Hey!! Let's get some action going! What are we reading?

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's one of my pet peeves; updating children's books in the first place and then being inconsistent on top of it! Not that I want Paddington to be taking selfies, but why not let the books alone? Kids aren't stupid and they can always ask if they're puzzled, a very good habit to inculcate.

A few years ago I bought a copy of Gordon Korman's I Want to Go Home and realized that they had updated the book during the brief period of time when it made sense for a kid to have a CD Walkman.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Well, it depends. The actual prices of things and the way they're expressed have nothing to do with the story itself, so having a completely unfamiliar to children (guessing*) one shilling pocket money replaced by a pound pocket money is OK by me.

But if they don't know about it, what a great way for a kid to find out about old money and the change to decimal coinage! And if they are familiar with LSD, then they're being patronized. I think depth and richness is being lost to being "accessible," when I don't think the original is a challenge.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ekbell

A few years ago I bought a copy of Gordon Korman's I Want to Go Home and realized that they had updated the book during the brief period of time when it made sense for a kid to have a CD Walkman.

Don't get me started. Anachronisms abound and sometimes the entire story can fall apart in an update.

[Dngrsone]

... and yet many books simply do not age well. It's a double-edged sword.

I gave up on Chloe King... too teen-angsty/romancy/formulaic. So I went to All Systems Red by Martha Wells. Apparently I read the Murderbot diaries out of sequence, but no matter. It was quick and entertaining. Still waiting on a library hold for the third book.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

... and yet many books simply do not age well. It's a double-edged sword.

I would argue that changing currencies, etc., is hardly the sort of thing that will improve aging -- rather, the opposite. Some of what I like about older books is that view into the time of the writing. Not all still work (witness our collective dissatisfaction with The Three Musketeers when we read it for the New Leaf Book Club), but others work remarkably well. And updating them only introduces anachronisms.

In another thread here, several of us have been commenting on a tendency to re-read old favourites in times of stress. For many of us, those old favourites include some wonderful older books whose authors are long dead. My old favourites include Dorothy Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Patricia Wentworth, P. G. Wodehouse, and Margery Allingham. All from a very different era than my more contemporaneous favourites.

[DiapDealer]

I find that the only books that tend to not age well are books that inaccurately attempted to predict the future (a future that is now the present, or even the past). Sans that, I've (personally) never really run into a well-written book that didn't "age well." I prefer older works not be updated at all. I don't see any real point in doing it. Not even for children. The past doesn't need fixing, and it won't hurt anyone to read about about things with which they're totally unfamiliar--quite the contrary, in fact.

When first developing my love of reading, I read and enjoyed countless books that had words and concepts and settings and trappings I'd never ever encountered before. I loved it. It happens less and less as you grow older (and if not wiser, then at least more exposed). If you're not reading things you don't quite understand at a young age, you're never going to grow as reader. Not in my opinion, anyway.

Humans aren't anachronistically-corrected little bubbles of knowledge moving through time (I still dial the phone, and xerox stuff). Why should the books they write be?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find that the only books that tend to not age well are books that inaccurately attempted to predict the future (a future that is now the present, or even the past). Sans that, I've (personally) never really run into a well-written book that didn't "age well." I prefer older works not be updated at all. I don't see any real point in doing it. Not even for children. The past doesn't need fixing, and it won't hurt anyone to read about about things with which they're totally unfamiliar--quite the contrary, in fact.

It is, unfortunately, an undeniable fact that some children’s books from the early 20th century display what most modern readers would consider to be distasteful and completely unacceptable stereotypes of non-white races. The original “Tom Swift” books have a “comedic” black man who is terrified by Tom’s inventions as a recurring character, for example, while the “Hardy Boys” books stereotype Chinese people as untrustworthy and sinister. I’d say these are examples of books that don’t age well.

[Dngrsone]

I agree that a well-written book rarely needs an update.

With that said, I have no issue with the occasional "reboot" if you will. Again, if it's done well. An obvious example (but one I have not read) would be the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies method of adding something to an already good tome.

