New Challenges?

Is anyone doing a new challenge? Want to do one?

I'd like to do another one :)

Genres I avoid: romance, western, hard sci fi, sword and sourcery fantasy, biography, tearjerkers, family dramas, chick lit, older classics

Favoured genres: sci fi (esp. cyberpunk and feminist), fantasy (except sword and sourcery) and general 'speculative' and non-realist fiction, modern classics
My tastes are kind of amorphous though, and in many cases I choose books according to style and story rather than genre, so even though I don't normally read romance for example, I still enjoyed Pride and Prejudice for its writing and strong heroine.

Anyway, let me know what you have in mind, we can always negotiate :)

I'd be happy to do challenge with someone from South Africa. My oldest son was there for a couple of weeks about 12 or 13 years ago.

I have just the book in mind, a western, by one of the best western writers ever. For me, I'm not sure what cyber punk is, but I'm guessing I wouldn't like it. I'm fine with strong female characters as protagonists, but "feminist" sounds like a writer trying too hard to send a message at the expense of the story. So either one would probably put me in new territory.

Cool, sounds good! What places did your son visit? I'll give you options for cyberpunk and feminist sf, and let you choose between the two.

Cyberpunk is typically near-future dystopian sci fi, and it focuses on the pros and cons of the relationship between the body and technology - between 'meat' and machine. So you'll come across characters whose bodies have been modified with machines, or who merge with machines - The Matrix is example from film.
If you want to read cyberpunk, I recommend Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. It's a bit long, but it's loads of fun, it's well-written, and mixes some Sumerian mythology with the sci fi. There's actually a South African cyberpunk novel I thought was pretty cool - Moxyland by Lauren Beukes. I don't know if you'll be able to get a copy, but if you can you're welcome to opt for it.

With feminist sci fi, there are the more intense examples, as with any story trying to send a message. However, there are many great stories that don't sacrifice quality for the sake of a feminist agenda. The characters aren't necessarily very strong either but the stories at least just show an understanding of the social values and requirements that are placed on gender. In feminist sf, despite the fact that the sf is male-dominated ito readers and writers, women (and men) saw the potential that the genre had for expressing ideas about gender. For example the alien has been used as a metaphor for the Other, the oppressed - women, racial minorities. Stories set in the future allow writers to explore alternative social structures and different attitudes toward gender, whether utopian or dystopian.
If you want to read this genre, I suggest The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.

You can find the Stephenson and Atwood e-books at www.truly-free.org. Otherwise, they should be available at a library (or bookstore, if you're willing to buy a copy). If you have a problem finding either I can suggest an alternative.

I'll give The Handmaid's Tale a try.
For you either The Good Old Boys or The Smiling Country its sequel, by Elmer Kelton. Both deal with the changes in the lives of people in the American West as modern times pushed out the days of the old west. Both deal with the same characters. I'd be hard pressed to say which is better. Of course, if you read The Good Old Boys and should happen to like it, then you have the other awaiting you. The first time I realized what writers mean when they speak of a novel being tightly written was when I read The Smiling Country the first time.

When my son went to South Africa I read The Covenant by James Michener and really enjoyed it. Have you read it?

I sent my son an e-mail asking him to refresh my memory of his time in S.A. I think he was in a couple of the major cities and also some of the countryside. He stayed, at least part of the time at one of the universities. There was some kind of political unrest concerning the school as I recall.

By the way, The Good Old Boys became a pretty good made-for-television movie starring Tommy Lee Jones.

If you're really not crazy about trying either novel, let me know and I can suggest something else.

OK, cool, I'll read The Good Old Boys, as long as I can find a copy. I'll be going to the library next weekend, so I'll let you know then.

I haven't read an Michener I'm afraid, but a colleague of really enjoyed The Covenant.

If you can't get The Good Old Boys I could send you a copy. Or, if it's like here in the United States, your library may have inter-library loan which allows for borrowing books from many other countries. I got a book from England one time, I think.

