perceived and how specifically ranking lists perceive the school) make it such that colleges have a lot of incentive to be sought-after by as many applicants as possible (they want to be "sellers" -- the ones who decide whether they want the students -- rather than "buyers," in the author's terminology, which are the ones wooing the students), so colleges have arranged things so that in many cases there are a whole lot of kids vying for a relatively very small number of spots. In any case, the book also makes the case that there are enough "buyers" that provide a great education and might also give you merit scholarships that in most cases it's a bit silly to restrict oneself just to the "sellers," especially if you are wanting financial aid -- it's sort of like picking a brand name vs. a non-brand-name. (And, as in the brand name case: though you are rather more likely to get a better deal with the non-brand-name, sometimes there are reasons to pick the brand name, though Selingo doesn't get into that so much.)

The author follows a few kids as well as a couple of admissions committees to see how it all works (and documents how the admissions people have a hard job, as well as how they are trying to craft a class, not just looking at individual students) -- this is really quite interesting, to see how all of this works. Along the way, he also puts in some details I didn't know, like how it got started that kids get overwhelmed with glossy mailers from college (this wasn't always a thing!) and how Northeastern went way up in the rankings in the last 10 years (the bare fact of which I did know, because my cousin once removed is a sophomore at Northeastern, but I did not know that it was a concerted effort). And then there's financial aid, which is this whole problem of inequitable information as the financial aid awards aren't done until after kids have applied.

Along with the buyer/seller college distinction, he also makes a distinction between "drivers" and "passengers" -- the former indicates the kids (and, let's get real, their parents) who are very savvy about what they're looking for and what they want, and for their entire high school career have been driving, so to speak, toward the college goals they're looking towards, and start their applications on a relatively early time frame. These are the kids who know the difference between early action and early decision, and have mapped out where they want to apply early (if they do) and, strategically, why. Then there are the passengers, who just get carried along by the whole process... the good thing is that it seems like they mostly still end up okay, though perhaps not in as optimized a place as the drivers.

There's a bit in the book about sports recruiting, which I knew nothing about when I started the book, but I learned shortly after starting reading it that D's niece (who comes from a very sporty family) was sports-recruited (as a junior!) and is going to attend a rather-elite school year after next :) So it was interesting to read this bit of the book in conjunction with learning this information. Moral of the story, perhaps: if you think you might be good enough to play varsity for your sport in college, and you have pretty good grades (niece has straight A's and what was described to me as a "good enough" SAT for her future school), this might be a relatively "easy" way of getting into college. (I put it in quotes because I honestly think niece, who has been swimming since she was practically an infant, worked as hard or harder than any other high school kid I know. Her swim team had practice Thanksgiving morning!) It is, however, a really good thing for my kids that college is not in fact based on their sporting chops, because early sports training was very much not their thing. Although E is consistently not last place in cross-country, which I'm very pleased about! :)

Anyway, this was an interesting read and worth reading if you want to know more about what goes on with college admissions.

These are three books my sister had me read, in reverse order of how much I liked them.

I am not sick! I don't need help! (Amador) - 5/5 - This is an awesome book, basically the idea of collaborative problem-solving applied to the domain of mental illness, which has the additional issue that the person involved often does not know that they are mentally ill. (The principle is the same with dementia.) The book first goes over anosognosia, the neurological condition in which the person is unaware of their mental illness (or other brain issue) -- which can be super frustrating as it looks a lot like denial, and it seems like if one just provided enough evidence that the person has a mental illness, the person would have to admit it.

Although I'd been familiar with the concept of anosognosia from just looking up stuff about dementia online, my previous online reading had only dealt with it from the perspective of "this is how it presents." The framing of it in this book as the person's self-concept not updating due to mental illness or other brain issues was new to me, and I felt like it made it much easier for me to viscerally understand why the person would continue to be unaware of mental issues even when a ton of evidence was presented.

