I guess the YA Dystopian fiction genre has exploded over the past few years. So that's cool. The only problem is, when I look for more books to read within the genre, I end up seeing "rave reviews" for books that turn out to be very much not to my taste. You don't really get a list of tropes used by the individual books until you've already started reading them.
I think reviews should be more honest. People often talk about either how much they love a certain book or about how much they hate it, but they less often say, "I liked A, B, C about this book, but I hated D, E, F about it." So in this post I'm going to explore dystopian fiction tropes that I like and dislike, and how the books that I've read in this genre use these tropes.
I think my least favorite dystopia trope has already been covered--it's when the main character is basically a mindless, unquestioning part of the clearly illogical dystopian society and some sort of outside force (or supporting character) forces the main character to change his/her views. I'm not interested in a character who doesn't have any of their own thoughts. Wake me up when the book is written from the point of view of the secondary character who forces the main character to question their lives (even if the second character ends up dying, or turning evil).
Here is what I do like when it comes to post-apocalyptic or dystopian fiction:
A main character who makes good choices. Don't betray your friends and then expect me to forgive you easily. Also, if the main character is stuck between two awful choices, make them think of a third option (I'm talking to you, One More Day Spider-Man1). Think, or force your way out of a bind through sheer determination. This is fiction; use your imagination!
A good cast of supporting characters. If the main character is the only good guy out there, what exactly am I rooting for?
A happy ending, or at least a not-completely-depressing ending. (Except for classical tragedies, where the main character is brought down by a fatal flaw.) That's my own personal thing, and I know different people have different tastes, I just don't get why anyone would want to read a book that, afterwards, makes them not want to get out of bed in the morning.
So here are all the dystopian novels I've read and what I thought about them:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Divergent: Harry Potter meets The Hunger Games
(So I have to admit that I didn't google the term "Harry Potter meets the Hunger Games" and I won't, until I post this, because if I'd found out that a thousand other people had thought of it first I would have been too discouraged to finish the post.)
There's only a certain number of times that one can re-read The Hunger Games trilogy over a six-month period1, and the movie isn't coming out until forever from now2, so in the meantime, I've been looking for a book to read that I'll love exactly as much as I loved the trilogy.
The first step was to look for "best ya sci-fi books" on Google and see what looked interesting: this resulted in my acquiring a free Kindle sample of Feed by M.T. Anderson, Delirium by Lauren Oliver, The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson, White Cat by Holly Black, The Summoning (and the rest of the Darkest Powers trilogy) by Kelley Armstrong. Matched by Ally Condie and Glow by Amy Kathleen Ryan were recommended by a friend.
Some of them I didn't read past the free sample, some of them I finished, some of them I even liked, but I didn't love any of them, and they certainly couldn't satiate my Hunger Games craving.
Um. I promise that pun was unintentional.
In the process, I realized that I am a big fan of the dystopian/post-apocalyptic genre but am not a fan of many books that fill that genre. I don't like the trope where the main character is a brainwashed, unquestioning part of society and then a secondary character opens their eyes and gets them to question everything they ever thought was true. Why on Earth doesn't the story follow that character? Shay in Uglies is a much stronger character than Tally (although I did like Tally in the second book). I didn't read past the sample in Delirium, but Hana seems way more interesting than Lena. And, even though I started it years ago, I was never able to get past the first few pages of Fahrenheit 451.
Also, I realized that I hate "Best _____ books" lists, because people will just list as many popular books as they can think of in that genre. Really? You just happen to love every single best-selling YA post-apocalyptic series? What are the odds? (The next post, no promises, will go into why I like and dislike different dystopian/post-apocalyptic tropes and will have a breakdown of which books I love, which books I didn't love, and which books I couldn't finish.)
Anyway, eventually I ran across Divergent by Veronica Roth, and it was exactly what I was looking for. I loved it the way I loved The Hunger Games and before it, Harry Potter, and before that--well, before Harry Potter I was probably obsessed with Christopher Pike books or Fear Street or whatever, so let's just pretend that Harry Potter was my first literary obsession.