My son's reply to my request for a memory refresher on his time in South Africa:

I was in SA in the summer of '96, I believe. I was in Durban on the east coast. There wasn't unrest throughout the whole country, persay, just a little problem at University of Durban-Natal because the students were protesting. They shut the campus down for about a week or so, I think. And, yes, I did go to Lesotho for about a week which was a very nice experience. Your spelling isn't correct, but it is closer to what it sounds like thatn the real spelling.

I spelled it something like "Lesutou"

Thanks for the offer Charles :) If I can't get hold of the book I'll let you know.

I see your son was in SA just after the first general elections, when Mandela was elected. It was pretty peaceful, but I'm sure there was some unrest here and there, so I'm wondering if the student protest was political.
I haven't been to Lesotho myself, but some of my friends have, and I've seen pictures - it's very beautiful. Not sure what the towns are like though.

I started (The Handmaid's Tale) last night. Read only 30 pages or so, but like it to this point.

I got a paperback copy in nearly new condition at a used bookstore for $2.50. That's very cheap. Like what a 2 liter bottle of soda and a candy bar might cost.

Damn, tried the community library and the local university library and no luck I'm afraid, so I'll take you up on your offer to send me a copy :)
I'll PM you my address, but if you're on Bookmooch we can do it through the site if you prefer.

Glad you got off to a good start with Atwood :)

I'm not on Bookmooch, but am happy to mail you a copy. I'll put my e-mail address on your profile page.

I finished (The Handmaid's Tale) today. Inital impressions: It's well written, I enjoyed it for the most part, and Atwood's a good writer.

I'll mull it over for a few days, than write a review. I checked your reviews and was a bit surprised to find you hadn't written one for this novel.

There was a movie made of it, but that doesn't seem to be readily available.

I only started reviewing fairly recently, so I haven't gotten around to The Handmaid's Tale yet. Also, with my favourite books, or books that I think invite a good discussion, I prefer to write longer, more carefully considered reviews, rather than just listing a few quick thoughts.

I'm glad you liked it overall :) Looking forward to your review.

I haven't watched the movie either, or seen a copy anywhere, although I haven't really made an effort to find it. For some reason, I'm not really interested in seeing this novel filmed, I don't know why. I'd watch if I came across a copy of the movie though.

Have you received The Good Old Boys yet?

I'm late reviewing The Handmaid's Tale I know. I've been sick for several days and it looks like I'll need a few more days to finally get over it. It's Thursday afternoon here; I hope to get to the review Sunday or so.

Charles

Sorry to hear that! Hope you'll feel better soon! There's no rush anyway. I haven't received The Good Old Boys yet, but I got a notice to pick up a package at the Post Office, and I am only able to go on Saturday mornings. Hopefully it's your book :)

Thanks. I'm better this morning and getting ready to go to work.

Hope it is the book at the post office.

I received The Good Old Boys today. I'll start reading it, in between watching the soccer :)

Good. I meant to ask if you were into the world cup thing. America's a bit out of step with the rest of the world, in that here, soccer is a very minor sport.

I'm not really into soccer, but the World Cup is always a big event in SA, and now that we're hosting it it's HUGE. It's even making me feel a bit patriotic (except for those damn vuvuzelas, I will always hate them). I enjoy it more as an event than for the actual soccer, but I watched some of the matches with my boyfriend and I'll watch the SA ones of course.

I saw the USA vs England match yesterday, and I watched USA play Italy in the Confederations Cup last year. Your team has actually improved a lot, they're no longer just the underdogs, although it was very strange to hear soccer players with American accents :)

There was actually an email joke about Americans and soccer circulating here - one of your TV new stations showed a report on the World Cup but with a picture indicating that South Africa was in South America! Didn't do well for the American stereotypes, hehe, but your team is putting it's best foot forward, so hopefully your country will start taking more of an interest. Even as a non-fan I think it's a great event.

Glad you're enjoying the World Cup. I had to search the internet to find out what vuvuzelas are. They sound like the kind of thing that is fun mostly for the people blowing them.

I watched some videos on the internet about Cape Town. Looks like you live in a area with much natural beauty. Your weather sounds great. I guess it's winter there. Summer here in Arizona. We have several months where the daily high is usually over 38 degrees C. 43 is not uncommon and even as high sometimes as 45 + so I envy you your summers.

