May 16, 2008

His Majesty’s Dragon

Oh my goodness, I hardly know where to begin. This book was so much fun to read! The basic premise is, it’s an alternate history of the Napoleonic Wars — with dragons! Yes, that’s right. There was an aerial combat corps (dragons) at the Nile, at Trafalgar, and so forth. Hoo boy!

Well, I have three things to say about this book, but before I get going, I must reiterate from my previous post that His Majesty’s Dragon does not read like a trashy best-seller. It is very well-written and well-planned. I detected no loopholes or forgotten threads in the plot, everything makes sense and hangs together, there weren’t too many adverbs, and aside from a couple of really minor events the plot twists were unpredictable.

Ok. First. As you know, I’m a big fan of Patrick O’Brian; I’ve read all twenty of the fabulous Aubrey-Maturin books several times each and I can’t seem to stop blabbing about it either. So I am by now fairly familiar with Age of Sail terminology, geography, and some of the major battles & historical figures. One of the things I love the most about PO’B is that there is no exposition at all in his books. He never explains anything to his modern readers. No paragraphs begin with “It was April, 1805. Napoleon had just…” And yet, somehow, you always know what’s going on. He doesn’t ever tell, but he shows. And because of that he makes you feel like an insider, like an accomplice. Yeah, you know what’s going on. True, he uses the plot device of making Dr. Maturin a clueless landlubber who doesn’t know larboard from starboard and can’t climb aboard without getting wet. But mainly what this does is make you laugh at the dear doctor; the fact that you too are learning the difference between larboard and starboard is secondary.

Naomi Novik does the same thing. Not only is there no exposition about the war or the society or any of that, but there’s no exposition about the dragons either. All is gradually revealed, but she doesn’t tell, she shows. She uses the same plot device, by the way, making the human protagonist an outsider who must learn the ropes. We incidentally learn along with the protagonist, but the fun is in his learning (and his occasional blunders).

The second thing I loved about this book is the way she integrates the dragons into the story. Now, I should confess that “High Fantasy” is my second-least favorite genre, beaten only by chick lit. (Aside: here’s my post on chick lit, if you are curious.) I don’t know why I should dislike High Fantasy, especially considering how much I love D&D, but there it is. Well, I should be a little more specific. What I really hate is High Fantasy that takes place in another world that has no reference to ours. I like fantasy if it includes some quasi-rational explanation for its existence. Roger Zelazny’s Chronicles of Amber are a great example of this — ours is one of many shadow worlds, etc. Or Harry Potter: the one thing I really like about them is that they take place in our world. Narnia, ditto — if you have the right wardrobe, you can get there from here.

His Majesty’s Dragon, of course, takes place entirely in our world. Not only that, but the dragons don’t seem at all like mythical or magical creatures. They just seem like rare, large, gorgeous, flying creatures. There are experts who study them; there is some attempt at explanation (they have “air sacs”); it’s evident that the author has thought about evolutionary adaptations and so forth. Their integration into the world, from a literary point of view, is absolutely seamless.

And third. While it’s obvious that this book incorporates two genres, historical fiction and high fantasy, I think it also incorporates a third: animal stories. I’d bet anything that the author was crazy about horses at some point in her life. Because that’s what the dragons remind me of. Super intelligent horses. I mean this in the best possible way. The way the captain’s relationship with his dragon grows from initial reluctance to acceptance and eventually deep love and mutual respect is as moving as anything you’ll find in James Herriot. And it’s interesting how Novik makes the dragons seem animal-like despite the fact that they are as intelligent (or more!) as humans. Why is that? I don’t know. I have to think about this some more…

Posted in patrick o'brian, reviews • Comments (4)

May 15, 2008

Weekly Geeks #3: Childhood reading, take 2

Well, I’m having so much fun reading other Weekly Geeks’ lists of childhood favorites that I thought I better post one of my own after all. I am going to try to list only books that I haven’t already mentioned in other posts. So no Joan Aiken, no Louisa May Alcott, no Arthur Ransome, C.S. Lewis, Susan Cooper, Lois Lowry, Madeleine L’Engle, Lloyd Alexander, Noel Streatfeild or Elizabeth Enright, and no obscure German authors in translation. (Yikes! Who’s left?)

Anyone remember Lotte’s Locket by Virginia Sorenson? I would love to get hold of a copy of this. Little Danish girl goes on an ocean voyage (what is it about me and ships?) and comes to America. I think it was America. She wrote letters to her best friend back home. I loved this book and I wish I could remember it better. I think I read other books by the same author but this was my favorite.

When I was in sixth grade I discovered Lois Duncan. Down a Dark Hall and A Gift of Magic were my favorites — oh I would love to read those again. And, in the same genre, A Candle in her Room, by Ruth M. Arthur, along with every other book by her that I could find. Oh, and Jane-Emily by Patricia Clapp. They were all creepy gothic horror stories and I ate them up.

Julie of the Wolves, by Jean Craighead George. My first wilderness survival story. My grandmother gave it to me for my birthday, inscribed “To Julie (no wolves)” — but I would have loved this book even if the main character didn’t share my name. That is, I loved the part where she was out on the tundra with the wolves; the other parts of the story (her “husband,” etc.) were not so good.

Another favorite author: E.L. Konigsburg. I especially loved her two historical novels: A Proud Taste for Scarlet & Miniver, about Eleanor of Acquitaine, and The Second Mrs. Giaconda, about the woman who was the model for the Mona Lisa. The writing was somewhat dry, but the subject matter was fascinating.

Posted in Weekly Geek, children's books • Comments (11)

May 12, 2008

Weekly Geeks #3: Childhood reading

The third Weekly Geek task is to write about fond memories of childhood reading. I have written quite a few posts about books I loved as a child already (here’s a post where I mentioned several) so I thought I would do something a little different this time.

I taught myself to read (my mom tells me) when I was about four. She says it was very sudden — I woke up one morning and I could read. I don’t remember this, but I do have two memories from my very early reading life that I thought I would share because they illustrate aspects of my personality that are still very evident today.

First. I remember having a library book called In the Big City. I loved this book. It was a Dick & Jane type book, but a little longer and somewhat more advanced than simply “See Spot run.” I can very clearly remember the pleasure I felt in being able to read it. I also remember loving the pictures. There was one problem though. I misread the word City in the title — I thought the C was hard. I imagined that for some reason the entire story took place within the gaping maw of a giant kitty. I could not understand why they never mentioned this curious fact in the otherwise-banal story.

So, um, what does this say about my personality that’s still evident today? Well, I never asked about the kitty. I figured it out for myself (at least I thought I did), and came up with a crazy theory on my own. To this day, I would rather figure things out on my own than ask someone else. Often, to my detriment. :-P

Second memory. Another library book, a beginning reader called Ann Likes Red. I did not like this book. I didn’t like seeing Ann spelled without the e (my best friend was named Anne), and I did not like the text font, which was either Futura or a look-alike. Of course I did not have the vocabulary at the time to be able to say that I didn’t like the font. But I have a very clear memory of my awareness that I didn’t like the story because I didn’t like the way the words looked on the page. And to this day, of course, I am not only obsessed with typography & design, but I am still, constantly, pondering the relationship between form and content.

Posted in Weekly Geek, children's books, print design, reading • Comments (11)