![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Books, books, lovely books
Oct. 11th, 2005 10:34 amWarning: this entry is unlikely to make much sense to anyone who did not grow up in Russia.
Julie (my BFF :D) and I were discussing various books we loved when we were younger, and I realized how remarkably steady my tastes have remained through the years (and how freakishly similar our tastes were, but we knew that already). One of my favorite books when I was younger was БУССЕНАР's "Похитители бриллиантов" (Louis Boussenard's "Diamond thieves"). It was one of those rare books that as soon as I finished, I turned back to the first page and started again. It's an adventure novel, set in 19th century South Africa, and the two main characters, Albert and Alexander, must outwit bandits, police (who think they committed a murder they did not), hostile terrain, and oh yeah, rescue Albert's wife too from an unprincipled former suitor. My crush on Alexander knew no bounds. The thing is, the book has all the things I crave now: alpha, capable, angsty heroes who are not overly principled but have a bedrock of values. And they are REALLY capable. Strong women and angst for love. And a lot of hurt/comfort. A LOT. Also crocodiles, Boers, elephant hunts and caves full of diamonds. I reread the book a couple of years back, and startlingly, I still loved it.
There is also Mein Reid's "Headless Horseman" which is set in Texas in the 1850s and once again, is a total pattern for what I love: a complicated mystery, star-crossed angsty lovers (with a very strong-willed girl), a hero who is very alpha and capable (and named Morris, oddly enough) but angsts because Louisa is way out of his reach, exotic (back then to me) locales and adventures and heaps and heaps of hurt/comfort angst as the hero ends up almost dying, wounded and out of his wits trying to survive in the wilderness until he gets rescued and then is completely delirious as a lynch mob comes for him (to hang him for the murder that is the crux of the story) and Louisa tries to protect him regardless of her good name and he isn't conscous to appreciate it. Huge drama.
Yeah, I am predictable. There is of course my favorite science fiction book ever, Strugatskii's "Hard to be God" which I think has been translated into English and should be read by everyone (unless the translation really sucks). It's intelligent, and philosophical, and it makes you angry, and it makes you think, and it makes you hope. It involves a planet which is in a Medieval stage of development, so Earth sends in "on the ground" observers for study purposes, who are trained to blend in. The thing is, what to a researcher on Earth "interesting development, 200 people got killed in a routine feudal coup," to the person on the ground are his friends dying. Yet, they cannot interfere, shortcircuit the curse of history and give (e.g.) the more enlightened guys guns. But does standing back make you less human? When you start see people not as individuals but as masses, there's problems. The main character, Anton, is probably one of my favorite fictional characters ever, and the end? Wow. You see him fall apart more and more during the book, as he witnesses more and more events he knows he should not interfere in, but is morally repulsed to let proceed. He is a good man, whose humanity is outraged more and more daily, and he is teetering on the edge of losing it the whole book, and when he finally is pushed over the edge? It is wrong, and he shouldn't have done it, there is no question of that. But there is also no question that if he did not act, he would forfeit a claim to his own humanity, because it would be inhuman not to have a snapping point. And of course his actions do not make it better. Basically, I am rambling. Oh, also? Anton/Kira=OTP. The book really does make a point that people as people, matter. Kira is not even a blip in a history book, she didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But of course, she was the world to Anton, and her loss is not better for him because history does not care one way or another. And every person who died in any of these events hisorians record, routine palace coups, book burnings, little wars, really mattered to somebody. But, and that's why I love it, interference does not make it better for others. These people are not ready for modernity. Interference allows you to save your own humanity, but no more. I don't know how something so hopeless comes across as so hopeful, but it does.
Also, in the course of our conversation, I realized I never read Kaverin's "Two Captains" (adventure/romance about arctic pilots) which is a huge classic so I will be remedying it shortly.
Thus ends the entry of no interest to anyone but me.
Julie (my BFF :D) and I were discussing various books we loved when we were younger, and I realized how remarkably steady my tastes have remained through the years (and how freakishly similar our tastes were, but we knew that already). One of my favorite books when I was younger was БУССЕНАР's "Похитители бриллиантов" (Louis Boussenard's "Diamond thieves"). It was one of those rare books that as soon as I finished, I turned back to the first page and started again. It's an adventure novel, set in 19th century South Africa, and the two main characters, Albert and Alexander, must outwit bandits, police (who think they committed a murder they did not), hostile terrain, and oh yeah, rescue Albert's wife too from an unprincipled former suitor. My crush on Alexander knew no bounds. The thing is, the book has all the things I crave now: alpha, capable, angsty heroes who are not overly principled but have a bedrock of values. And they are REALLY capable. Strong women and angst for love. And a lot of hurt/comfort. A LOT. Also crocodiles, Boers, elephant hunts and caves full of diamonds. I reread the book a couple of years back, and startlingly, I still loved it.
There is also Mein Reid's "Headless Horseman" which is set in Texas in the 1850s and once again, is a total pattern for what I love: a complicated mystery, star-crossed angsty lovers (with a very strong-willed girl), a hero who is very alpha and capable (and named Morris, oddly enough) but angsts because Louisa is way out of his reach, exotic (back then to me) locales and adventures and heaps and heaps of hurt/comfort angst as the hero ends up almost dying, wounded and out of his wits trying to survive in the wilderness until he gets rescued and then is completely delirious as a lynch mob comes for him (to hang him for the murder that is the crux of the story) and Louisa tries to protect him regardless of her good name and he isn't conscous to appreciate it. Huge drama.
Yeah, I am predictable. There is of course my favorite science fiction book ever, Strugatskii's "Hard to be God" which I think has been translated into English and should be read by everyone (unless the translation really sucks). It's intelligent, and philosophical, and it makes you angry, and it makes you think, and it makes you hope. It involves a planet which is in a Medieval stage of development, so Earth sends in "on the ground" observers for study purposes, who are trained to blend in. The thing is, what to a researcher on Earth "interesting development, 200 people got killed in a routine feudal coup," to the person on the ground are his friends dying. Yet, they cannot interfere, shortcircuit the curse of history and give (e.g.) the more enlightened guys guns. But does standing back make you less human? When you start see people not as individuals but as masses, there's problems. The main character, Anton, is probably one of my favorite fictional characters ever, and the end? Wow. You see him fall apart more and more during the book, as he witnesses more and more events he knows he should not interfere in, but is morally repulsed to let proceed. He is a good man, whose humanity is outraged more and more daily, and he is teetering on the edge of losing it the whole book, and when he finally is pushed over the edge? It is wrong, and he shouldn't have done it, there is no question of that. But there is also no question that if he did not act, he would forfeit a claim to his own humanity, because it would be inhuman not to have a snapping point. And of course his actions do not make it better. Basically, I am rambling. Oh, also? Anton/Kira=OTP. The book really does make a point that people as people, matter. Kira is not even a blip in a history book, she didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But of course, she was the world to Anton, and her loss is not better for him because history does not care one way or another. And every person who died in any of these events hisorians record, routine palace coups, book burnings, little wars, really mattered to somebody. But, and that's why I love it, interference does not make it better for others. These people are not ready for modernity. Interference allows you to save your own humanity, but no more. I don't know how something so hopeless comes across as so hopeful, but it does.
Also, in the course of our conversation, I realized I never read Kaverin's "Two Captains" (adventure/romance about arctic pilots) which is a huge classic so I will be remedying it shortly.
Thus ends the entry of no interest to anyone but me.