And the author brings up examples of trying to convince the person that they're sick (his brother had schizophrenia) and how it fails and just makes everyone angry and frustrated. He shows how to instead use a more collaborative problem-solving solution, that crucially goes around the question of whether the person has a mental illness (because the two of you are probably never going to agree on that point) and rather focuses on how to agree on treatment.

It's written in very simple, easy-to-digest language, I expect because Amador wanted it to be accessible to as many people as possible, but it seems to all make sense and I didn't feel that it was too dumbed down or trying to make claims that were too large (see also the third book in this post). I also felt like there was a minimum of fluff, which I feel can happen with this kind of book -- there was a lot of "don't blame yourself," which I didn't need but which many people probably do.

This book strongly recommends that (say) mentally ill patients be treated, but provides conversational blueprints for getting them to agree to treatment even if they don't agree they're mentally ill. The idea is to think about how it would feel if everyone around you was saying you had a mental illness but you were convinced you didn't, and to use that as a starting point to find things you agree on, and build the relationship of trust so that you can tackle the problem of treatment. The acronym he uses is LEAP: Listen, Empathize, Accept, and Partner. (Yes, that's going to sound pretty familiar if you've read other collaborative problem-solving books. And Amador doesn't say he's reinventing the wheel, he totally says right up front that he's basically just presenting other people's work, he's just trying to give it a larger audience.)

I'd love for there to be a companion volume to this dealing with dementia specifically, because of course some of the issues are not quite the same, and it would be really nice to have specific blueprint conversations to work from. And I wrote that and I guess my sister did the next step of contacting the author, whose secretary told her that he has written a more general book about the LEAP method which includes one conversation modeling what to do with someone with dementia. So, uh, I guess stay tuned for that one, because I'm definitely gonna read that.

Highly, highly recommended if you're dealing with someone with mental illness or dementia or other brain issues.

My Father's Brain (Jauhar) - 3/5 - This is a memoir by Sandeep Jauhar, a doctor and writer, about his father's dementia decline (and eventual death). His father was a scientist, and so that decline was very harsh. My sister and I agreed that the author/narrator should really have read the LEAP book because wow does he fall into every. single. trap possible. I guess he's honest about it? It was well written and brutally honest, but I also found it rather frustrating to read because I kept wanting to yell at him to do things differently. I also felt horrible for Harwinder, his father's caregiver who really just did it all herself, and it really kind of felt like they were taking advantage of her.

The End of Alzheimers (Bredersen) - DNF. Okay... there is a fair amount to like about this book, especially the points that inflammation probably causes a lot of crap to happen in people's bodies and that having good nutrition and exercise and so on can really make a big difference in all kinds of bodily functions, including the brain. And it can't hurt to get a full battery of tests to make sure that there's no underlying condition like hypothyroidism, etc. However, by the end of chapter two I was getting a really intense vibe of "I'm here to sell you my patented solution that is super expensive but fixes alllll the problems in the world!" and poking around on the interwebs leads me to believe that, in fact, his solution -- especially the parts that depend on Super Special Supplements that only practitioners Specially Trained in Bredersen's method can provide -- is not properly studied and there's no particular reason to believe it will work any better than good nutrition and exercise alone, plus, sure, testing to make sure there's no underlying condition or any vitamin deficiencies, and those kinds of supplements when needed.

mildred_of_midgard and rachelmanija both told me to read The Explosive Child, so I reread it. I'd read it when E. was much younger (4? 6? something like that) and we had the most problems with her getting really upset about things -- and I had not found it very useful. I got the e-book from the library.

This turned out to be a VERY WEIRD experience for me because I read it and thought, wow, this book seems totally unfamiliar! I know it's been at least six years... and my memory is completely shot these days... but I had distinct memories of the book spending a lot of time on "pick your battles" which I found extremely not useful with E. (E's problem, especially at that age, was not battles of will between me and her! E's problem was battles of will between herself and herself -- she would get upset when she was not able to do things the way she felt she should, which spanned basically all activities, including quite a few that were things she loved to do, not things I was asking her to do at all, while my memories were that the book spent a lot of time on conflicts between what the parents were asking the kid to do and what the kid wanted to do, and how the parent should try just not to ask a whole lot of the former.)

