Monday, February 27, 2012

Bible Study: 1 Cor 13

I am currently involved in a "small group" Bible study with the Des Moines First Assemblies church. I approve of small groups in the Biblical desire for churches to meet needs and people on a personal rather than big level. The larger the church is, the more important it is to have small groups because that brings you a level of commitment and... and... I hate it when I forget words. Someone to sit there and make sure you are doing what you are saying you are doing!

It will come to me.

Anyway, my small group is doing the church-issued Bible study following the sermon for six or seven weeks. And in an effort to stay on top of things, I will attempt to actually do the Bible study day by day instead of cramming it like homework on Sunday. One moment, laundry.

Darn it, someone else has the washer. And I still can't think of the word. Something partner. Reliability? Predictably? Liability? Those seem halfway... Argh.

This week is the famed "love chapter." Wow, that sounds corny. But, the chapter itself is not.

Accountability! Accountability partners! Yes! I totally thought of the word!

I'm so proud of myself.

Ahem.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have no love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have no love, it profits me nothing.
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
And now abide, faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13, 1-13

So, what have we learned? Other than that the translators (or Paul) really liked semicolons? Seriously, I'm scared to use them occasionally, this has like seven.

I'm going to try and keep the sweeping revelations out of this post and... one moment, evicting birds from off the AC. I guess it is better than birds living IN my AC, which is what happened last spring. And then I had to dodge David's Wacom (on the floor) and that burnt egg roll that he put out on the porch cause it made the whole kitchen smell like burnt paper after he started on fire in the microwave and then lost it... He thought maybe a bird had stolen it and I think even birds have more taste than that.

But, point being, I'm going to talk more about myself in the blog than text analysis, because that is for small group. And they probably don't want to hear too much about me. When you are talking to people, you have to make it fairly short and your stories succinct, because they also want to talk. When I am writing a blog with a very small readership... you asked for it.

Love. Love is hard. I can sometimes be a decent person when I'm not walking with God, although I am much more volatile. Really volatile. But I lose my capability to love. I cannot love without God. I can like, desire, whatever, but the lasting feelings, the ability to care enough about the person to forgive, overlook mistakes, I can't do that without God. I know I am sinking when I start getting made for little stupid things, personality traits I already knew existed or even liked at one time. I think we all have our struggles and that is one of mine.

And yet it is also the one I need the most. So much of this world needs love, from the Internet trolls to the orphans. And I am so ill-equipped to give it to them, even pray for them. Love makes me want to pray. Maybe prayer will make me want to love.

Going up in what I see as the "relationship-with-God-ladder" is often very difficult because there is no "I do this one thing and the rest is easy." It is a cycle of trying to change attitudes, habits, patterns, and the first couple steps are some of the hardest. I don't love and I'm really bad at praying. There is no magic key here, I have to change both. And I know God will help me, but I'd have to ask Him, which means prayer. And this time I don't want to be at the bottom before I do that.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Boneshaker

I just finished Boneshaker by Cherie Priest. The one at the library is actually still checked out and I think I'd be the next one... but I now own my own copy. It came about something like this. First, I was going to question in my last post if there were even steampunks in Iowa. Then I solved that by Googling "steampunk iowa" and discovered there actually was a steampunk group in Iowa, a relatively new one by the looks of it. And they were having a meeting Saturday night and discussing Boneshaker. Not having anything to contribute in the way of costume or show and tell, I wanted to contribute to the discussion, at least saying I'd started reading it.

But I didn't really have these intentions and wasn't even sure I was going to attend the meeting when we went out for lunch. I wanted to stop in at Barnes and Noble because that and Scheels are the only places really worth going in the mall. I picked up the paperback version of River Marked, the most recent Mercy Thompson novel and the only one I was missing from my paperback collection, so I snagged that. And then I found Boneshaker and it was just so compelling that I get the book and start it and I love books and reviews had said this one was pretty good, so possibly worth owning.

David said, "I don't mind if you get it," and the book was pretty much mine thereafter.

I spent the afternoon reading it and was maybe one-third through when I went to the meeting. I did in fact end up going to the meeting. I was scared I'd meet a bunch of geeks and decide steampunk was just a bunch of geeks, and that did, in fact happen. But, by the end, when I was playing a mechanic girl with dreadlocks named Branna in a D&D style role playing game and having the sort of "I'm having SO much fun" feeling I get from drinking one to many, I rediscovered that I was a geek and these were my people.

I'll start planning my costume now. All that aside, they were really nice and I might continue meeting with them, if only to play the role-playing game. Now that I don't have people to talk to at work, it'd be nice to have friends elsewhere.

I'm such a nerd.