Americans have accents? No, the rest of the world does. :-)

My wife Gloria has read all of the "Ladies #1 Detective Agency" novels and has the first season of a t.v. series made from them. Have you read any of them?

I did see where our team tied England. Americans aren't usually too happy with a tie, but this seems to be a big deal.

Yeah, the vuvuzela seems to have become some kind of national symbol, but they're very loud and very annoying. Right now you can hear them being blown at all times of the day, even at 5:30 in the morning as people begin travelling to work.

Unfortunately I don't live in Cape Town anymore - I moved up to Pretoria last year. For a Capetonian, Pretoria is dull, conservative, and lacks diversity, but on the whole it's not too bad. I really wish I was in Cape Town at the moment though. You're right - it is very beautiful. It's also an incredible mix of cultures and interests that often don't extend to the rest of South Africa, and it's far more liberal than the rest of the country. My sister sent me some great photographs of some of the World Cups celebrations there from the past few days - I can email you some if you like.

It is winter now, which you will not envy as much as the summers - it gets very cold and rainy. However, the weather seems to be clear for the moment, which we hope will last until the end of the World Cup. Jo'burg and Pretoria, luckily, don't get rain during winter. Summer, as you say, is lovely and the beaches are always packed with locals and tourists. For the past two years Cape Town had some serious heat waves though. It didn't reach the temperature of your Arizona summers though - I don't think I could handle those!

I haven't read any of the Alexander McCall Smith novels, but they're very popular here :)

I think your team did well against England. FYI, in soccer a 'tie' is called a 'draw'. Anyway, it's a good result for an up-and-coming team. They'll be playing Slovenia and then Algeria next. My boyfriend says the US has a good chance of beating both those teams.

Just remembered to check the book for the pic of your grandson Caden - he's very sweet, and actually looks like he could be South African!

Wow. Finally got over being sick.

Here's my review:

In Margaret Atwood's novel “The Handmaid's Tale,” the author breaks one of the cardinal rules of modern fiction and gets away with it brilliantly. A story or novel is supposed to present the protagonist with a major life change pretty much right away, something out of the norm, something that threatens the character's world, something that must be dealt with immediately. Excessive back story kills the reader's interest, so we're told. In “The Handmaid's Tale,” Offred's daily life, and much of her past life make up the novel until page 174 of a 395 page novel (paperback version), only then does anything change in her world. It is a major change and ultimately could cost her her life.

Until this point in the novel, Atwood deftly keeps the reader interested and engaged. She keeps the reader deeply inside Offred's head as she shows life in the dystopian society where handmaids are only valued as long as they might possibly bring a child into a world with a vastly declining birthrate. Women are no longer allowed to read in the Republic of Gilead (A part of the future USA). Handmaids are allowed to shop once a day, the rest of the time they are pretty much restricted to their room. Once a month the Commander tries to get Offred pregnant with his wife participating, albeit in a rather passive way, and the reader is lead to understand that this is the life of all handmaids. They aren't allowed anything remotely resembling a romantic or private life. Other women are either wives, household help, or outcasts. All this has been brought about by the ultra-religious right, in parts of what was the USA.

I found “The Handmaid's Tale,” both totally believable and totally unbelievable. What's happening in the story's present and what we're told by Offred–the novel is in first person—of her past life is so detailed and told by such an world-weary narrator that it is impossible to disbelieve. What I never quite believed was how this society became the way it is. It isn't until some 20 pages after the major change in Offred's life that she gives any clue as to how society collapsed, how the evil powers-that-be gained power. By that time it was too late for this reader. There were too few details to convince me that this world actually could become the way it did.

In 2000 I read a novel, “The Accidental Pope,” by Raymond Flynn and Robin Moore. The basic premise was that a American fisherman, in the Boston area if I recall correctly, who had been a Catholic priest becomes Pope Peter II. I started reading the novel thinking there was no was the authors could make this believable. But they did. And it was pretty cool how they did it. Unfortunately, after the first one hundred or so pages, after the fisherman became pope, the novel bogged down into a so-so story. I have no doubt Atwood could have drawn a equally compelling story of how the Republic of Gilead come to be. For me, the novel would have been stronger for that.