The book I read was not primarily about picking one's battles. If anything I thought Explosive Child was a poor title for it; maybe Defiant Child, but really the title should have been How to Collaboratively Solve Problems with Your Child, because that's what almost all the book was about, and it was rather good at that! (The first few chapters were boring; they were all things like "why being Super Strict with your child isn't productive," which... okay, but yes, I have actually read parenting books before, thanks!) There were lots of examples, lots of discussions on the order of "if your child does X, here's a strategy to use that still keeps the focus on collaborative problem-solving and not going in an unproductive or Unilateral Telling Your Kid What to Do direction." Really it almost does a disservice to call it Explosive Child, because these strategies (as mildred_of_midgard remarked when she recced it) could be used with really anyone -- all children, not just explosive ones, and even adults. (Though many of the examples and details were child-centric; for example, he goes into things like what to do if a child answers "I don't know," to everything, which in my experience is a very common kid mode but not so common in adults.)

It was good and I am trying to use the techniques with both kids! (We do try to foster a family atmosphere where they feel like they have a say and can always bring up when they disagree, but I definitely do have a tendency to barrel through and say "this is what we're gonna do!" as a first pass.) I had one major nitpick: I was majorly side-eyeing Greene's claim that children would magically learn skills they were deficient in (like "difficulty managing emotional response to frustration so as to think rationally") by doing this collaborative problem-solving, because once you work on the problems the skills will naturally be exercised. Uhhhhhh you know what this reminds me of? it's like, if the kid is not able to read, collaborative problem solving and creating an atmosphere where reading is fun and snuggly is great and I absolutely am on board with it making an atmosphere conducive to reading, and some kids will pick it up automatically in the right atmosphere, but it's NOT actually teaching the kid to read, and NOT ALL KIDS WILL LEARN without explicit instruction! This is sort of how I feel about some of these skills. Sometimes you might need other tools! Some kids need more explicit instruction than others! Greene seems to think that you would never need any other tools except his, which is a common failure mode of books like these, but it annoys me :)

But anyway, I was still confused as to why it was so different than my memory; my memory isn't particularly good, but my failure mode with books is usually just to forget things wholesale, not have contradictory memories! So I did an experiment: the library also had a paper copy (first edition from 1998, I believe), and I checked that out. (This would have been the identical copy I would have read in the first place.) And lo, this book is almost COMPLETELY different from the e-book I read! Like literally, there are maybe a few pages that are in common with the e-book (two of the "sample cases," a couple of pages each, are the same). The rest of it is not just entirely different words, but also an almost entirely different focus! The collaborative problem-solving is relegated to one chapter of the book. MOST of the book talks about picking one's battles... sorting one's problems into "baskets" as to whether one wants to deal with them now or later. This is a very simple concept but gets a looooot of padding. Anyway... good choice by Greene, in subsquent editions, to greatly expand the collaborative problem-solving sections and diminish the "basket" section, because the former is way more interesting than the latter.

So my verdict is: if you are interested in the concept of collaborative problem-solving with your child, this book is worth checking out (maybe skip the first few chapters if you've ever read a parenting book before), but make sure it's the current version, not the original! (I also suspect there is a lot of overlap with How to Talk So Kids Will Listen And Listen So Kids Will Talk, which I also read at about that age and which perhaps I should also revisit.)

2/5. This is a rare ranking for me, as usually I don't finish books I dislike. And I would absolutely not have finished this book either had I not been reading it for a friend (who thinks her daughter may be on the spectrum). It's one of those irritating half-memoir-half-pop-nonfiction books. (I first wrote "pop science" but I don't think it rises to that level; O'Toole occasionally cites a paper but it's mostly her pontificating.) I think this book could be reasonably useful for a person with ASD who is exactly like O'Toole, or who has a child with ASD who is exactly like her, but wow am I not that person.