But on to Boneshaker by Cherie Priest. This was the book she wanted to be a sort of example of steampunk that people could point at and say "That's steampunk." It is a zombie thriller where zombies, created by poisonous gas, are trapped inside walls in the middle of 19th century Seattle. A boy goes into the old city and meets the few crazy people who are trying to make a life inside the poisonous gas and zombie-infested streets while he searches for clues to his past and his father who was at least partially responsible for the whole epidemic. His father at the very least had built a machine called the Boneshaker, a drill that collapsed blocks of the city. Most people could only guess if he was dead or alive or responsible for the leaking gas and robbery at the city banks and subsequent death and destruction. The boy's mother figures out where he goes and goes in after him, braving the streets herself to try and find him, but meeting different people. The book is one of those where he struggles forward without knowing she is looking and she is searching frantically, trying to figure out where he would've gone.

Thankfully, there isn't much of the generally overused, they meet the same person, but make up a name and that person doesn't know who they are and they leave without knowing it was the person they were looking for or they went to the same place at different times and make all the wrong conclusions... it isn't that frustrating. There is the frantic searching, but the delays and routes and people make sense. His mother can't keep struggling that direction because they were attacked by "rotters" and had to take off.

Overall, I quite liked it. The writing was good (finally) and the story was interesting and made sense. (Spoiler) Even the end, where they decide to stay in the ruined city with the people who helped them all along, made sense in more than a "Aww, that's so cute" way.

The steampunk part I almost thought was understated, which I suppose is better than overstated. It had it's funky gizmos, airships, mechanical limbs, goggles, all sorts of things, but they all made perfect sense. Maybe that's what good steampunk is where the inventions all have a place and aren't the center of the story.

To be honest, I read it more like a zombie thriller than a steampunk book. The stuff you'd see, conversations they had, they all fit within a zombie-infested city as much as a steampunk world.

But, they are making a movie. And the more I think about how the sealed doors and filters and clothes and inventions would appear visually, the more excited I am about it. The movie can have the true visual ringing of steampunk that is easy to forget while reading.

Overall, good book. And good meeting.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

The Girl in the Steel Corset

I read The Girl in the Steel Corset by Kady Cross a while ago, so my memory on it isn't quite as keen. But some things will still stand out. I picked it up while wandering through the young adult section of the library. It was one of the books featured and had a pretty cover of a girl in a red dress, although I could not see her face because of the placement of the library sticker. Figures. Anyway, I'm thinking, corset, sounds like the steampunk era. Then at the bottom it read, "Steampunk Chronicles." Oh. I almost put it back because it said Harlequin Teen on the back and I don't want to read Harlequin romances, but it seemed interesting and not-totally-sexy, so I borrowed it. I think I finished it the same day.

Overall, I actually enjoyed it. I believe Cross said she wanted something that combined teen X-Men with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and it does seem to be that. Griffin King, aka "the good guy," is in possession of a living substance called organites, obtained by his parents when they made the trip to the center of the Earth. These are the things life formed from, Darwin, and all that. The organites can be used to heal injuries and prolonged uses helped develop sort of super powers among Griffin's young friends whom he is gathering around him in his rich mansion with plans to save England from rogue automatons.

The story was somewhat predictable, but interesting as they seek to find a mysterious figure known as the Machinist, capable of causing automatons to go against programming and attack people.

Good guy Griffin is the one with all the money and leadership skills and self-sacrificing ideals. He can enter and manipulate the aether, meaning he can talk to ghosts, see auras, other things like that. I'd probably like him better if he weren't so token good guy. Like, think of your standard good guy and what he might do. That's what Griffin would do.

Along the way, Sam, who's power is super strength, is raging because he was victim in one of the attacks and got put back together by Emily and organites, leaving him un-scarred but with several pieces of his body replaced. So he is suffering angst from the "it's not actually my arm" and "I didn't get the choice to die instead of live as a monster" angst. I was hoping that he'd lighten up by the time he actually encounters death and decides he actually wants to live and we'd see his true personality... which turns out to be overly serious and somewhat distrustful.

Emily is a perky Irish girl, skinny, with "ropey hair." I'm not sure what that means, but that very description was used probably five times, so I'm guessing... dreadlocks? She is the brainchild who created all their fancy technology that gives them the edge above normal people and hopefully the Machinist. She's there to be sweet and helpful and attempt to knock sense into Sam. She's also the most fragile as she has no physical enhancement super power. She is, however, able to communicate with machines such as automatons.

Jasper is a cowboy. With very little back story, other than that he "wasn't always a good person." He's sweet on Emily and overall good humored. His power is super speed.

Finley Jayne is main love interest and co-star. The book narrates from her perspective or Griffin's. Finley was descended from a member of Griffin's parents expedition to the center of the world who experimented with organites and became the inspiration behind the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story (according to the book.) So Finley inherits polar personalities that switch. On one side she is a frightened somewhat sweet girl, although I'm not sure that personality was extreme enough. On the other side, she is sassy, violent, and sexy. She also has super strength and senses.

