A review of the reviews to date: updated with the last eleven reviews added to the first Review Round up in August. The next section is scattered throughout, and the last two are posted as partial reviews very early on. Linked are the novel (usually at amazon), its author (sometimes), and a link to my review. The first reading is realism (Grittiness), the second is readability.
I did not have enough room to go back over the cozy question again. The post originated with an Excel file, so I may go over a deeper categorization later.
Realism had to exclude the cause of disaster, because some books that are very real and very gritty had fairly unlikely or nearly impossible disasters. Only when the very nature of the disaster caused unique problems within the book did I deduct for that. Speculative science fiction tends to be more interested in ideas than realism, so they are often relatively unrealistic. Beyond that, many of these books had a sense of whimsy or adventure, that may make for a good story, but tend make the reality of the situation fuzzy. For instance, Nova's Gardener Summer combined very well thought out economic collapse with an odd cowboy western mystique. If the novel has many little interesting vignettes as the hero wanders through a strangely altered landscape, you may have something of an interesting hero quest, but you don't have realty.
Note that the readability issue should not be taken to much to heart. Some types of books are easier to bring an excitement and energy level to than others. Flue pandemics make for a pretty fast paced immediacy. Slow collapse novels, or novels that go deeply into character preparations tend to be a little more difficult to keep moving. The "L" for literary in the type is to let you know that the book is well written, but not necessarily an easy read. There will not be a ton of action, and it likely will be very brooding. Many of these novels are intended for a different audience than your typical action-based novel.
I did the numbering quickly to avoid too much circular cross-comparison. It is very possible I may have made a mistake somewhere. There have been no complaints to date, which I suspect implies more mystification than concurrence.
Review Roundup | Type | Disaster | Real | Read | ||
AP | EC | 4 | 4 | |||
Neal Stephenson | NoA | - | 5 | 5 | ||
Sigrid Nunez | AP, L | D | 3 | 4 | ||
Robert Edric | AP, L | GW,EC | 6 | 3 | ||
John Grit | AP | D | 7 | 7 | ||
John Cape, Laura Buckner | AP | PO, EC | 6 | 6 | ||
PA | PO, NP | 7 | 7 | |||
Ervin Sim | PO, SF | G | 3 | 3 | ||
Guy Salvidge | AP | GW, EC | 6 | 6 | ||
I Sniper | Stephen Hunter | NoA | - | 6 | 7 | |
Will McIntosh | AP, SF | B, PO, EC, GW | 5 | 6 | ||
Kurt Cobb | NoA | - | 5 | 5 | ||
Ardath Mayhar | AP | N | 5 | 5 | ||
C, SF, YA | PO, GW, B | 4 | 6 | |||
Honey Brown | AP | D | 7 | 7 | ||
AP, L | EC, D | 6 | 7 | |||
C, SF | PO, GW, B | 4 | 7 | |||
C, SF | GW, PO, NP | 4 | 6 | |||
PA | GW | 5 | 6 | |||
Cormac McCarthy | PA | PD | 6 | 6 | ||
Nathan Poell | AP, PA | W | 5 | 5 | ||
Stephen Pressfield | NoA | - | 7 | 6 | ||
Chris Sullins | AP, M | EC, NP | 7 | 4 | ||
Jean Hegland | AP, L | EC | 7 | 5 | ||
AP | PO, GW | 5 | 4 | |||
Jack Womack | AP, L | EC | 5 | 4 | ||
AP | GW | 5 | 5 | |||
Richard Michaels | AP | N | 7 | 2 | ||
Alex Scarrow | AP | PO, NP | 7 | 7 | ||
Terry DeHart | AP | N,E | 6 | 4 | ||
Carla Buckley | AP | D | 7 | 6 | ||
Louis L’Amour | NoA | - | 6 | 5 | ||
Neil Strauss | NoA | - | - | 6 | ||
AP, M | EC | 7 | 4 | |||
AP, YA | M, V | 6 | 5 | |||
AP, YA | M, V | 7 | 6 | |||
AP, YA | M, V | 7 | 6 | |||
AP | N | 7 | 5 | |||
Philip Revene | C | EC | 5 | 5 | ||
PA, SF | W | 4 | 3 | |||
AP | PD | 5 | 5 | |||
Reviewed Earlier | ||||||
Thomas Park | AP | EC, NP | 5 | 4 | ||
AP | GW | 5 | 5 | |||
Michael S. Turnlund | AP | EC, NP | 5 | 3 | ||
Nova | AP | EC | 6 | 5 | ||
PA | GW | 3 | 4 | |||
AP | D | 7 | 6 | |||
B.T. (Brooks) Post | AP | EC, GW, NP | 6 | 5 | ||
Michelle Widgen | AP, L | PO, GW | 7 | 7 | ||
Partial Reviews | ||||||
Doris Lessing | AP, L | EC | 5 | 4 | ||
William R. Forstchen. | AP | E | 6 | 4 |
Type: | AP = Apocalypse in Progress | |||||||
PO = Post Apocalypse | ||||||||
C = Collapsed- The agency of collapse is mostly past | ||||||||
M= Militia Element | ||||||||
SF= Elements advanced enough to be unfamiliar to us today | ||||||||
L= Literary (think low on action, lots of talking) | ||||||||
YA= Young Adult NoA= Not Apocalyptic | ||||||||
Disaster | N= Nuclear | |||||||
E= EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) | ||||||||
D= Pandemic Disease | ||||||||
PD= Plant Disease | ||||||||
B= Biotechnology | ||||||||
PO= Peak Oil | ||||||||
NP= Nefarious plotters trying to bring the world down | ||||||||
EC= Economic Collapse (other than peak oil) | ||||||||
NN= Nanotechnology | ||||||||
V= Volcano | ||||||||
M= Meteor or Comet strike | ||||||||
GW= Global Warming | ||||||||
W= Weird Science G= God or supernatural forces | ||||||||
Real | Realistic in tone - is it trying to portray an expected future. | |||||||
7 = yes this will happen 4= barely possible1 = strong elements of fantasy | ||||||||
In most cases, where the effect is not ongoing, I am not factoring in unlikely disaster types. | ||||||||
Read | Readability = is it a fun or at least easy book to read. | |||||||
7 = classic4= somewhat enjoyable 1= challenging; literary works often tend toward the challenging. | ||||||||
Note that you will enjoy a "4" if it is your type of book, but probably hate it if not. |
1 comment:
Note: I did see a comment here on the earlier set of reviews:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19492
I would comment there, but I have never had much luck signing up on forums.
They had a comment about why the Road only got "6s" and Last Light got "7s".
I would agree that The Road is a stronger overall book.
But Last Light is a page turning "thriller." As such it is easy to read and moves very quickly.
Also, somewhere buried in the notes, I had noted that I left out the actual cause of the collapse as part of the "grittiness" factor. To many books used "stand-ins" for their collapse as a way to get a story moving without bogging down in political arguments, etcetera.
The Road has elements that I find slightly implausible. Survival on cannibalism that late into the disaster being a prime one. Last Light is helped in this regard by not being so ambitious, and taking place in a current setting.
I think you could make a reasonable argument to reverse those ratings, but I am reluctant to do so until more of the classics (eventually) get reviewed. I have already noticed a drift in the ratings that may box me into a corner eventually. Some mistakes/adjustments are likely.
Post a Comment