( I have Feelings about this book. I think if it had just been a straight memoir I would have liked it rather more. )

So, A. likes for me to read things that he reads, and E. doesn't like me to read things that she reads, but this year she has had this school challenge to read books in a bunch of different categories (this is genius by her teacher, because it's definitely gotten her to read books she wouldn't have read otherwise), and so I've had to read some books to see whether they were books she would enjoy reading. :) (And sometimes I got her books that were books I thought I might like to read :) )

And a question for the DW hive mind! One of E's categories she needs to read a book for is "political thriller," and it is stumping us because most political thrillers are, well, for grownups. I am not too worried about strict categories -- her teacher is flexible, anything that could even very slightly be described as such would probably work. The catch is that it has to be middle-school/at-most-YA, otherwise it will be too much for E. (Which rules out a lot of political SF, which otherwise I could use to fulfill the category. Hm... maybe Foundation would be at her level, although I worry it might be too dry for her. I am absolutely happy to count Foundation as "political thriller" for this purpose :P )

-Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Kinney) - I've now read a bunch of these; they're a series but don't really need to be read in order (though there's some continuity; e.g. you'd have to read The Long Haul to figure out how they got a pig as a pet). A. absolutely loves these. I have mixed feelings about them. I can see why he loves them and they're certainly awfully addictive -- even as an adult in my 40's I got sucked into them just about as hard as A. did. They have a sense of humor that is funny both to kids and adults, and the drawings are hilarious. On the other hand, Greg (the narrator) is also just kind of mean and not very nice, and is often just awful to the people he calls his friends. And then again, his meanness isn't at all condoned by the narrative, and he usually gets some sort of comeuppance for it at the end. A. and I have had some talks about when Greg does things that aren't very nice, and A. doesn't seem like any of the meanness is rubbing off on him, so I guess it's okay? Anyway, my favorite is The Long Haul, because there aren't any shenanigans with him being mean to his "friends," and the Terrible No-Good Vacation is one that any parent can empathize with :P and also the subplot with the pig I actually quite liked :PP

-Wayside School Gets a Little Stranger (Sachar) - My beloved third-grade teacher introduced us to Sideways Stories from Wayside School, which I adored, but I didn't know there were sequels until E. came along, and then apparently I didn't read them (E. did) until A. came along and wanted me to read it. These books are hilarious and very, very weird. Props to Sachar for really tapping into the third-grade geek mindset here -- they honestly do read as rather alien to my adult brain, and yet I remember the book making total sense to my third-grade self.

-The Outsiders (Hinton) - I'd never read this before, despite seeing it at the library countless times and knowing it was Great Lit :) This was for the category of "under-18" (one of the stupidest categories in my opinion) because apparently Hinton wrote it before she was 18, and it was the only book I could find that I didn't oppose her reading (well, I suppose there's Diary of Anne Frank, but she would have bounced right off of that one). Buuuuut I guess I'm glad for that stupid category, because this book is really good, there's a reason I'd heard of it so many times :P Of course there's no lack of grimdark YA today, but I can see how this was groundbreaking as the first, and it talks about class in a way that I think is still quite relevant today, and it's deftly written, it's written by someone who knew what they were doing, and it's really surprising that it was written by someone that young. E. liked it as well.

-They Called Us Enemy (Takei) - DNF, but not because it wasn't excellent -- what I read of it was excellent and I highly recommend it. What with... 2021... and everything... I couldn't take reading about the Japanese-American internment camps and anti-Asian sentiment. It was just too much. E. read it and liked it. (I forget whether she counted it as one of the history categories or the Asian-American category.)

-I'd Tell You I'd Love You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You (Carter) - Best title ever! This one's been on my radar for a long time, since Sarah Rees Brennan mentioned it off-handedly on her blog many years ago. Spy boarding school, what's not to love! This was for the "thriller" category. I think I would have liked this a lot had I read it as a middle schooler, but as an adult I ended up skimming about half of it. Partially it's that I'm just too old for it now; partially it's that the spy girl ends up lying and lying to the love interest character, and I don't like that as a plot device. (I'm glad to report though that it's not sanctioned by the narrative.)