So I enjoyed the different characters and the story, although it read very very token young adult. There was the self-doubt, the finding your identity for Finley. It also had the token Finley gets two love interests, one Griffin who is a noble and above her and one Jack Dandy, who is dangerous, a criminal, but in the way that Captain Barbossa is, "And ye not lay a hand on those under the protection of parley." Dandy likes Finley's bad side, and Dandy, while being a criminal, is somewhat honorable. Finley told Dandy that one of his gang members had tried to take advantage of her and Dandy got all dangerous, seeing consequences to that man's actions. Actually, I found Dandy to be the most interesting character in there and was hoping Finley would go with him.

But yes, there is the love triangle. Or triangles. Emily loves Sam who is acting very unlovable and both loves and hates Emily because he's being angsty. Jasper cares for Emily as well, but I'm afraid he's never going to get a chance.

And then, the main love triangle. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if young adult romance writers just fantasize about having guys fighting over them and so they write that into all the plots (I'm thinking Twilight). How often does that happen in real life? So, Good Guy Griffin likes Finley and Finley likes him. But Finley also likes Bad Boy Dandy. Who also likes Finley. There is some jealous and Finley's "Oh no, how can I choose?" and all the standard stuff. But I figure Griffin is going to win because he's the good guy and one of the main characters.

I was actually rooting for Dandy, because, like I said, he was one of the most fascinating characters in the book. He calls Finley "treasure" and sends her a fabulous gown to take her out to a dance of sorts and I was just afraid he'd discover the Finley he was dancing with was the sweet one, not the sassy one who visited him. But the book, I felt, declawed him. At one point, Finley hurt Sam after Sam tried to get in a fight with her and she ran to Dandy with the normal "I don't belong here." Dandy takes her in. Soon afterward, Griffin comes to convince her to come back. She turns to Dandy and he is there, holding her bags for her. He "wasn't giving her a choice." And that killed Dandy for me. One, it says that regardless of feelings, he's going to do the token "right" thing. And two, it says that the book isn't going to remain true to character. The Dandy I met in the beginning would have been like, "She came to me for a reason. She was running from you. Prove to me that she should go back with you."

Makes me sad.

Aside from my issues with some of the character treatment and all, it was fun! I like young adult fiction because it is usually optimistic and active. I really like characters with different traits and powers, the type you'd want to read bios on. I was a big fan of X-Men and I enjoyed the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (movie... library doesn't have the comic). It seemed a good YA interpretation of a combination between the two. Entertaining.

Friday, February 24, 2012

The Steampunk Bible

I recently purchased The Steampunk Bible from Amazon.com, partially to continue my steampunk education and partially wile away the hours while waiting for my various library books on hold to be returned.

The Steampunk Bible left me with a few questions, reoccurring doubts if you will. But I'll get to that in a minute. First, my impressions on the book itself.

The Steampunk Bible isn't a manual on how to do steampunk, although it does contain some helpful hints. The Steampunk Bible is, as it says on the cover, "an illustrated guide to the world of imaginary airships, corsets and goggles, mad scientists, and strange literature." Now I want to insert or remove an oxford comma for consistency in that phrase, but I will refrain. Stylistic gesture, I'm sure. The Steampunk Bible starts at the beginning, detailing when the term "steampunk" came into being, some of the founding authors, such as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and when the movement actually came to being. It has quite lovely glossy color pictures, is hard cover, and overall a pretty nice deal for the $15.21 on Amazon.com, but unfortunately didn't qualify for free shipping.

From the origins and a discussion on the various dispositions of Verne and Wells on "fantasy," it then heads into modern steampunk and what that looks like. It covers comics, webcomics, movies, TV series, books, and fashion. It can be pretty amazing sometimes how far reaching steampunk culture is. For example, the recent edition of Sherlock Holmes. I've seen that claimed as steampunk several times and the thought had not crossed my mind when I watched the movie (granted, I was largely unaware of the movement at the time). When I watch it again, I will have to watch it with new eyes. But thinking back, Sherlock Holmes contains technology, fancy stuff back then, that probably did not exist in that time frame. That is a steampunk idea, even if not all the characters are running around in goggles.

The fashion bit was quite interesting, as that is one of the most obvious modern visual examples of steampunk. It told of the origins of steampunk as a wearable fashion beyond the literary movement. It also included tips for styles, such as "the adventurer," and a list of accessories, like hats and spats. Of course, it can't give you detailed instructions on how to become a steampunk, because that would be against the movement itself. Steampunk is about doing it yourself and having your own take and your own look.

So, though I haven't finished it yet, so far I'm really enjoying the book. They really seem to have done their research and gotten input from many many people in all aspects of steampunk. I love the pictures because steampunk itself is so visual. It includes essays and interviews with related figures. Overall, quite entertaining.

