50 Book Challenge 2016 Part Six

[southeastdweller]

Thread six of the 50 Book Challenge for this year.

The challenge is to read fifty books (or more!) in 2016, though reading fifty isn't mandatory. Any type of book can count, it's not too late to join, and please try to let us all know your thoughts on what you've read.

The first thread of 2016 is here, second thread here, third thread here, fourth thread here and fifth thread here.

Am fairly certain I fell asleep before the end of Brokeback Mountain. Tedious film. DH has a track record of dozing off too if bored, and I don't think he got to the end either

"Anyone else wondering how GCSE texts are selected after the relevation that unfortunate school children are being forced to study Never Let Me Go?"

No but I did give thanks to whatever higher power might be that I never studied in the UK

I enjoyed The Piano. But then again, I like playing the piano AND I like movies with great visuals. Those scenes with the piano on the beach were exquisite

Child 44 wasn't the best book I ever read and the rationale for the killer's motivations was a bit of a stretch, but iirc it had good pace & plot, and it was very good at evoking the atmosphere of Soviet Russia. Much better in this respect than The Holy Thief, imho. It was the 1st thriller to be nominated for the Booker Prize.

Never Let Me Go was just stupid. None of it made any sense. Even sheep would have better instincts of self-preservation and would make an effort to save themselves. Utter bunch of morons. I just wished they would hurry up and die.

It was not stupid. That book about the flying stranded super mall.... Now that was stupid

Tanaqui- I also liked Meet Joe Black. I'm not a huge fan but thought Brad Pitt was very pretty in it. Mind you, can't remember very much about the film itself.. And I liked The Piano and thought Brokeback Mountain was excellent. The most boring films for me are those big budget, pants-script blockbusters like the Star Wars episodes 1-3. Yawn. And I'm in the liking Never Let Me Go camp.

wilting - I guess all things are relative! I try hard to avoid stupid books although failed miserably with that John Dies At The End crapola so wouldn't know about flying malls

I got conned into reading Never Let Me Go because it was supposedly good & literary, written by a good & literary author. It was nonsense. Why on Earth would clones not resist the authorities who will cut them up and take their organs? Why don't they run for the hills? Why don't they get organized and fight back? Who would clone people if at the end you will just get random organs and not your own anyway, and inevitably suffer tissue rejection problems?

Even the author recognizes that he has not given proper thought to all this and says it's "not really SF". Well excuse me, anything you write about a future where clones are raised for organ harvesting is SF. You just couldn't write a good one.

I tend to avoid 'SF-written-by-non-SF-authors', just for that reason, Cote - too many literary authors think they can get away without doing the groundwork because they're 'better than that'. (The Handmaid's Tale excepting - but then MA has written quite a bit of SF, though I don't like the others myself.)

Though at this point I am tempted to stray into poitics and suggest that the people of this country might be doing a good imitation of the organ-harvestees . . .

"I tend to avoid 'SF-written-by-non-SF-authors'"

My thoughts exactly. It is a very difficult genre to get right - flowery words & beautiful descriptions won't save a SF book if the plot isn't airtight and all the details are not plausible.

It is hard to write good sf- it's hard to write a good well plotted thriller or detective story too, I think genre writers get unfairly dismissed.

I really liked The Time Travellers Wife though, and that was certainly sf/f marketed as literary fiction.

And The HandMaids Tale was excellent.

I didn't think that Never Let Me Go was stupid. I actually found it to be more believable because of its setting and the nievety of the characters.

Most of the science fiction I have read, admittedly not that much, I have found to be crushingly dull and overburdened with technical detail.

I also didn't think Never let me go was stupid, it was wonderfully sad and benefitted from not getting bogged down in the actual science of the organ harvesting - however, the total passiveness of all the clones annoyed me too, that not one of them tried to resist, or even stopped bothering to protect their bodies so they were fit to be harvested (while I can see why they would go through with the harvesting if there was nothing else available to them, I didn't get them avoiding smoking/drinking/drug taking/shagging about with 'normal' people in order to preserve their health).

I know Cote isn't big on 'feelings' in books, but some SF does struggle for me by not having emotionally beleivable characters who don't show enough range of emotions, NLMG seemed to be missing the feeling of anger from the characters - some would just be resigned to their fate, but all of them not rebelling at all just isn't believable (unless they'd included something about being genetically engineered to be obedient, that seemed to be missing).