So, Divergent. It's not really a dystopia, exactly. It's just a post-apocalyptic society that is different than present-day societies, and it has advantages and disadvantages (as do present-day societies). One of the disadvantages is that it's terribly unrealistic, but that's where the Harry Potter part comes in. Society is split up into five factions based on personality type and values, and when people turn sixteen, they choose which faction to join (until then, they live with their families). There are Abnegation and Dauntless (which together I would classify as Gryffindor), Amity (Hufflepuff), Erudite (which would correspond with Ravenclaw according to its definition but plays more of a Slytherin role in the story), and Candor (which plays the role of Ravenclaw).
It doesn't make much sense for a society to be split into factions according to personality type, but it worked in Harry Potter and I think it works here as well.
Our heroine, Beatrice/Tris, comes from Abnegation, where selflessness is valued above all, and doesn't feel she really fits in there, but is also uncomfortable about the idea of leaving her family and what it says about her that she's not selfless enough for Abnegation. Without spoiling her choice, she makes a choice and then the story continues from there. The book has loads of action (check), likeable secondary characters (check), hateable antagonists (check), and a gripping plot. Plus there's a whole lot left over for the second book to explore.
On the downside, one thing jumped out at me that the editor absolutely should have caught. Towards the end of the book, Tris makes a startling, shocking discovery about one of her family members that turns her world upside down. Crazy, no? Well, except for the fact that she had already discovered this fact much earlier in the book. I mean, it's not just hinted at--she flat-out tells the reader what she's discovered halfway through the book, and then at the end, she's shocked to find out this thing that she already knows. Unless I'm misinterpreting the second time she discovers it. Or, possibly, this is changed in a different version of the book.
Another thing that I wasn't crazy about was how long it took her to figure out the truth about Four, both his motives and his history. Maybe I've just been reading too many books with twists lately, but it seemed obvious to me and I wasn't impressed with the fact that it took Tris so long to put two and two together.
But aside from those two things, I'm very happy with this book and looking forward to the next part.
Also, I'm looking forward to the next post, where I examine what tropes I like and dislike in dystopian/post-apocalyptic fiction and how it applies to all of the books I've read (and put down) within that genre, including the Big Two3.
PS: I realize I didn't actually list any similarities between Divergent and The Hunger Games, so let's just do that quick:
1) Strong female teenage protagonist who loves her family
2) Post-apocalyptic society
3) Lots of action and violence
4) The end
1. Two, it turns out.
2. Kri: March
3. Yeah, you know, the big two. You know.
There's only a certain number of times that one can re-read The Hunger Games trilogy over a six-month period1, and the movie isn't coming out until forever from now2, so in the meantime, I've been looking for a book to read that I'll love exactly as much as I loved the trilogy.
The first step was to look for "best ya sci-fi books" on Google and see what looked interesting: this resulted in my acquiring a free Kindle sample of Feed by M.T. Anderson, Delirium by Lauren Oliver, The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson, White Cat by Holly Black, The Summoning (and the rest of the Darkest Powers trilogy) by Kelley Armstrong. Matched by Ally Condie and Glow by Amy Kathleen Ryan were recommended by a friend.
Some of them I didn't read past the free sample, some of them I finished, some of them I even liked, but I didn't love any of them, and they certainly couldn't satiate my Hunger Games craving.
Um. I promise that pun was unintentional.
In the process, I realized that I am a big fan of the dystopian/post-apocalyptic genre but am not a fan of many books that fill that genre. I don't like the trope where the main character is a brainwashed, unquestioning part of society and then a secondary character opens their eyes and gets them to question everything they ever thought was true. Why on Earth doesn't the story follow that character? Shay in Uglies is a much stronger character than Tally (although I did like Tally in the second book). I didn't read past the sample in Delirium, but Hana seems way more interesting than Lena. And, even though I started it years ago, I was never able to get past the first few pages of Fahrenheit 451.
Also, I realized that I hate "Best _____ books" lists, because people will just list as many popular books as they can think of in that genre. Really? You just happen to love every single best-selling YA post-apocalyptic series? What are the odds? (The next post, no promises, will go into why I like and dislike different dystopian/post-apocalyptic tropes and will have a breakdown of which books I love, which books I didn't love, and which books I couldn't finish.)