Now, for how it makes me think. First off, it discusses a book that I've been seeing in relation to steampunk for a while now, and that is Boneshaker by Cherie Priest. I first learned of this book the League of S.T.E.A.M.'s (steampunk ghostbusters... hilarious) podcast. They interviewed Cherie Priest and she said she wanted to write something that could represent and epitomize steampunk, something people could point at and say, "See that? That's steampunk." It appears the book is a hit and I believe she even has a movie deal out of it. I haven't read it yet (and there is at least one other person with a hold ahead of me at the library), but it seems that her goals are... fascinating. And in some way, I want to strive for something that carries a greater story than just interaction between characters... which is fun.

Along that note, steampunk does have a cultural movement of sorts that relates to inequality and the like. So, on some level, it seems that it aspires higher than cool costumes that have corsets and top hats. And if steampunk aspires to another level, shouldn't my own fiction aspire as well? Don't get me wrong, I've read fluffy steampunk that seemed very much about a play between characters often in young adult novels. But somewhere, if just in the background, there is a larger plot at stake, usually one that encompasses several countries if not the world. Steampunk reaches higher in their vision to greater plots. It rarely seems to be just a love or friendship story in an alternate history.

The thing I'm playing around with right now is shaping up to be some sort of steampunk western and it entertains me. I have two characters and so far, it has been very much about them. So when do I want a larger plot element, and what do I want it to be? It makes me uncomfortable to think about this, because again I feel like I am not quite meeting standards. Before I found steampunk, I was investigating sci-fi and was faced with the same issue, but one that had more of a dark, dystopian idea at the end.

And then on to my final problem when reading The Steampunk Bible. Steampunks are very much about production of some sort. They seem to adore anything handcrafted, especially Victorian or steampunk style. They create their own costumes or perhaps buy them from very expensive makers who make it themselves. "Makers" was an idea mentioned in The Steampunk Bible encompassing artists and craftsmen and tailors and other contributing creators. Much of steampunk to them is the visual appeal and the ability to put these things together. Others have gotten into the movement by their various contributions on the literary side and so on. Therefore, I wonder what I have to do to join. Do I need to learn how to cut and sew leather? Get a job to afford a pair of goggles? Make jewelry from clock pieces? Write a best-selling steampunk novel? I somewhat desire to earn my way into the movement. Is that required? Do I need to prove my worth as a contributor, first? Or at least assemble a costume?

Steampunk is about community, I'm discovering, and so far I've been investigating it alone.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Vampire Empire: The Greyfriar

First off, I must warn you, I am going to talk about the plot and might reveal spoilers. So, officially, spoiler alert.

Alright, in my quest for Steampunk books, I came across an article on a blog called STEAMED! I'm not actually that excited, the exclamation mark is part of the title. This blog is about writing steampunk fiction. So anyway, I read this article where Clay and Susan Griffith are interviewed on their recent book, Vampire Empire, Book One: The Greyfriar. I think all of that is somewhere in the title. I'm like, hey, I'm looking for steampunk books and this one has a fun cover. So I went and checked it out from the library yesterday and finished it this morning.

The starting plot is that vampires rose up and destroyed and killed thousands of humans and effectively took over the northern hemisphere. Surviving humans took to the tropics because vampires don't like heat and now the humans, over a century later, are mustering their steam and iron and are getting ready to fight back.

First, the vampires. As one who has read many many vampire books, I like seeing what exactly defines the vampires in each particular story. In this book, the vampires are their own species with blue eyes and pale skin. The humans are not converted to vampires. They still drink human blood. The vampires live a very long time, around 800 years, but are not immortal. They breed as humans do, but feed their young with blood. They have fangs, extendable fingernail claws, super senses (with the exception of touch, which they are almost entirely lacking in), are not affected by the sun (but still don't like heat), can fly by controlling their density, and recover from many wounds without issue. The humans see the vampires as little better than animals with no real emotions.

Vampires see human as cattle, if occasionally dangerous cattle.

In the beginning, the heiress to Empire Equatoria, Princess Adele (who's rolling in the deeeeeep... ignore me) is touring the occupied north when her airship is brought down by a coordinated vampire attack. She is saved temporarily by a mysterious figure out of legend called the Greyfriar, supposedly a human who lived in occupied north fighting vampires from the inside. In their brief time together, Adele becomes attached to Greyfriar. She is then recaptured by vampires and spends weeks in captivity. I'm not entirely sure of the motivation behind the capture. The man who ordered it seems only interested in learning of human spies and human war plans, though officers on her ship would have probably been able to answer as much or more. The vampire, Prince Cesare, later says it was to disrupt her political marriage to the Republic of America Senator Clark, which would have more humans united against them. The Greyfriar arrives back at his castle where it is revealed unceremoniously that he is Prince Gareth, the vampire heir.

Prince Gareth goes and claims Princess Adele as his prisoner and through long care makes her... well, not always mad at him. Later, Greyfriar shows up and rescues her during a chaotic incident in London (vampire central). Greyfriar takes her to Scotland, which is Prince Gareth's territory and then reveals himself to her, earning her hate and mistrust.