(Sorry for the rant!!)

Ah Cote, I found it completely believable from that perspective (that the clones would not fight back/organise whatever). I've seen that criticism before and I am bemused that people don't think it is believable. This is a world where the German nation followed Hitler into the utter abyss after all. And voted for him every step of the way. This is a world where people are screaming for Trump. It is a world with increasing religious cult like hysteria.

The behaviour of people in Never Let Me Go is an easy swallow for me in comparison to what is actually going on around me

Like any book, I guess it depends what you want from your reading, but it is certainly not a stupid book. You just didn't like it

Did you not recommend Spares by that Marshall guy? Another book about cloning... might have been someone else.

Hitler lied, though. Jews were told they were going to live in some Jew town, not sent off to be gassed. Other Germans were told the same lies.

These clones know for a fact that they will lose vital organs one by one and die. Yet, what do they do? Nothing. They say "Ah well, it is what it is" and get in line for the operations. FFS I've seen sheep protest more during Ramadan.

Oh and if you thought that was plausible, I've got a pretty bridge you might be interested in buying. It's cheap

No.

He didn't actually. Hitler was very clear about what he wanted to do. We'd like to think he lied but that's not really the case. He was clear from the beginning they were a bacteria that needed to be exterminated from Germany. He used the language of genocide right from the start.

There are women walking around (in the west) apparently thinking burkinis are a good idea, covered from head to toe, and covering their small girls, apparently by choice.

There's a certain sector screaming for Trump to win who's also been pretty clear about the kind of things he wants to do.

Hell the UK just voted for Brexit on the basis of a packet of lies Let's reinvent the wheel! For the hell of it!!

There are cults where everyone has killed themselves in a mass suicide.

And you think people created for the sole purpose of being clones and conditioned to that from birth acquiescing in that is unlikely? How is it that different from what happened in WW2?

Oh well. I guess I've a more jaundiced view of the human condition than you

Wilting - it was my understanding that the spiel initially was that Jews were not wanted in Germany, but were being resettled elsewhere. It wasn't until the Wannsee Convention that the Final Solution was articulated, and even then there was continued propaganda to suggest that there were happy Jews in new places. I think I read somewhere that 'false' camps were even created, with prisoners getting more food and being kept healthier, to fool people that all camps were like that.

It's really hard to know who knew what. Certainly lots of people were involved in the extermination camps and knew exactly what was going on, but the leadership certainly didn't want everyone to understand that.

57. 61 Hours by Lee Child This is a good one, although the countdown gimmick isn't really neccessary. It has a couple of funny bits, some fairly good characterisation, and both the right and the wrong people die!

Yes, what Remus said.

There is no parallel to what happened in WWII. If Jews were set free and told to report back when it's time to be gassed, I really don't think they would.

Thanks Satsuki. I think Judy Blume might actually now be my most reliable author (like the thread in the main reading section). She doesn't disappoint and seems to achieve an easy read, that stays with you. Probably in part because she doesn't tend to choose fluffy subject matters.

Moving on to 19 and 20. I've read a few ya books.

19. Eleanor & Park, Rainbow Rowell The best thing and worst thing about this book is the ending. There is a part that is left unanswered, which is pretty infuriating, though it does make you really want to know. Leading up to this, the last chapter is too rushed. It doesn't feel like its written by the same author, because it loses her tone. That said, its fairly charming. To summarise the story, its the teenage relationship of Eleanor and Park. How the unlikely pair get together against the backdrop of her terrible home life, which you learn more about through their conversations. Its also set in the 80s which means its peppered with TV and musical references. Overall I liked it, and I do feel a sense of hind sight after reading it. The 'ah I think that was a clue' sensation. Overall an okay read.

20. fire colour one, Jenny Valentine. Its poor. I had the sample saved in kindle and when it came up in monthly deals I bought it. I wish I hadn't. I just couldn't work out what the point of the book was, and seriously considered stopping. Story was too vague. The characters weren't well developed. It didn't really have any structure. The sad thing was that the author introduced several elements, that would have made a far more interesting read than they cobbled together combination. Absolutely not worth buying, especially for a teen.