I'm sure Atwood had her reasons for not doing so, probably pretty strong ones. I'd love to have the chance to talk with her about many of the major decisions she makes. Another example: (a minor spoiler) the novel doesn't end, it just stops. Offred is in danger and may or may not escape or be killed. Then Atwood presents 16 pages of “...a partial transcript of the proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Gileadean Studies, held as part of the International Historical Association Convention held at the University of Denay, Nunavit, June 25, 2195.” It speculates on who Offred was and her ultimate fate. This symposium was some 150 years after the events of Offred's diary, journal, whatever.

Had a lesser writer written this novel, I'd assume the author just got tired of the story and wanted a quick way to end it. With Atwood, a fine, often brilliant writer, I'm sure that's not the case. Perhaps she wanted to keep the focus only on Offred's time as a handmaid, not dealing with what came after. I'm not sure. What I'm sure is that the “Symposium” part was boring, as opposite from the rest of the novel as it could possibly be.

Ultimately, “The Handmaid's Tale,” is a well-written, compelling, novel, that deserves a read by anyone seeking a quality work. A slightly, very slightly, flawed masterpiece.

My review of The Handmaid's Tale:

In Margaret Atwood's novel “The Handmaid's Tale,” the author breaks one of the cardinal rules of modern fiction and gets away with it brilliantly. A story or novel is supposed to present the protagonist with a major life change pretty much right away, something out of the norm, something that threatens the character's world, something that must be dealt with immediately. Excessive back story kills the reader's interest, so we're told. In “The Handmaid's Tale,” Offred's daily life, and much of her past life make up the novel until page 174 of a 395 page novel (paperback version), only then does anything change in her world. It is a major change and ultimately could cost her her life.

Until this point in the novel, Atwood deftly keeps the reader interested and engaged. She keeps the reader deeply inside Offred's head as she shows life in the dystopian society where handmaids are only valued as long as they might possibly bring a child into a world with a vastly declining birthrate. Women are no longer allowed to read in the Republic of Gilead (A part of the future USA). Handmaids are allowed to shop once a day, the rest of the time they are pretty much restricted to their room. Once a month the Commander tries to get Offred pregnant with his wife participating, albeit in a rather passive way, and the reader is lead to understand that this is the life of all handmaids. They aren't allowed anything remotely resembling a romantic or private life. Other women are either wives, household help, or outcasts. All this has been brought about by the ultra-religious right, in parts of what was the USA.

I found “The Handmaid's Tale,” both totally believable and totally unbelievable. What's happening in the story's present and what we're told by Offred–the novel is in first person—of her past life is so detailed and told by such an world-weary narrator that it is impossible to disbelieve. What I never quite believed was how this society became the way it is. It isn't until some 20 pages after the major change in Offred's life that she gives any clue as to how society collapsed, how the evil powers-that-be gained power. By that time it was too late for this reader. There were too few details to convince me that this world actually could become the way it did.

In 2000 I read a novel, “The Accidental Pope,” by Raymond Flynn and Robin Moore. The basic premise was that a American fisherman, in the Boston area if I recall correctly, who had been a Catholic priest becomes Pope Peter II. I started reading the novel thinking there was no was the authors could make this believable. But they did. And it was pretty cool how they did it. Unfortunately, after the first one hundred or so pages, after the fisherman became pope, the novel bogged down into a so-so story. I have no doubt Atwood could have drawn a equally compelling story of how the Republic of Gilead come to be. For me, the novel would have been stronger for that.

I'm sure Atwood had her reasons for not doing so, probably pretty strong ones. I'd love to have the chance to talk with her about many of the major decisions she makes. Another example: (a minor spoiler) the novel doesn't end, it just stops. Offred is in danger and may or may not escape or be killed. Then Atwood presents 16 pages of “...a partial transcript of the proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Gileadean Studies, held as part of the International Historical Association Convention held at the University of Denay, Nunavit, June 25, 2195.” It speculates on who Offred was and her ultimate fate. This symposium was some 150 years after the events of Offred's diary, journal, whatever.