Next is a scene out of Beauty and the Beast where she is held against her will, but learns through the people in the town (his willing flock, as he does not kill them to feed) and his own kind actions toward her that he is not a monster and can feel emotion. She hates him and mistrusts him right up until he sends her a note that says "I am sorry." Then she somehow believes that emotion there is true when she had been assuming all others were some kind of lying front and she comes to love him.

Prince Cesare has been trying to get her back, and finally finds her right as Senator Clark blusters in to be a hero and save his bride-to-be. Greyfriar makes a reappearance in time to save Adele and hand her back to the Americans before leaving once again to "fight the good fight." Before they leave, she professes her love for him. He knows that she will want to destroy all vampires, but cannot help himself and saves her anyway.

Through all this, there is a thread of magic, woven by a strange affinity she has to religious artifacts and her tutor, revealed secretly to be a practitioner of the forbidden religious and magical arts.

So, while it was entertaining, this book somewhat bothers me. I found myself in the viewpoint and position of humans in the beginning, with the vampires being animalistic monsters barely capable of speech (and those only capable of stilted-sounding phrases like "you will die"). So when Greyfriar appeared in all his mysterious costuming and heroic strength, I rallied with him. The legendary figure fighting secretly in the north against vampires and for human freedom. My theory was that he was somehow a human turned vampire (before I knew more) and still in it for the humans. I hoped he was just a human, strong and inspirational. I figured at the very least, his unveiling would be dramatic. But it wasn't really and I was actually disappointed to find out he was a vampire prince. So the heroic legend of the humans was actually just another vampire.

I understand the need for the long process of Adele becoming acquainted with him and used to him and then loving him, but it seriously felt like I was living in a Beauty and the Beast remix, what with her hating him, and then joining him for dinner, and him showing her his library, etc. And her following the routine "I hate him, I'm never going to like him, I just want to leave" against everyone, including the other humans', protests and evidence to the point of annoying.

Oddly enough, I don't like the vampires being another species. They lose some of their fun when they aren't made from humans and they don't dress better than the humans. But that is a creative difference.

Adele can be particularly thick-headed sometimes, while the book seems to hail her as being smart, quick-thinking, and powerful. For example, even the humans didn't know how the vampires reproduced, but Greyfriar mentions once that the king had "sons." Myself being curious, I wanted to ask "oh yeah, how do they reproduce?" because the humans theorized they just lived forever and every one cut down was one less vampire, forever. But Adele doesn't seem to notice. Another time, a spy sneaked in to figure out her location and spoke with her. Adele doesn't know what happened to her brother, but she is guessing he is dead. A spy from the outside? I would have asked "Did my brother make it?" right after "Are you going to rescue me?" Never pops into Adele's head. I feel like if she is that quick on her feet, she'd think of some of these things. It seems almost uncharacteristic to write her this way. Maybe they didn't think of these things.

And probably the most annoying thing to me in the entire book is the switching of voice. Third person is allowed to switch from person to person as far as voice, but it tends to follow only one person at a time. You will get their emotions, reactions, fears, things they notice, and occasionally things they don't, but it largely just follows their perspective. If they don't notice something, the narrator can go over their head, saying something like, "She dropped her eyes quickly, and did not see the corner of his mouth curve in a grin." It is still the same person, but in the vein of Third person view (she said, she did), it can give you information that a first person (I said, I did) would have missed. But, it still only follows one person at a time. The view can be switched. I tend to only go with one or two characters myself and not confuse readers in thinking that random other people might be important. If I switch views, a section divider or a chapter divider would probably be a good communication tool to indicate, oh, by the way, this is a different person.

This book doesn't have that. Oh, it does have sections and chapters and the views switch between those, but nothing prevents it from switching views between paragraphs of the same narrative. And it drives me nuts. First off, it is highly confusing if you think you are following one person's view and so are tracking with them, and then it shows what someone else is doing and you discover you lost your person. For example.

"Deciding that it was a sign, she (Adele) knelt in front of the altar, offering up a small prayer of thanks for the sanctuary afforded her throughout this trial, and a prayer of hope for the future, wherever it led her.
Outside, Gareth reared back. His flesh crawled. He couldn't remember feeling such power here before." - Page 247

So, I'm tracking, I'm tracking, I'm following Adele, as I have been since the start of the chapter, two pages ago. I assume once she is done with her prayer, she heads back outside, and that is where Gareth rears back. I assume I'm going to read something about her surprise at his reaction here in a sec. But then it says his flesh crawls. Ok... that sounds like his feeling. Something she saw, maybe? Then it goes to his not remembering feeling such power there. Oh. I'm seeing through Gareth's eyes. I keep reading and realize that Adele is actually still in the church and I left her there. It is a bit more before she comes outside, then it switches back to her voice.