There are, of course, knockoffs of good books and stories--does Shannarra not resemble LoTR an awful lot? But it is still a good read.


And considering there is the aphorism that there are only x number of stories and every story is based in part on one or more of those...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And now I'm reading another Amelia Peabody - Thunder in the Sky.

Which was, once again, excellent.

Next up: Analog SFF, Nov/Dec 2018. (Also: More about Paddington)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Which was, once again, excellent.

Next up: Analog SFF, Nov/Dec 2018. (Also: More about Paddington)

I take it that you succumbed to the recent Amazon "Big Deal" for the Paddington series?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I take it that you succumbed to the recent Amazon "Big Deal" for the Paddington series?

Yes, I did. But they are delightful.

[CRussel]

I just finished my read of the released version of Uncompromising Honor, the latest Honorverse novel by David Weber. I had read and reviewed this in its eARC form, and while I haven't compared the final with it, my sense is that there are actually some differences in the front 25% of the book. IAC, my review hasn't changed -- it's TOO LONG. With way too many lengthy, unnecessary, and boring passages with the Mandarins. And the usual excruciating detail about hardware. OTOH, I somehow keep reading these. Go figure.

Next up has to be something completely different. Haven't decided what, yet.

[gmw]

I recently read Blue World by Robert McCammon, a collection of mostly short, mostly horror stories, that was mostly forgettable. (For those that care, Nightcrawlers became a Twilight Zone episode and Make-Up became a Darkroom episode.) In fact it was a re-read from many years ago, and indeed I had mostly forgotten all but the two exceptions to the rule (which were the reasons why I picked it up again). The eponymous novella Blue World is more thriller than horror, there is nothing supernatural about it, but it is rather explicit (violence and sex) and it turns into reasonably good if uninspiring tale. What I really picked it up for was Something Passed By, a short story in which the world has changed: water explodes, gasoline is safe to drink, and many more bizarre things. This is a striking tale with imagery that stays with you long after you finish reading.


A few other books as well including The House on the Strand by Daphne du Maurier, that we discussed in the book club.


Having noticed pdurrant having a good time with Amelia Peabody on this thread, I decided it was time I did the same. I just finished the first of the series, Crocodile on the Sandbank by Elizabeth Peters (Barbara Mertz). Mystery, suspense, Victorian romance, Egypt complete with mummies walking the night and all told to us by the intrepid Amelia Peabody. A bit predictable, perhaps, but great fun and I look forward to collecting more. Apparently the author has a PhD in Egyptology, so I imagine the setting is fairly realistic* but not so much that it detracts from the fun ride - great characters!

* I did note one minor anachronism: the phrase "body bag" in a story set in 1884 is at least 30 years too early. I mention this only to be a smart ar-person. It matters not at all to the story. (I spotted it thanks to another book I'd read earlier this year, otherwise I'd never have noticed.)

Originally Posted by gmw

I did note one minor anachronism: the phrase "body bag" in a story set in 1884 is at least 30 years too early. I mention this only to be a smart ar-person. It matters not at all to the story. (I spotted it thanks to another book I'd read earlier this year, otherwise I'd never have noticed.)

Interestingly, the OED has a citation for the phrase from 1885, but it's very unlikely to be in the context of a corpse container, almost cetainly in its older sense of "sleeping bag". Which is an interesting example of how meanings exapand over time, even if it doesn't let the author off the hook

[gmw]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

Interestingly, the OED has a citation for the phrase from 1885, but it's very unlikely to be in the context of a corpse container, almost cetainly in its older sense of "sleeping bag". Which is an interesting example of how meanings exapand over time, even if it doesn't let the author off the hook

Ooh... I missed that! I checked my OED but obviously didn't look far enough. A "sleeping bag" sense could cover the context in the book. That would make the mistake mine (I assumed she meant in the modern sense, being unaware of the old sense). I should have known better than to doubt Miss Amelia Peabody!

Thanks for the correction.