Had a lesser writer written this novel, I'd assume the author just got tired of the story and wanted a quick way to end it. With Atwood, a fine, often brilliant writer, I'm sure that's not the case. Perhaps she wanted to keep the focus only on Offred's time as a handmaid, not dealing with what came after. I'm not sure. What I'm sure is that the “Symposium” part was boring, as opposite from the rest of the novel as it could possibly be.

Ultimately, “The Handmaid's Tale,” is a well-written, compelling, novel, that deserves a read by anyone seeking a quality work. A slightly, very slightly, flawed masterpiece.

Thanks for the review Charles, glad you're feeling well again :)

I'd never thought about the storyline as breaking "one of the cardinal rules of modern fiction". I read a lot of novels with non-linear plots, so I never batted an eyelid with this one, but it's an interesting point. Would you not consider the past as a major life change (losing her money and job, being separated from her husband and children)?

I was also a bit curious as to how the government changed society so drastically, but I don't think the specifics of this interested Atwood as much as the current social structure and Offred's experience. I think its largely just an extrapolation of the relgious conservatism and religious fundamentalism Atwood had seen at the time. If I recall corrrectly, she had made a trip to the Middle East before writing the novel, and you can see the similarity between the Handmaid's outfits and hijab. In the Atwoodian group here on LT, it was recently mentioned that the religious fundamentalism of THT was scarily similar to religious conservatism in the USA.

Also, unlike her mother, Offred didn't seem to be that interested in politics, and I assume that the government wasn't exactly open about its workings, especially for women. Since we only know what Offred knows, the details of the takeover remain scanty. I can't remember what exactly the Commander told her when she asked him about it.

Regarding the abrupt ending - Atwood's philosophy about endings is that stories don't really have endings, except the arbitrary ones the tellers impose. I think she prefers abrupt endings because they're more sincere. It's a point where the author has chosen to stop telling the story, or, from the perspective of this book, the point at which we run out of Offred's tapes. Offred's story goes on; we just don't have the privilege of knowing about it. It can be frustrating, but I think in that way, the characters feel more real, less like the author's constructs, whose lives end when you run out of words.

I've finished The Good Old Boys. I will admit, I'd pretty much written the whole western genre off in my head as boring and probably quite lame - quirky language that's silly rather than funny, lone rangers, cowboys and Indians, stand-offs just outside the tavern in a dusty American town - basically all the cliches from the movies, but in a less-exciting form.

However, although there was very little action, I wasn't bored and I didn't think it was silly either. As I mentioned in my email, I like the tension between Cotton and Hewey, who embody the longing for the future and the longing for the freedom of the past respectively. Although, loving horses, I've always thought it would be really cool to ride instead of drive some of the time, I can't fathom roaming endlessly as Hewey does, or breaking my back working a farm as his family and friends do, so I tend to side with Cotton in terms of modernisation. On the other hand, the consequent pollution and destruction of natural landscapes is disturbing. I can also understand Hewey's resistance to the changes, which must have seemed very scary for his generation.

Although it wasn't mentioned much, the massacre of the Native American Indians hangs in the back of mind - it's almost inseparable from the idea of a western. The past that Hewey has such nostalgia for is one that involves a genocide. I always felt like their sentimentality involved a failure to acknowledge a massive amount of violence, or at least a refusal to view that violence as a bad thing. That's not to say that Kelton should have included more about the Indians - he's telling someone else's story, and using that perspective. But to me there's something disturbing about that point of view.

You asked what I thought of Eve - well, she's harsh, but I think she's just a person making the best of a tough situation. As a woman she doesn't have the option of being a cowboy. To an extent, Hewey sees her as tying his brother down, but what other chance does she have for survival other than to get married and work a farm? Spring is in a better position. As a teacher she can at least make her own money.

Anyway, I'll write a more formal review and post it here when I'm done :)

Finished my review at last! Sorry that it took so long; I was fussing over it a bit too much, and it ended up being longer than I intended.

