phooky started reading Mirror Stage by Nora Khan (Holo, #3)
Mirror Stage by Nora Khan, Peli Grietzer (Holo, #3)
Guest editor Nora N. Khan and fifteen luminaries question our problematic faith in and deference to AI. Exploring the limits …
I'm just starting to read again, children permitting
This link opens in a pop-up window
Guest editor Nora N. Khan and fifteen luminaries question our problematic faith in and deference to AI. Exploring the limits …
Content warning spoilers and unwelcome frankness
I originally read this in the 80s, found a copy on the curb, and figured I'd give it a reread. This was a mistake.
For one thing, Farmer can't write Clemens. The entire conceit of the series is that you get to throw historical characters at each other; have fun with it! But no, his Clemens is dull and unfunny, terminally afflicted with Science Fiction Information Dump Syndrome. He's supposed to be leading a country, but he's just so dull you can't imagine anyone following him to the corner store for a cigar. Farmer doesn't manage to make him seem clever or even an entertaining curmudgeon.
And then we come to the other problem, which is that Farmer is of that generation of white sci-fi authors who really, desperately wanted to believe that racism was over. In the second half of the novel we're treated to pages and pages of "well, yes, racism was terrible, but now it is The Future, so please be reasonable", which ramps up into a war against a black nationalist state, rape, and eventually a stunning moment where Clemens "darkens his skin" to spy on the enemy.
It is kind of amazing that even in 1971 no one involved in editing or publishing this book sat down with Philip Jose Farmer and gently explained that he had, whether by intention or accident, written a novel in which Mark Twain wears blackface, and that he shouldn't have.
Anyway, a childhood touchstone that should never have been revisited. I tossed it in the trash.
Welp. That was significantly more bonkers than I was expecting, and my Bonkers Expectations were high. Do you like nested stories? Are you a fan of proto-science and mystical hoohaw? How do you feel about alternative dentistry? If you can answer any of these questions, respond in the form of an essay, seal it with beeswax in a brine-filled pickle jar, and launch it into the freaking sun, and then maybe pick up a copy of Locus Solus. Just buckle up for a bunch of random reductive and racist "exoticism" along the way, because this was written by a European guy in the first half of the twentieth century, and fucking of course. Recommended with a huge, sweaty asterisk, of the Vonnegut persuasion.
Based, like the earlier Impressions of Africa, on uniquely eccentric principles of composition, this book invites the reader to enter …
Patricia Lockwood's essay on Bear: lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n16/patricia-lockwood/pull-off-my-head
An object lesson in trying to be a fixed point in a fluid environment. Mike Duncan does a wonderful job of researching and presenting his story, but the "podcast voice" writing style is a bit jarring.
Best WTF: Jefferson offered to make Lafayette governor of the Louisiana territory. As my spouse put it, "strong token French friend vibes".
Welcome back to a Wonderland that is as astonishingly new as it is joyously familiar. Helen Oxenbury, one of the …
Look, illustrating Alice is hard. You're laboring in the shadow of Tenniel, and the comparison is going to be made. You can lean into the Tenniel iconography and add your own spin to it, as Disney did, or you can fight it tooth and nail. That's what Oxenbury's doing here, but she's working so hard to be Not Tenniel that she's forgetting to have any fun with it. Thus we have a Cheshire Cat that somehow "grins" without showing any teeth, playing-card people who just look like they're wearing playing cards, and weirdly sterile environments that seem terrified to include any imagery that isn't explicitly detailed in the text. Characters often float along with minimal background. Their expressions seem muted. If anything, it feels like Oxenbury is trying to bring a sort of naturalism to her illustrations here, which is, frankly, kind of a bonkers way of going about illustrating …
Look, illustrating Alice is hard. You're laboring in the shadow of Tenniel, and the comparison is going to be made. You can lean into the Tenniel iconography and add your own spin to it, as Disney did, or you can fight it tooth and nail. That's what Oxenbury's doing here, but she's working so hard to be Not Tenniel that she's forgetting to have any fun with it. Thus we have a Cheshire Cat that somehow "grins" without showing any teeth, playing-card people who just look like they're wearing playing cards, and weirdly sterile environments that seem terrified to include any imagery that isn't explicitly detailed in the text. Characters often float along with minimal background. Their expressions seem muted. If anything, it feels like Oxenbury is trying to bring a sort of naturalism to her illustrations here, which is, frankly, kind of a bonkers way of going about illustrating Wonderland. I love Oxenbury's children books, but she didn't really bring her A-game here.