And it does that sort of thing throughout the entire book, throwing me for a loop every time. Cesare offers his war chief, Flay, some of his human and Flay scowls at him when his back is turned. Since I was following Cesare's voice, I thought he must have seen her scowl out of the corner of his eye. I have to reread that passage to realize, oh, it switched to Flay. He didn't actually see her.

Another time, I counted that it switched voice from Gareth to Flay to Cesare to Flay in about six paragraphs. At first I thought Gareth was just observing something Flay was doing before I realized it wasn't even talking about Gareth anymore. Then randomly, one paragraph has Cesare's feelings. Flay's next opinion pops up in italics, but I still think that she must have said it out loud because Cesare was aware of it... then realize, no, it was just a thought, and I'm back with Flay again.

This type of behavior is confusing and seems somewhat immature. It can totally be avoided. For one, you might have to choose to stick with one voice at the expense of telling all the feelings of everyone in the situation. One person might have to notice and interpret other people's reactions instead of switching to the other person. Another way is to switch in a noticeable and rational way. Between breaks or chapters. Another way, if you really really want to tell it in multiple voices, recap.

"She was surprised when he dropped to one knee before her. The sound of his sword sliding clear of his scabbard seemed amplified in her ears. 'My lady,' he said. 'I pledge my blade to you.' Something surged through her then and her mouth curved in a smile. 'I accept!' she declared, her voice strong."

--- (Break, /end, next chapter, whatever.)

"He had no idea what would happen when he knelt and spoke those words. His sword seemed heavy in his hands, the moment of silence stretching to eternity as her startled eyes weighed him. Then something came over her and her eyes sparkled, a dangerous smile flickering over her face. His heart pounded. 'I accept!' her voice was steel. The weight of his sword seemed to float up from his hands."

Recapping. Retelling the important bits of the story from a different perspective. It can be even more abstract in that you find them giddy from the action, and then they think back to what happened. "He walked the hallway now, his body seeming so light that his feet barely touched the floor. He had no idea what would happen when he knelt, or what the dangerous look was in her eyes, but she had accepted him!"

So obviously I have complaints. I think part of it is that I just felt the book had so much potential. The cover design was great, showing Greyfriar staring forward, his goggles perched on his head, Adele looking off to the side, yet staying close behind him. This speaks of adventure, of trial, of conquest. But all the parts of the book that she was running with Greyfriar blur into their fatigue, the land sliding past as they run, snatches of conversation. I wanted the Greyfriar to be something more. I just thought it would be more than "Princess spends several months in captivity." I guess it is book one and could get better next time.

Was there anything I liked? I liked the original idea of the Greyfriar, the heroic human. Umm... it was entertaining. I like the hints of magic and the story to come. And I liked that while it was steampunk in a sense and in the typical steampunk world, science is reigning over religion, they give it an added twist where religion and magic are actually still alive and more powerful than anyone believed. It is a different take than the normal "Darwin has freed us from the bonds of religion" bit.

And that is my take. Maybe worth reading. Not the best I've come across.

Actually, out of all the "steampunk" novels I've read (and for some reason, most are young adult, which I also have issues with occasionally), the Leviathan trilogy by Scott Westerfeld is the best so far. I'll post about that when I get the last book read. I am also trying to get a hold of Boneshaker, by Cherie Priest. She wants to write something that can sort of epitomize the steampunk movement, where people can point at it and say "See that? That's steampunk." So should be interesting.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling

I just finished one of the supposed founding classics of the steampunk genre, and I didn't understand it. The Difference Engine is by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson (who also wrote Neuromancer). I am not entirely sure of the relationship between Neuromancer being one of the defining books of the "cyberpunk" genre and The Difference Engine being one of the defining books of the "steampunk" genre, but I think "steampunk" was coined after "cyberpunk," and in relation to it.

On a side note, I didn't underline any of my book titles. I learned somewhere that I was supposed to do that, but it seems like a waste of time and effort. I dislike underlining anything, or even "bolding" anything. Italics and quotation marks are permitted.

Moving on.

I believe the concept of The Difference Engine (should I be capitalizing the "The" every time since it is technically in the title?) is that Charles Babbage, an actual historical person, hypothesized about the creation of some sort of rudimentary computer, called the difference engine, and then went from there to the analytical engine. In real life these were never built. In the story, we have massive ancient computer-like systems that aid in running the world around 1855. People have numbers that contain reports on them. The Engines perform a great deal of computing, including things as mundane as the production of music and printing pictures of people for use on their cards. The government institutions all have Engines.

It took me far into the book before I was even sure what the plot was, and it wasn't until I reached the end that I was even sure what it was about. And then only slightly. The book follows a few different people with about three to four narrative voices and some abstract narration thrown in for good measure. The stories might only be connected by a chance meeting and a small box of punch cards used to program the Engines. However, nobody even knows what these cards do until the end of the book.