My very first western, chosen for a reading challenge where two participants get each other to read a genre the one enjoys and the other avoids. I wasn't entirely sure what to expect, other than an encounter with the lone ranger archetype, easily defined good guys and bad guys, and quirky language I'd come across in the movies. This turned out to be pretty accurate. Hewey Calloway, a classic commitment-phobic, freedom-loving cowboy returns to his brother Walter’s home to visit the family he’s been missing. Hewey’s been roaming free for so long that he’s been given up for dead, but he’s warmly welcomed, except by his sister-in-law Eve, and his oldest nephew Cotton. Cotton is a typically taciturn teenager, struggling with the growing differences between himself and his family. Eve and Hewey have never really gotten along as his adventurous lifestyle has always clashed with her industrious homemaking. The Calloways are facing a particularly challenging year – the loan they’ve taken out from the bank will have to be repaid soon, and the bankers are waiting eagerly for any misfortune that will allow them to repossess the farm and make cheap, desperate employees out of Walter and his sons.

This family drama sets the stage for the tale ahead. The Good Old Boys is not the “wild wild west” adventure that generally characterises the genre (at least, in terms of the little I know about it). It’s a slow-paced but entertaining story set in a time when life is often hard but the west is no longer so wild – the Native American Indians have been wiped out, and the land is being claimed and fenced off. Consequently, it’s not Indians and outlaws that Hewey has to worry about. Instead he fears fences, automobiles, and the growth of towns and cities – the signs of a modernizing economy that’s curbing the freedom that characterizes his existence, and has no place for wandering cowboys. Hewey’s generation is aging, and it doesn’t look like there are any young cowboys to follow them. The “good old boys” may well become the “good for nothin’ old boys”, as Eve puts it, unless they give up their freedom, settle down, and get jobs. Hewey’s fears about modernization and settling down constitute the novel’s main themes, and these are neatly embodied in his relationships with Eve and Cotton.

Perhaps the only person Hewey fears, Eve is a tough woman who has successfully ‘tamed’ Walter, making a hard-working farmer out of a commitment-phobic cowboy. She is admittedly harsh at times, but in more tender moments is revealed to be a person who is simply making the best of a difficult situation. As a woman she can never have the lone ranger lifestyle. For her, survival requires hard work and a husband. Eve fears Hewey as much as he does her because he might tempt Walter away from farm and family life, leaving her destitute. She would like to him to settle down, not only for her own peace of mind, but also so that Hewey won’t come to the miserable end she forsees for him: dying alone, far from home, where he can expect little more than a pauper’s burial and his family might never hear of his demise.

Cotton has a different gripe with Hewey. Excited and optimistic about technological progress, Cotton is breaking away from the previous generation. He’s fascinated by automobiles and other modern machinery. At night, he often chooses to read about science and mechanics, rather than sit around talking to his family. He no longer shows any interest in Hewey, with his exaggerated tales and false promises. Hewey is an unabashed bullshitter, embellishing stories with lies to make them more interesting, or making sociable promises that he soon forgets. As my partner in this reading challenge suggested, this is just a part of the cowboy culture. Cotton, however, has been hurt by Hewey’s lies, and now finds his uncle’s tall tales frustrating. In addition, he just doesn’t care about the lifestyle those stories glorify: he’s interested in the future, “needing and wanting little from what had gone by” (283).

Hewey on the other hand, doesn’t understand Cotton’s fascination with cars – in his opinion, a horse travels as fast as a man would ever want to go and the automobile is just a noisy, dirty, fad that will never catch on. His own experiences with modernization are negative: an authoritarian sheriff who pistol-whips Hewey for riding down an upmarket residential street, an arrogant, rich car owner, a bank that threatens his family with homelessness. All these are associated with the elitism that gives power to those with money and oppresses those without it (like Walter and Eve).

In the final third of the novel Kelton picks up the pace, heightens the drama, and resolves Hewey’s conflicts in a manner that acknowledges the inevitable march of progress, but gives the good old boys a last victory. The ending is happy, but feels a bit sad too, like a nice gesture given in pity for a lifestyle that no longer exists. It’s a nostalgic tribute to the cowboy, to the freedom he can never have again, to the adventures that won’t be relived, except in books and movies.