The Family Romanov: Murder, Rebellion, and the Fall of Imperial Russia (Fleming) - I knew basically nothing about the Romanovs or about the Russian Revolution before reading this book, which manages to make one both sympathetic towards the Tsar and his family, and also massively facepalming at them. (One of the quotes on amazon characterizes them as "doomed and clueless," which... yeah.) And the book brings in a lot of sources (quotes from primary, when possible) about what it was like for the peasants and workers at this time, which I really appreciated and which provides a lot of good context for what was going on. And the middle-to-high-school reading level really worked for me as a primer for stuff I didn't know anything about to start with. I really liked this, and will progress on to Massie once I've finished his other books (I'm reading Peter the Great right now) :D E. was frustrated by it and did not get very far; it is clearly a little beyond her reading level.

-The Deepest Well: Healing the Long-Term Effects of Childhood Trauma and Adversity - rec from lightreads. As lightreads warned, contrary to the title, this is not a self-help book but rather more of a scientist's memoir by Nadine Burke Harris, Surgeon General of California. It's fairly breezily written, easily read, not a whole lot of delving into the nitty gritty of the science (I'm currently reading Robert Sapolsky on that, also on lightreads' rec, which I'm really enjoying) and what I loved about its style was that Harris does, I think, get across the feel of the excitement of doing both science and policy-related-to-science.

And then there's the content: lightreads was like "yeah, yeah, I already knew all that" but I guess I live under a rock because somehow I had never heard of an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) score, much less knew about the correlation between one's ACE score and adverse medical outcomes, and this... kind of blew my mind. (One of the things I'm thinking about: There are six full cousins in my family on my dad's side (including my sister and me) and three of them have auto-immune problems. Of note is that both the families represented here were pretty high-pressure in general, and also that these three are the youngest in their families and so had a lot of pressure on them to follow the accomplishments of their siblings in a way the older ones didn't. IDK, it's an anecdotal sample size. But still... I wonder.)

-Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup (Carreyrou) - The rise and fall of Theranos, the company that claimed to do everything, medical-testing-wise, and... really really didn't. ase read this a while back, and it's been on my radar since then -- and I finally got around to it. And WELL that was something.

Let's just say that the book starts with Theranos doing a demonstration in which they purport to show that their blood testing technology works, and it turns out they can't get it to work so at the demo they show a FAKE RESULT. (Also, the CFO is like "...maybe we shouldn't do that?" and then he gets fired.) This is not even the craziest thing that happens in the book. It's basically like a primer on How Not To Do Science Or Technology. Or maybe How To Do Technology Totally Unethically. I actually had trouble reading the first half because the sheer scale of the amorality turned out to ping my embarrassment squick. Like, it's embarrassing to do science ("science") so awfully! When Carreyrou himself showed up in the book and I knew stuff was about to go down, I can't tell you how relieved I was.

October: (aside from finally finishing the Oster Wilhelmine bio for fandom, and Yuletide canon review)

-Le Petit Prince, read in French and (reread in) English to anticipate French-reading-group someday in the near future. If I had stayed at my first high school (with Awesome French Teacher) I would have read it as part of the third-year French curriculum (which is probably why I have my copy at all); as it was, this was the first time I'd read it in French. I have read that book enough times in English that for large portions of it I barely had to consult the translation. (Hmm, maybe I should try this for The Dark Is Rising series; I bet I also have large swathes of those books all but memorized.) ( This book is about love and grief. )

-Emily of New Moon, Emily Climbs, Emily's Quest - Another reread. It struck me on this reread that Dean Priest is really skeevy, which apparently I'd failed to wholly pick up as a kid -- that is, I never liked him much, and I definitely never forgave him for what he said about Emily's book, but I don't remember actually recoiling from the page like I did this time. Like, he meets Emily when she's... thirteen? twelve? He was a FRIEND OF HER FATHER'S. And he says -- this is a literal quote -- "I think I'll wait for you." (And he, of course, does.) AUGH.