Anyway, eventually I ran across Divergent by Veronica Roth, and it was exactly what I was looking for. I loved it the way I loved The Hunger Games and before it, Harry Potter, and before that--well, before Harry Potter I was probably obsessed with Christopher Pike books or Fear Street or whatever, so let's just pretend that Harry Potter was my first literary obsession.
So, Divergent. It's not really a dystopia, exactly. It's just a post-apocalyptic society that is different than present-day societies, and it has advantages and disadvantages (as do present-day societies). One of the disadvantages is that it's terribly unrealistic, but that's where the Harry Potter part comes in. Society is split up into five factions based on personality type and values, and when people turn sixteen, they choose which faction to join (until then, they live with their families). There are Abnegation and Dauntless (which together I would classify as Gryffindor), Amity (Hufflepuff), Erudite (which would correspond with Ravenclaw according to its definition but plays more of a Slytherin role in the story), and Candor (which plays the role of Ravenclaw).
It doesn't make much sense for a society to be split into factions according to personality type, but it worked in Harry Potter and I think it works here as well.
Our heroine, Beatrice/Tris, comes from Abnegation, where selflessness is valued above all, and doesn't feel she really fits in there, but is also uncomfortable about the idea of leaving her family and what it says about her that she's not selfless enough for Abnegation. Without spoiling her choice, she makes a choice and then the story continues from there. The book has loads of action (check), likeable secondary characters (check), hateable antagonists (check), and a gripping plot. Plus there's a whole lot left over for the second book to explore.
On the downside, one thing jumped out at me that the editor absolutely should have caught. Towards the end of the book, Tris makes a startling, shocking discovery about one of her family members that turns her world upside down. Crazy, no? Well, except for the fact that she had already discovered this fact much earlier in the book. I mean, it's not just hinted at--she flat-out tells the reader what she's discovered halfway through the book, and then at the end, she's shocked to find out this thing that she already knows. Unless I'm misinterpreting the second time she discovers it. Or, possibly, this is changed in a different version of the book.
Another thing that I wasn't crazy about was how long it took her to figure out the truth about Four, both his motives and his history. Maybe I've just been reading too many books with twists lately, but it seemed obvious to me and I wasn't impressed with the fact that it took Tris so long to put two and two together.
But aside from those two things, I'm very happy with this book and looking forward to the next part.
Also, I'm looking forward to the next post, where I examine what tropes I like and dislike in dystopian/post-apocalyptic fiction and how it applies to all of the books I've read (and put down) within that genre, including the Big Two3.
PS: I realize I didn't actually list any similarities between Divergent and The Hunger Games, so let's just do that quick:
1) Strong female teenage protagonist who loves her family
2) Post-apocalyptic society
3) Lots of action and violence
4) The end
1. Two, it turns out.
2. Kri: March
3. Yeah, you know, the big two. You know.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
If P=NP then the Terminators/Cylons1/Ultrons will win.
This is a very tongue-in-cheek theory that I have, but it might spark some interesting2 discussion:
If P=NP, then The Inevitable Cybernetic Revolt is more likely be successful, with the computers ruling us all. Alternatively, if P≠NP, the humans have a good chance of coming out on top.
For anyone who's not familiar with the P versus NP story, check out the Wikipedia article, which has a very clear, non-technical introduction.
If P≠NP (or, at least, if if's not proven that they are equal), I'll place my bets on humans, and this is why: Assuming there is a war, and it comes down to strategy, and some problem in NP-complete3 comes up, and whichever side can solve these problem/s faster will win the war (just go with it, okay?), science fiction has taught me that in a case like this, humans will always win because we have something called intuition--that's a fancy word for when you're always right but you can't show your work--whereas the robots would have to go through the choices one by one before arriving at the truth.
But, were a proof to come out that P=NP, that would completely change the playing field.
See, this question of P and NP is 40 years old, and no one's solved it one way or another. Therefore, one might conclude that human brains aren't wired for this type of thinking. But if just one proof comes out that they're equal, then that would mean that there is a problem in NP-Complete that is solvable in polynomial time. That proof would eventually come out, the robots would learn it, and from that point on, all of them would be able to instantly reduce4 any NP problem to this and solve all these problems in polynomial time before the humans could even blink.
Quick, someone, tell me I'm wrong.