I have to admit that I started this novel thinking that a western would probably be silly and possibly boring too. The Good Old Boys was neither. It certainly has its quirks (like men name ‘Snort’ and ‘Fat’), but it’s a strong, entertaining story and a convincing portrayal of American life at the beginning of the twentieth century. The themes and character dynamics kept me interested despite the slow pace in the first two thirds, and although the happy ending was mostly predictable it was also pleasant.

However, this is not a genre I’ll continue to read. I think a key element to enjoying a western is having a sense of nostalgia or sentiment for life in the early American west. As a horse-lover, I’ve always thought it would be really cool to travel on horseback, but other than that living in the society of the western sounds like a nightmare. It’s too hot, too conservative, a tad xenophobic, being a cowboy is mostly boring and dirty (even Hewey admits he has to bullshit to make cowboy’s life as exciting as it’s assumed to be), being a farmer is backbreaking. Consequently, even though I liked The Good Old Boys, it will remain the lone ranger of my western reading experience.

Lauren:

Some thoughts on your comments on my review of "The Handmaid's Tale." (What a lot of prepositions in the last sentence!)

You wrote: I'd never thought about the storyline as breaking "one of the cardinal rules of modern fiction". I read a lot of novels with non-linear plots, so I never batted an eyelid with this one, but it's an interesting point. Would you not consider the past as a major life change (losing her money and job, being separated from her husband and children)?

You are quite that in her past she did experience a major life change. But the point is that it was in the past. The conventional wisdom is that, for the modern reader, the major change has to happen in the story's present and it has to happen as soon as possible. Jim Sallis, a fine writer and teacher, says there are no rules to writing a novel if you can make it work. Atwood makes it work, in my view anyway.

My comment that the novel doesn't end, it just stops is, in retrospect, both misleading and innacurate. Misleading because I really don't have a problem with a story that doesn't wrap up everything at the end. And the "The Handmaid's Tale," does have an end. But it's that "Twelfth Symposium on Gileadean Studies" that really bothered me. It's awkward and boring. I'd have preferred that Atwood ended the novel without it. One of the positives about having a dialogue with someone is it can help you rethink and refine just what you meant.

Re your review on "The Good Old Boys."
I'd have to agree with most of what you said about it. It is a bit predictable in that there's no way Hewey can win his particular fight. Modern times are coming and will roll right over him.

You wrote: "I think a key element to enjoying a western is having a sense of nostalgia or sentiment for life in the early American west."

I'd never really considered why some people enjoy westerns. What you say is probably true for some readers. I suppose many readers like the action in the usual western novel. Those often aren't any better than the romance novels churned out for women. What satisfies me about a good western is no different than what satisfies me about any good novel, i.e. strong and interesting characters (quirky can be good) in a challenging and/or dangerous situation with emotions and reactions I can relate to.

"...even though I liked The Good Old Boys, it will remain the lone ranger of my western reading experience." That would be too bad. There are westerns that are great within the mold you'd expect and westerns that are great breaking new ground in the genre. "Little Big Man," by Thomas Berger does deal with the massacre of Native Americans and is even quirky and kind of funny too.

"Heart of the Country," by Greg Matthews is a gem, showing the reality of life in the west and also quirky. This by an author who had the nerve to write a novel earlier titled :"The Further Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," and not only didn't embarrass himself, but did a fine job. Both are big novels, in size and quality.

I wonder how what was done to the native people in your country was like and unlike what was done to Native Americans.

I've enjoyed our challenge and exchange of e-mails.

Thanks for your comments Charles. I've really enjoyed this challenge too. There's no other way I would have read a western, and I would have held on to my misconceptions of the genre. I'd ranked it with crappy romance novels in terms of writing quality, entertainment and intellectual stimulation, but you and Kelton proved me wrong :)

Re Atwood ending: I admit, I don't like it either, it's pretty boring. I think perhaps Atwood just wanted to contextualise the story a bit, as well as make the reader aware that part of the narrative may be missing or inaccurately remembered. It's also nice to know that there is at least something of a happy ending as the fundamentalist regime of Gilead no longer exists. But yeah, Atwood could have done it better. I also get annoyed at the somewhat casual attitude to a story that I found extremely powerful and touching.