The perennial question for Emily's Quest is, who do you ship Emily with? (Which in and of itself tells you why it's my least favorite of the three.) In that elementary-to-high-school-ish period, I shipped a lot of people in various books -- Will/Jane in The Dark is Rising was always my ship, I was firmly on the side of Jo/Bhaer at the time -- I think this may have been my first experience with a book where I never did ship Emily with anyone in the book, really. She ends up with Teddy, but he's pretty... boring and just not that great. Perry isn't boring and I like him rather better than Teddy, but Emily just seems so uninterested in him! (Of course, an AU would be interesting...) Dean is Right Out, of course.

November: my concentration, attention span, and available time are pretty much totally shot until... Christmas :P But I did a lot of rereading, at least. ( Uhura's Song, L.M. Montgomery, Darkspell - mentions of (book-textual) pandemic, depression, severe drug side effects, (possible) suicide, and war. Also mentions of music and doing one's best. )

I gave it a good try, anyway!

Becoming Superman: My Journey from Poverty to Hollywood, by J. Michael Straczynski (Harper Voyager US) - 4/5. This was very very good. This guy can WRITE and I was riveted the entire time despite not being entirely sure who he was when I started and never having watched B5 or anything else the guy has done. Content note for extremely severe spousal and child abuse. Like, it was so bad that in self-defense my brain was hoping that he'd made some of it up. (I don't think he made any of it up.) Voting this to win. and now I have even more reason to watch B5 (one day!)

I should also maybe mention that Harlan Ellison is one of his heroes and shows up several times in the book, and he doesn't treat Ellison being, er, problematic, really at all. This didn't blunt my enjoyment of the book, but if it would bother you just be aware that it's there.

Joanna Russ, by Gwyneth Jones (University of Illinois Press (Modern Masters of Science Fiction)) - excerpt in packet. I don't think I finished the excerpt. This was very dry, and I haven't read much Russ.

The Lady from the Black Lagoon: Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick, by Mallory O’Meara (Hanover Square) - Introduction in packet. I would have tried to read this if the book had been in the packet, but although the introduction was intriguing it didn't wholly convince me I was interested in it (not being really into monsters or movies).

The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein, by Farah Mendlesohn (Unbound) - 3+/5. I enjoyed this a lot and it succeeded in what it set out to do, which was remind me how much fun Heinlein's SF can be, and inspired me to reread a bunch of it. I thought Mendlesohn did a great job of being balanced about Heinlein, never casting him as either perfect or perfidious, but a guy who had some interestingly progressive ideas and also had some hidebound ideas of his time, and could often not disconnect the two. And also who wrote some extremely readable stories :)

“2019 John W. Campbell Award Acceptance Speech”, by Jeannette Ng - I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. I think on the whole I would rather award actual books.

Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin, produced and directed by Arwen Curry - did not watch because for whatever reason it's hard for me to watch video on a screen right now. But if someone's watched it and it's good I might try it?

Rating:
1. Becoming Superman
2. Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein
...ugh, I don't think I can really rank anything else.

OK, rachelmanija has raised the challenge to blog about every single book read this year. I don't know that I can handle this for an entire year, but let's take this a month at a time and see :) Fortunately (I guess?) I didn't read too many books this month, so I can do it for this month :P

Émilie du Châtelet: Daring Genius of the Enlightenment (Judith Zinsser) - reviewed in a portmanteau post here along with mildred_of_midgard's review of a Voltaire/du Châtelet bio by David Bodaris. (To find my review, scroll down about halfway or search for my username.) Briefly, I liked the bio a lot; although Zinsser had a couple of flaws as a biographer (I'm not always convinced of her arguments) but they were ones I could live with; and as a very big plus she generally is good about citing her sources. She also clearly really doesn't like Voltaire :) (And may have convinced me. What do you do with a guy who, comparing his writing a play to Émilie's just having had a kid (and by the way was also finishing her math-physics magnum opus AT THE SAME TIME, LITERALLY ON HER BIRTHING BED), says, "I am one hundred times more fatigued than she." )

Wylding Hall (Elizabeth Hand) - 4/5. This is an interesting and weird book that rachelmanija's review convinced me to read. Apparently I missed skygiant's review entirely?? because that would have convinced me to read it too. (Mild spoiler -- the same spoiler -- at both links.) It's told entirely in a series of interviews with people in or associated with a folk rock band, and I am here for that!
But also -- skygiants described it as "Wylding Hall feels like someone took the premise of 'what if FAIRIES! met a FOLK ROCK BAND!' and ruthlessly stripped all the romanticism out of it and just kind of let a chilly wind blow through the empty spaces that were left." And, yeah.