1. I'm only up to the middle of Season One of the reimagined series; no spoilers please!
2. Yes, yes, for varying definitions of "interesting."
3. This article's a little more technical--let's just say that if P≠NP, then NP-Complete is a group of problems that can be verified quickly but cannot be calculated quickly.
4. Eh, don't bother reading past the first sentence unless you already know what reduction is.
If P=NP, then The Inevitable Cybernetic Revolt is more likely be successful, with the computers ruling us all. Alternatively, if P≠NP, the humans have a good chance of coming out on top.
For anyone who's not familiar with the P versus NP story, check out the Wikipedia article, which has a very clear, non-technical introduction.
If P≠NP (or, at least, if if's not proven that they are equal), I'll place my bets on humans, and this is why: Assuming there is a war, and it comes down to strategy, and some problem in NP-complete3 comes up, and whichever side can solve these problem/s faster will win the war (just go with it, okay?), science fiction has taught me that in a case like this, humans will always win because we have something called intuition--that's a fancy word for when you're always right but you can't show your work--whereas the robots would have to go through the choices one by one before arriving at the truth.
But, were a proof to come out that P=NP, that would completely change the playing field.
See, this question of P and NP is 40 years old, and no one's solved it one way or another. Therefore, one might conclude that human brains aren't wired for this type of thinking. But if just one proof comes out that they're equal, then that would mean that there is a problem in NP-Complete that is solvable in polynomial time. That proof would eventually come out, the robots would learn it, and from that point on, all of them would be able to instantly reduce4 any NP problem to this and solve all these problems in polynomial time before the humans could even blink.
Quick, someone, tell me I'm wrong.
1. I'm only up to the middle of Season One of the reimagined series; no spoilers please!
2. Yes, yes, for varying definitions of "interesting."
3. This article's a little more technical--let's just say that if P≠NP, then NP-Complete is a group of problems that can be verified quickly but cannot be calculated quickly.
4. Eh, don't bother reading past the first sentence unless you already know what reduction is.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Jerusalem Dog Stoning: About 2,160,000 results
There is an article that was published, and then refuted as a hoax1, in Israeli newspapers, then picked up by the BBC2 and spread around the world. This article refers to a dog that was supposedly sentenced to death via stoning by a Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") rabbinical court. The contents of the article are so ridiculous that if this even were based on a true story, the published version is completely embellished to the point where it would be unrecognizable, but the major news websites all over the world have reprinted the worst possible version of the story without question.
At first I thought it was funny how outlandish this story was and that anyone would print this garbage. Then, suddenly, the story was everywhere. BBC, Yahoo, TIME, Gawker, are you kidding me people? Search Google for "dog Jerusalem stoning" and you get over two million results. The talkbacks are 99% anti-Semitic comments, along the lines of, "And they wonder why people hate Jews," or "I used to think Jews were smart, now I'm not so sure" (nice!), or "You'd think Jews would know better after the way they were treated by the Nazis, but, whoops, guess not."
For arguments sake, let's accept the premise that this ridiculous story has some grain of truth to it. Let's say that there was a dog that refused to leave the courthouse and that in the room, there was someone who said, "Hey, maybe this dog is the gilgul3 of that lawyer who cursed this court out 20 years ago." Let's even (for the sake of the story) assume that the retraction is false and that the dog was not safely picked up by an animal shelter, but that there may have been some violence involved. Under the assumption that this much is true, let's take a look at the rest of the story, point by point:
1) The idea that a rabbinical court even has the authority to order a dog to be put to death by stoning nowadays is preposterous. Yes, according to Jewish law, if an animal kills a person, then the animal is sentenced to death. But A) No bet din (rabbinical court) nowadays has that kind of authority4, B) This dog committed no crime, was not charged with any crime, was not found guilty of any crime, and therefore could not have been sentenced to any punishment, and C) Even if a crazy, fringe group wanted to pull this kind of stunt--this is a court that is tied to the government and would never have been able to pull it off. I'm not sure whether the preceding is actually true, but in any case they would never have been able to pull it off.
2) "One of the judges at the court in the city's ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood had reportedly asked local children to carry out the sentence." Really? Really? What, the appointed court executioner was on a cigarette break?
3) "Dogs are often considered impure animals in traditional Judaism." Yeah! We're not allowed to eat them! Stop the presses, everyone: DOGS AREN'T KOSHER! Ha ha ha, those nutty Jews.
