Blog Watches Dog

Do MSM blogs stack up? Blog Watches Dog

I’ve really got to sign off now, but here’s an article that will repay reading when I’m more alert. Chicken Yoghurt (who with his kind friends offered me lots of tagging help via his blog when I once left a plaintive comment) has written a piece for the Press Gazette about mainstream journalists’ blogs.

This piece is written in advance of the Guardian’s upcoming "Comment is free" uberblog — which is being said (by the Grauniad, of course) to be a sort of UK version of Huffington Post.
I wonder…..time will tell. (Have never actually read the HP, though Techonrati is very "in your face" about it.)

Crime and science fiction

Light reading: Household deer

This is an interesting (as ever) posting on Light Reading about crime and science fiction. The last paragraph, that is, the first part is about Jonathan Lethem, whom I know a lot of people (including Jenny D, author of this blog, and the "cool London" fraternity) enjoy and admire, but whom I could not get along with the one time I tried him.

Jenny D says that she reads more crime than SF, which she puts down to there being more crime fiction out there, and hence better writers. She also almost says, but not quite, that the imagination involved in crime fiction is rooted in the rational wheras in SF is more fantastical.

I don’t know — I like crime fiction but I am not sure why, becuase like anything else to do with self-analysis, one’s capacity for self-delusion is limitless. I think the reason is that crime fiction is like a puzzle, and the puzzle drives the plot, providing a logical framework of progression for the reader. There is a sense of "working out the logic" to crime fiction that seems to me to be akin to the process of science (real science, not SF) — which I can say, having been a scientist.

Crime fiction always has a body or some gruesome aspect. I don’t like this, especially when dwelt on, but on the other hand I like even less the subgenre called "cosy" in the USA, in which everything is bloodless (like the movie of Narnia, though I did quite like that despite its lack of even the tiniest bit of gore in the battles). But all that slow-mo chopping up of corpses in early Patricia Cornwell and most of Kathy Reichs — forget it. Karin Slaughter gets the balance about right.

I also find that as I get older my memory and concentration aren’t as good as they were, and a book with a plot is good for those failings, compared with beautiful somewhat plotless writing that does not discernibly go anywhere, apart from this reader’s mind wandering – a sad truth, but concentration is necessary to get the most out of these kinds of book.

I’ll have to return to this idea, as it’s late and I can’t keep my thoughts focused. I do think that SF appeals to young people (this is true for me, certainly), and is a "phase" genre — once you’ve read a certain amount, can you read more of the same? SF is to me frustrating as it does not obey laws of Earthly logic, which make me comfortable and is one reason I like crime fiction — on some level, the reader has to believe in the denouement.

To return to writing ability, crime does, as Jenny D says, include some really rather good stylists, for example "Nikki French", Val McDermid, Ian Rankin et al. Of course there are masses of clunky examples too (like the dreadful "Dying to Tell" by Robert Goddard which I’ve just read and which is so bad in almost every respect possible I won’t write anything about it as I could only be mean about it). There are also writers, like Jonathan Kellerman, who start out really rather good, but who succumb to fame and the pressure of churning out one (or two, more recently) a year — and everything suffers: plot, writing style, characterisation, authenticity, etc. The extreme end of this scale is James Patterson, whose latest Alex Cross book (say) has no relation whatsoever to the first, apart from the names of some of the characters.

To return to the topic when more awake/inspired.

Jenny D said…

Jonathan Kellerman had an astonishing downhill plummet over the course of his career!

Someday we must get together and have an actual non-virtual drink and conversation about books. I’m too zonked out right now to write a sensible response to your interesting post; but I do think there’s some very good sort-of-but-not-really-SF out there (Geoff Ryman for instance really is a great writer); and I urge you to try Lethem’s "Motherless Brooklyn" if that wasn’t the one you tackled before, it is pleasing in the same ways that ‘genre’ fiction is but the language is exceptionally good.

3:55 AM

Dave Lull said…

Like you, I read SF when I was young, and now am more likely to read crime fiction instead, except for one kind of SF: the near-future, Earth-bound, dystopian, noirish cyberpunk. I especially like William Gibson.

Like you, I tried one of Mr Lethem’s books (_Gun, With Occasional Music_), but didn’t get very far. However, like Jenny, I would urge you to try _Motherless Brooklyn_, which I almost couldn’t stop reading.

1:09 PM

Maxine said…

Ok, I’ll give Lethem another try sometime. I think it was Motherless Brooklyn I read, so from what you both say there isn’t much hope for me…

9:35 PM

DVC/HBHG 0, Judge Peter Smith 3.

Don’t you just love Mr Justice Peter Smith, the judge in the Da Vinci Code case? Somewhere buried in the Times today, after splashes about tiny sticking plasters in Kate Moss’s ears and the resurgence of rhubarb, is today’s update. It is the best story I’ve read in the main news sections of the paper in ages.

Mr Smith had already read both books before the trial began, but adjourned it for six days so he could read them both again. Armed with copies full of yellow stickies, he is wiping the floor with Michael Baigent and his lawyer(s).

When the defendants got onto the early kings of France, and the issue of whether they were direct descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the judge said to counsel, " You have to get to page 345 of DVC to get the first mention of the Merovingian bloodline."

Matters moved on to the Priory of Sion, a secret organisation protecting the descendants of Jesus with a view to restoring them to the French throne. Baignent argued that the Priory’s political ambitions, which in HBHG are to create a United States of Europe with the help of the freemasons, are "implicit" in DVC (and hence copied). The judge said " In DVC the Priory is only a society dedicated to protecting a secret. There’s no politics in it. That’s the impression I get." He went on to tell Baigent: "Your conclusion about the Priory of Sion is exactly the opposite of DVC. You can’t get away from that."

Isn’t it lovely? This judge has the case of a lifetime, and, boy, is he making the most of it.

Mind you, the more one hears about how Baigent can’t even remember what was in his own book, or backs down on yet another point, or raises issues like the "at least one" car chase in DVC compared with none in HBHG, the more one becomes convinced that the whole thing, as has been said more than once, must be a Random House publicity stunt — and, from the plot snippets provided, what a load of old tosh both books are. Much better reading the judge’s take on them than having to read either.

equiano said…

I tried reading the Da Vinci Code, I really did, but I can confirm it is a load of rubbish. The judge’s story is far more compelling!

2:36 PM

Anonymous said…

I wish I had had a job where I could spend hours making up a code instead of tending to business. No wonder the judicial branches, both in the UK and US are so screwed up.

12:37 PM