(ROT-13'd for spoilers, but
jung jnf hc jvgu gur raqvat?? Yvxr, V gubhtug V jnf sbyybjvat gung gur tvey vf guvf snrevr/zbafgre/jera gung Whyvna pnyyf naq gung qribhef uvz va fbzr jnl. Ohg gura ubj qbrf ur fubj hc ntnva va gur irel ynfg erzvavfprapr?)

The Dutch House (Ann Pratchett) - 4/5. The blurb that made me want to read it is "stepmother kicks brother and sister out of their house." Because, uh, family history (my step-grandmother kicked my dad and his sister out of the house). But it's really a story about families and people, and I really liked it.

The Quantum Doctor (some guy I don't remember) - 1/5 DNF. UGH. This is the kind of book I hate more than anything because it preys on people's troubles with legit medical issues AND is horrible terrible no-good very bad science, and I only looked at it because my sister asked me to. Even then I had to stop after the first couple of chapters. Like, I don't even disagree with his main idea that mind and body affect one another! But don't bring quantum consciousness (ARRRRGH) into it.

Best Science Fiction Stories of Clifford D. Simak (Simak) - reread. I was looking for something sweet and comforting and Simak isn't always that, but he is frequently that. He believes that human beings are good at heart, that we can grow and learn, and I just wanted to read something like that. My favorite story is "Immigrant," which maybe reads as old-fashioned these days, but is just really... sweet.

Ack! Voting is almost over and I never did post on this category! And it was my favorite, too!

An Informal History of the Hugos (Walton): Talked about Walton already here.

Ursula K. Le Guin: Conversations on Writing: This was a very slight Le Guin -- an interview with her, in fact -- but I feel like even slight Le Guin has interesting and profound things to say. She talked about pastiche being valuable -- she didn't use the word fanfic, and she was right not to, as that word carries with it other interesting connotations -- and yet, what she was saying about mimicking other writers being a good apprenticeship resonated heavily with me, somewhat interestingly because I feel that mimicking Le Guin's writing style has given me the potential to be a much better writer and reader. (Not that I am, necessarily -- you'll note that these posts are written in as convoluted and un-readable-out-loud prose as they ever were -- and of course I haven't written any fic for a while so it's all worn off anyway, but I have found that I can turn on much more of an awareness of the sound and rhythm of prose than I could before.) And it's interesting to me that her poetry is not, as a whole, SFF, but that it comes from the same place -- a keen observation of the world. And her thoughts about Women in the Canon... well. You can see I had a lot of feelings about a short slight book.

Hobbit Duology (documentary in three parts): I was actually not gonna watch this because, well, video, until psocoptera reviewed it favorably. It's actually quite good! Though it reinforces my sense that I was absolutely right never to watch the Hobbit movies. Link to the first here and the other two parts after.

The Mexicanx Initiative Experience at Worldcon 76: I think the experience was pretty cool! The documentation provided was kind of a slog for me, honestly. Not sure whether I'm supposed to be voting for the experience or the materials, but I assume it's the former (which I would actually vote for, but I wouldn't vote for the materials).

Astounding: This is pretty well-written! Though I will probably not finish it before deadline. It's not the book's fault that I'm not super interested in the subject, I guess. What I've read of it I've liked and it has made me more interested in it (...but man, they were all kinda messed up...)

Archive of Our Own: ...I don't have anything to say about this?

I don't even know how to vote on this! Strong category, and I'd be happy with any of these winning. (Although most happy about the Walton because robbed!) Probably the order of this post, though.