Having finished 'Dhalgren' I dove right in to something a little lighter, I've already finished 'The Borders of Infinity' by Lois McMaster Bujold.  It's a collection of three short stories set in the Vorkosigan universe that I've been saving for a little while now, just finishing 'Dhalgren' seemed like the right time.  Borders didn't win any awards for best novel, though one of the short stories in the book, 'The Mountains of Mourning,' won both the Hugo and Nebula for best novella.  Maybe I'll try to read all those once I've finished off all the novel nominees, also maybe I shouldn't set goals for ten years down the road.

Now I've moved on, I'm reading 'Jack of Shadows' by Roger Zelazny.  It's a different book, really in keeping with Zelazny's style.  He's got a real seventies thing going, but he does write great books.

I was thinking a little about 'Dhalgren' after I finished it.  Even though I really enjoyed the novel and think it's both important and groundbreaking I'd be hard pressed to say it's actually entertaining.  Several reviewers had things to say about the book being for smart people only, and that 'dumb' people wouldn't like the novel.  Most reviewers will go out of their way to say that the book definitely isn't for everyone.  I'd agree with that assessment, but I think it's more about being in the right mindset when you pick up the novel.  I'm sure there are people that pick up Faulkner or Plato for a little light Sunday reading, but if you're anything like me you really need to prep yourself before you tackle a book like that.  I'd put 'Dhalgren' in the same category as those two.

Another thing to think about before you crack this book open is: What are you actually looking to get when you read a book?  Some people are just looking for a little relaxing entertainment, and that's fine.  But, if that's the case then you should probably avoid this book.  'Dhalgren.' 'Moby Dick,' 'Magister Ludi,' 'Robinson Crusoe,' these are all books that I'm very glad I've read but did very little to entertain me, and all of them bored me close to tears at some point.  But, they're all important works that inspire thought and introspection.  For me sometimes that takes the place of entertainment on whether or not I want to read a book, I just need to be ready when I set out to do it.  Stumbling into 'Dhalgren' like I did was probably not the best way to get introduced to the book.

There are some difficult books to read out there and I think the manner in which you approach them is just as important as what you're looking for in a book.  I think being forced to read 'Catcher in the Rye' when I was a kid influenced my enjoyment of the book, and I know being forced to read 'The Great Gatsby' ruined the novel for me.  It's important to approach whatever book you're reading organically, and actually wanting to read a book is probably the first place to start.  I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'smart' people like these books and 'dumb' people like those books.  No one reads just one type of book all the time, even I take a break from SF from time to time.  Goal be damned I need a break every now and then. 

I just put up a review of 'Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell' by Susanna Clarke.  I suppose I could really do without writing these little previews to my reviews, the reviews are right down there anybody can see them, but there are a few things I don't put into the reviews that I'd like to say about the books.  For this one it's that a reader would almost expect something a little more dense and meaningful than what you find in Strange and Norrell.  Not to say it's bad or anything, more that it's pleasantly surprising to find a book this long and this complex that is just aiming to entertain.  I really liked the book, and I give Susanna Clarke my best wishes on completing the sequel to this novel.  She worked on this novel for over a decade so I wouldn't expect anything too soon, and she's already mentioned some health problems so it might never happen.  There were enough unanswered questions left over at the end of this book to warrant a sequel, I mention some of them in my review.  I kind of feel like those questions only arise because I wasn't an astute enough reader.  So much of the novel was revealed right at the end during the conclusion, I kind of raced through it, if anyone feels like they know more than me jump right in and tell me so.



Who could resist this cover?



I've kind of set up a pattern of reviewing one book that's more modern and well known followed by a lesser known older book, so my next review will be Norman Spinrad's 'The Void Captain's Tale,' a book that's just amazing based on concept, and not bad in the delivery department either.  I've almost got it finished and I'll post it today or tomorrow. 

I haven't decided what I'm going to read next but I'm thinking about Delany's 'Dhalgren.'  I won't come right out and say it's going to be my next book as I've started and put it down several times, but after a book as long and entertaining as Strange and Norrell I kind of feel like something difficult and challenging, so maybe this will be the time I can get into it.  You need to be in the right mood for Delany and I think I'm there.  If not I think I'll read Effinger's 'What Entropy Means to Me,' I really like Effinger's work and it's got this fabulous cover that I really need to get to the bottom of.  It's a Nebula Nominee cult classic, it says it right there.

I read a lot of books in a given year, but I think it's a bad idea to look at that as a statistic that carries any meaning.  I could read hundreds of books in a year if they were all as short and easy to read as 'Glory Road.'  Little two hundred page paperback adventures, or I could read about ten 'Dhalgrens' in a year, these complex and dense stories written to challenge the reader.  If I try to read both 'Dhalgren' and 'Gravity's Rainbow' in the same year there's no way I'll read more than about thirty books.  I made fun of some friends once and said I could read more books in a year than three of them combined, but that's just me talking.  It's more important to read things you want to read, not focus on length or ease of reading. 

I'm trying to do this project because I want to, I like to read SF and I like to write about it as well.  Sometimes I'll finish books quickly and sometimes I won't.  I can try to project when I'll finish all the Hugo and Nebula nominees by estimating how fast I read over how fast they're added, but that's another statistic that has no meaning, I'll be done when I'm done.  If I stop enjoying SF I'll stop writing reviews.  But a person shouldn't feel bad if they don't finish books as fast as I do, I certainly don't feel jealous if a person reads faster than me.  I do get embarrassed sometimes if I forget to mention or don't know something important about a novel (like 'The Man who Folded Himself' being based on a Heinlein story like I brought up last week) but the speed at which a person reads is not something to take much pride or shame in.

I'll put up that review for Void Captain soon, and I'll try to post on what I'm reading next.  If it's 'Dhalgren' don't expect a review for at least a month, and even then don't expect it to be very meaningful.  Even if I finish it I don't expect to have a strong enough grasp to write a good critique, Delany's a lot smarter than I am.