Somewhere in the middle we get a strong picture of London at the time and the unwashed, unhappy masses that inhabit it. I see some of Gibson's flair for the creation of a scene in a way that leaves you there in the midst of polluted London during an event they called "The Stink," choking on the thick fog right along with the main character. You start to feel the frenzy as the fumes drive out the authority and shroud the streets in anonymity, where shop owners who haven't fled are protecting their shops with rifles, gambling rings crop up right out in the open, poor people tear apart a steam gurney left un-watched. Unable to escape and prodded by the socialist doctrines of an agitator, they take to the street violently, like wild dogs.

Much of the narrative does not seem to relate to the events that surround the characters, the things they struggled for. The punch cards are barely mentioned and are merely a pawn in some of the confrontations. The narrative instead peels back the facing on the characters, revealing their strengths, weaknesses, motivations, hidden sins. Some are never in the forefront and you learn about them through gossip and have to choose what to believe yourself. It is a cross-section of humanity, showing some of them at their worst.

The end is what some people have termed "dystopian," though I didn't much understand it. For some of the characters, their lives ended well. Mallory, the most featured character, lives to be a relatively old man of scientific success. Sybil grows old in her haven in France. But the ending, which seemed to be a collection articles, letters, and recollections, reveals the nature of the cards and the nature of some of the big names in the story, the leaders, the ones previously held in awe. Even the leaders can be sinners. And then at the end, there is a brief section of narrative that jumps you forward to 1990. Perhaps it would be better to quote. Even though it is Wikipedia.

"At the very end of the novel, there is a dystopian depiction of an alternate 1991 from the vantage point of Ada Lovelace. Throughout the novel's latter sections, there are references to an "Eye". At the end of the novel, human beings appear to have become digitized, ephemeral ciphers at the mercy of a sentient artificial intelligence." - Wikipedia.org

The book says something along the lines of "Paper-thin faces billow like sails, twisting, yawning, tumbling through the empty streets, human faces that are borrowed masks, and lenses for a peering Eye. And when a given face has served its purpose, it crumbles, frail as ash, bursting into a dry foam of data, its constituent bits and motes." - The Difference Engine

Surging humanity, all meaningless to the computer-thing that watches them, the computer-thing that gains sentience. I take to meant that their once great Engines, hailed as progress, the future, science, the epitome of knowledge and reason has somewhat turned against them and they become like pieces of a machine to the new consciousness, useful only in their time, life surging meaninglessly past them in their busy circles.

Sorry for the long sentences. I am still attempting to wrap my head around this book. All in all, it is an entertaining read. There is a complete world in it with many different inventions and political climates that are different from us and it is entertaining to see it unfold. I was actually curious about more of those and wanted to see more of the differences. The characters, while not always likable, are raw and realistic and you might find yourself rooting for one, encouraging them through the confusion that is their place in the story. And it makes you think.

Overall, then, a good book. Somewhat graphic in nature, so I recommend only to adults. Not David.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Inconvenient Non-Existing Liturature

So I decided what I really need is the "Writer's Guide to Steampunk: Historical Information to Build On." However, as far as I can tell it doesn't exist. Oh sure, I've found plenty of stuff on steampunk, steampunk themes, common featured inventions, the history of steampunk, etc. But that's not what I'm looking for. I want something that tells me exactly what life was like back around the turn of the century. Something highly historically accurate.

I don't need it telling me about steampunk, because part of the point of steampunk is to make it your own and have your own inventions and such. But a good portion of steampunk is drawn from Victorian era culture, political events, clothing, and technology. (Don't hate on my Oxford comma. I think it looks nice.) So, even if you are on a different planet or modified the countries in Europe to match your needs, some of the culture is going to be at least a portrayal of actual historical culture.

Steampunk tends to vary. The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling seems to feature the world as it would be after the invention of something historically thought up, but not built in real life. It is based on something historically appropriate. But that world looks very different. I'm not sure, I haven't finished it yet.

Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld is based on actual political events, but then peppered strongly with steam engine creations and fabricated animals.

The Girl With the Steel Corset by Kady Cross uses actual places, but other than that, tends to come off very sci-fi, just with some of the ideas being older, like the Hollow Earth.

Girl Genius uses some of the clothes and mentions "Americas" and "Britain," but otherwise is in a very fictional universe.

And...well, I haven't read that much. I really only got into steampunk like a month ago. I am amazed at how much of a popular movement it is.

But my point is with whatever level of separation from reality you choose to put your steampunk at, some things would be good to know.

I am merely dabbling at writing something steampunk and I have already spent alot of time on Wikipedia just trying to establish if light bulbs were invented, how widespread the telephone was, were cowboys still in existence, and what sort of plumbing people had at the time. I never really figured out the plumbing bit.

But that would be like a section of this imaginary book! "Plumbing: The rich, the poor, and in between." Apparently, there was a fairly high separation among the classes at the time. So like this imaginary book would cover what life was like and what things were available to the rich, what education they had, how they actually dressed (sans goggles, I'm sure). So you could get the details you want to keep and the details you want to build on and the ones you choose to eliminate, but for a good reason.