Yet another really interesting debate about Never Let Me Go. Probably the most controversial book on this thread :)

Just picking up on Dinosaur's comment earlier - and this is a question not just to to Cote but anyone else - could the clones have been modified or possibly brainwashed into obedience and acceptance of their fate?

I'm not a sci fi reader so don't know if that theory has been explored in other novels. . It's a while since I read NLMG, but I did enjoy it. Found it interesting, and I think it certainly has caused a lot of discussion and thus would be perfect for study at GCSE level. Would love to hear what kind of arguments come out of the classroom.

"could the clones have been modified or possibly brainwashed into obedience and acceptance of their fate?"

That could have been, but definitely was not. No such thing was mentioned or even hinted at anywhere in the book.

As a reader, I'm not in the business of filling in plot holes or imagining additional story lines through which the story might make sense. Even a mediocre author is supposed to be able to put together an internally consistent story that makes sense on its own. This sort of thing really pisses me off. Frankly, anyone who can't be bothered to construct an airtight story complete in detail that makes sense shouldn't try to write a SF book.

"I'm not a sci fi reader so don't know if that theory has been explored in other novels."

A few. You may have seen the film The Island with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, where rich people clone themselves for future organ harvesting or even to give birth for them. These clones live sanitary lives (sporty but no contact sports, no touching whatsoever, obviously no sex, etc) in a sealed building because they are told the outside world is too contaminated. Except for one paradise island to which sometimes one can go if they win the lottery (that is when they are taken out for their organs, never to return). Not a bad premise for a story.

There was also a book called Spares which had a pretty decent take on the whole 'disposable clones for organs' story.

"caused a lot of discussion and thus would be perfect for study at GCSE level. Would love to hear what kind of arguments come out of the classroom."

I read a lot of SF as a teenager and would have shot down NLMG in class like a lead balloon

I'm only about a quarter of the way through, and the early chapters definitely set up how strongly conditioned they are as children not to question anything, to obey rules, to have (and be happy with) limited options, and to be far removed from the cut and thrust of the outside world. What it does not explain is whether there is any kind of genetic engineering to reinforce this conditioning, as they do all seem incredibly docile and unquestioning - there is not the range of different personalities you would expect.

I am racking my brain to try and remember something I read years ago, with a premise similar to The Island, in that the clones were specifically for rich individuals, but wasn't the Island. And it wasn't Spares - though I have read that.

could the clones have been modified or possibly brainwashed into obedience and acceptance of their fate?

Aside from this not being mentioned anywhere, even if that's the case, the greater freedom they have when adults (before the harvesting starts) doesn't make much sense.

If you were in charge of breeding and raising clones, wouldn't you be concerned that the clones might come into contact with normal people, or media, that makes them question their fate?
Wouldn't you be concerned that at least some of them might start wondering why other people get to live to a ripe old age, or get curious about trying risky (from a might damage the organs point of view) activities like drink and drugs and sex and so on? Or get depressed about the whole thing and start self harming?
Or even concerns that the clones might catch contagious diseases? I mean, if you've gone to all the trouble of cloning them in the first place, it's a waste of effort if you let them wander around in public and they then catch some nasty contagious disease that might kill them before they've had a chance to donate their organs for the greater good

And what about the general public's attitude? Think about animal rights activists, for example, and the campaigning they do about not testing drugs etc on animals. It's not unheard of for animal rights activists who feel extremely strongly about the issue to resort to violent tactics in attempts to shut down animal testing. Is it really conceivable that no one at all would object to sentient clones being bred for organ donation, or that any objections would be limited to nothing more direct than a few letters to MPs / newspapers?

So even if the clones are brainwashed or whatever (and I agree it's shoddy writing to not mention it if that's supposed to be the case), I don't think it's likely that all the population would be in complete agreement that harvesting the clone's organs would be just fine. Especially if the adult clones are out and about, where they might meet the general public and form friendships or acquaintances, or even just get the public thinking uncomfortable thoughts about the clones seeming just like ordinary people.

Surely there'd be a real risk of normal people developing moral objections to harvesting clones, or people already with strong moral objections, who would attempt to rescue / unbrainwash clones wandering about in public?

It just doesn't hang together properly for me.