RE: I think a key element to enjoying a western is having a sense of nostalgia or sentiment for life in the early American west.
In retrospect, this is far too great an assumption about the western readership. As you mentioned, many people are probably interested in the action. I made that statement because, when reading the book, I enjoyed the story but still felt alienated from it, not because it was about a lifestyle different from mine, but because I just wasn't all that interested in the context. I figured that perhaps I might enjoy the novel more if I thought the west was cooler or something.

I wouldn't refuse to read a western now, but I won't seek them out either. In the list of stories that interest me, the westerns simply don't rank very highly. The only thing I've ever really liked about the genre are the horses. Do you know of any good sci fi westerns? :)
I watched Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust a few years ago. It was a pretty decent mashup of genres (including sci fi and western).

Ooops, got to go, will comment on apartheid and Native American Indians later, cheers!

Don't know of any sci fi westerns. Might be interesting.

Looking forward to your further thoughts.

I guess you could call Uncharted Territory a SciFi Western.

(sorry for horning in, I've been following your discussion with interest.)

sqdancer: You're not horning in, glad to hear from you. I'll give Uncharted Territory a try, though it may be awhile. I'm reading a couple of other books now and have another on hold at the library.

Your view of westerns and anything by Margaret Atwood?

So, re: Apartheid and Native Americans

I've never really compared the two, and my knowledge of American history is sketchy. I guess the biggest difference is that the Indians were nearly wiped out, whereas in SA, (and Africa as a whole) the black population is by far the majority, and that's always been the case. Ironically, in SA blacks are the minority in terms of power, but the majority in terms of numbers.

In terms of similarity, well, I suppose both problems can be blamed on Europeans :) In addition there's the idea that white western saviours are civilising the savages, rather than stealing their land.

What do you think about the comparison?

sqdancer: thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out. And you're quite welcome to jump in, as is anyone else!

The Europeans who came to the new world after Columbus discovered America were a pretty hardy, daring group. Just crossing the ocean on those ships in those days was a good way to die early. Then, settling in a wilderness area encouraged a certain mentality, what has been called "rugged individualism."

As the nation grew and expanded, those same types of people moved west. Americans eventually came to have a belief in "manifest destiny." I remember a rather poor little poem in a history book during my early school days that explained the idea:

Manifest destiny
not a boast
meant we'd expand
from coast to coast.

In other words, the United States were destined to encompass all the land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

I'm rememering the poem after 45 or 50 years. I hope everyone is suitably impressed. ;-)

Then you throw in the civilizing the savages excuse you mentioned, the bringing them religion excuse and the they're not really human thing and it explains alot. Wars are only possible if most of those fighting demonize their enemies.

In reality, only a small percentage of Americans were involved in killing Indians. Also, most of the Indians (Native Americans) were pretty warlike long before white people came to the continent. Apaches--in what came to be known as Arizona and probably parts of New Mexico--regularly raided Mexico stealing horses, killing, and taking captives. Mexicans replied in kind.

There are many examples of Whites and Indians living peacefully, but that doesn't make exciting books or movies. In fact, many writers of the day never came out west and just made up what they wrote.

The technologically more advanced society won out. The same thing will happen to humanity if there are beings from another planet who are technologically more advanced than we are and if they want planet earth.

None of this is to suggest that what was done was acceptable.

Ironically, Native Americans, in some ways, have a pretty good deal now. They are considered soverign nations (if you go on their reservations you are subject to their laws), but are American citizens. They don't pay many of the taxes other Americans pay, yet they are eligible for benefits from the American government. Many tribes have casinos and rake in millions of dollars. (This isn't true of all tribes. Those in the northeastern parts of Arizona are tragically poor.) In Arizona a new baseball facility for baseball spring training is being built on reservation land. That will bring in a ton of money.

I'm wondering, re apartheid and its aftermath, what will happen when the black majority reaches full power in SA. Do you think there will be a backlash at whites? A great blood bath? How do the common people of all races get along now?