Another section would talk about the technology available at the time. I believe cars were still considered an oddity and electricity wasn't available to everyone and phones were limited... but these are vague assumptions.

Another section would cover political climate at the time. This was shortly before World War I and the Prohibition and other fun political things. Women couldn't even vote yet. Tension was rising in Europe. The Irish famine was over, but not long past. Immigration to America was on the rise.

Now, it has been suggested that I write this book. However, as I wanted this book to save me time and effort, it seems as though writing this book would be waaaaaay more time and effort than just actually researching the things. And I'm sure I couldn't quote Wikipedia as a source.

My next idea is to find a steampunk society and apprentice in. I'm sure that would work.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Worth what I make?

As much as I was happy to quit my job, I hate having no job. You lose status. I applied for a credit card and was denied because I have no income. People ask what I do and I generally sum it up by saying "I'm a bum."

Sure, I'm trying to write. But none of it feels like the breakthrough "dream of sparkly vampire" sort. I'm having fun, but I don't feel like I'm producing or accomplishing anything. And I'm certainly not making money.

And I think of the job market with despair. This time around, I want to get a job that I actually like. And I don't know what that would be. But even that aside, every job that I see that might actually relate to what I do requires years of experience. And the only thing I have real experience with is food service.

And toil endlessly in a minimum wage job is so depressing. I want to do things with my life, but in my current situation, I don't feel free to do them. I feel guilty thinking of not working and finding hobbies. I want to learn to play guitar, I want to travel, I want to bike, I want to do what I want and it be productive and me not feel like I have to earn my keep. And as many times as David has assured me that I don't have to bring home the bacon... I don't know, I feel guilty about it.

And even worse when the bank rejects me for a credit card because I'm unemployed. Makes me wonder if the oil change shop down the street could teach me anything because even sitting around there making minimum wage sounds better than the despair of being worthless... or worth what I make, which is the same thing.

But that would require being subjected to the system. I don't know if I am ready to be free, but I'm not sure I want to give it up just yet.

So tired of all this. I want something to change.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Argumentative

I think in order to span the gap between religion, race, party affiliation, etc, we often come to a point of compromise with our friends and relatives. This is often manifested by an unwillingness to talk about things serious or potentially inflammatory. A Christian might be friends with a non-Christian, and they might not ever talk about religion. Democrats and Republicans often have to avoid their political stance or else get into arguments. Creationists vs evolution.

Our stances on some things have so fractured the population that we can define ourselves and put ourselves in groups. The groups can still be bridged, but the reminder that we our in those groups can get us heated. I made a comment about evolution and a friend hear and responded. When we both realized we were in disagreement about evolution, he proposed dropping the conversation. To keep things friendly, sometimes we accept differences without addressing them. Religion can be particularly tricky because those beliefs are close to our hearts and change how we view the world.

Also, we are so used to having to defend ourselves that either we don't bring it up, or bring it up defensively. I've been in a room full of Democrats that was so loud and offensive toward my more conservative beliefs that I would sit huddled in my seat, keeping quiet so I wouldn't get pounced on. I'm not laying the blame on Democrats in general; I'm sure there are Republicans just as bad or worse. I'm just saying that particular group was intolerant and self-righteous.

On the other hand, the right type or relationship can foster discussion and be built to survive it. Casual friends might want to avoid serious topics like this and keep their friendships light. But I have another friend who is very Democratic and politically minded. We were able to actually talk about our differences and discuss politics without attacking each other and name-calling. I hate it when disagreements turn so sour that the parties attack each other instead of the other's position. Arguments are meant to be logical. Calling the opposing side a moron does nothing good. And I think much of American politics has evolved into a stalemate where the parties disagree largely because they are used to it.

But the hard part is, when you do get in an argument with a friend, what happens next? Good chance nobody has changed their views? Do you just go on like nothing ever happened?

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Steamy

You know what? Steampunk. It is my new microfad. Thanks to my friend Thad, I picked up my first steampunk book. Before that, I read the comic Girl Genius and I knew that was steampunk and was able to identify the visual style... but I didn't know how that could be a book. So I read Leviathan and The Girl With the Steel Corset, and am now working on the Difference Engine. And I am now able to identify that stuff like Trigun, Fable III, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are all steampunk. And you know what? Steampunk is awesome.

Basically, steampunk is the rewriting of the turn of the century culture, so Victorian, cowboys, Europe. Take those and combine then with mad scientists, inventors, steam technology. It adding clockwork technology to this historical period. It could be a rewriting of our history, simply drawing things from our history, or a completely different world.

So what I want to do is write, or at least mess around with a steampunk reference western. Is that not a fun idea? Now I keep wracking my brain for what life was like at the turn of the century, with corsets, the Wright brothers, new automobiles, etc. Gotta know something to build on it.