4) The BBC article even links to the English ynet article here. The original article contains the only quote (i.e. evidence) in the entire story, from an unnamed court manager:
Aha! So you're saying that a bet din did not, in fact, sentence a dog to death by stoning and then order children to carry out the sentence, but rather, someone asked a few children to scare him away? That's so funny, because the BBC article completely cuts off this quote and changes it to this:
Now, there is a prevalent fear of dogs in Haredi society (possibly a holdover from the dogs owned by Eastern European Christians back in the day), which is a problem. So I believe that Haredi children might throw stones at a dog to scare it away, despite the fact that this behavior is unacceptable. However, "Dog chased out of courthouse by kids throwing stones" is not, I repeat not, international news.
The ynet article was bad enough. Israeli society hates Haredim, and I know that there are reasons to be critical of Haredi society. But instead of doing it normally, they make up reasons to demonize them, assume the worst when any story is reported on them, etc. But then! The outside world gets ahold of this story, and instead of saying, "Oh, those wacky Haredim," they say, "Oh, those evil Jews" and "Oh, that horrible religion." I'm angry with ynet for sloppy reporting, I'm angry with international news agencies for jumping on this non-story and embellishing it to make it look even worse5, and I'm angry with the world for believing this crap so easily.
External sources:
1. http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/06/maariv-apologizes-about-misleading.html
Translation of the Ma'ariv clarification:
Clarification
On June 3, 2011 we published a report headlined "Mea She'arim: Rabbinical court ordered the stoning of a dog." In the report, it reported on a complaint to the police filed by the SPCA to the police against a rabbinical court for financial matters in Jerusalem. In the report, a sweeping denial was brought by the head of the court, Yehoshua Levin, to this complaint. The rabbi said, among other things: "There is no basis for animal cruelty in Jewish law or in logic." According to him, workers from the municipal center picked the dog up from the court. The headline of the article did not cover the entirety of the story and we apologize for the distress caused to the court and its members.
2. I'm not sure if BBC was the first to pick it up, but their article is the most popular one and the first one I saw, so I'm using it as the main example.
3. A gilgul is sort of like a recycling of the soul, similar to reincarnation in a way. This is a kabbalistic concept and is obviously very complicated, and I don't pretend to be an expert.
4. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/BetDin.html
5. Seriosuly, check this one out: http://www.albawaba.com/dogs-do-not-get-fair-hearing-judaism-israeli-rabbis-sentence-dog-death-stoning-379058
At first I thought it was funny how outlandish this story was and that anyone would print this garbage. Then, suddenly, the story was everywhere. BBC, Yahoo, TIME, Gawker, are you kidding me people? Search Google for "dog Jerusalem stoning" and you get over two million results. The talkbacks are 99% anti-Semitic comments, along the lines of, "And they wonder why people hate Jews," or "I used to think Jews were smart, now I'm not so sure" (nice!), or "You'd think Jews would know better after the way they were treated by the Nazis, but, whoops, guess not."
For arguments sake, let's accept the premise that this ridiculous story has some grain of truth to it. Let's say that there was a dog that refused to leave the courthouse and that in the room, there was someone who said, "Hey, maybe this dog is the gilgul3 of that lawyer who cursed this court out 20 years ago." Let's even (for the sake of the story) assume that the retraction is false and that the dog was not safely picked up by an animal shelter, but that there may have been some violence involved. Under the assumption that this much is true, let's take a look at the rest of the story, point by point:
1) The idea that a rabbinical court even has the authority to order a dog to be put to death by stoning nowadays is preposterous. Yes, according to Jewish law, if an animal kills a person, then the animal is sentenced to death. But A) No bet din (rabbinical court) nowadays has that kind of authority4, B) This dog committed no crime, was not charged with any crime, was not found guilty of any crime, and therefore could not have been sentenced to any punishment, and C) Even if a crazy, fringe group wanted to pull this kind of stunt--
2) "One of the judges at the court in the city's ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood had reportedly asked local children to carry out the sentence." Really? Really? What, the appointed court executioner was on a cigarette break?
3) "Dogs are often considered impure animals in traditional Judaism." Yeah! We're not allowed to eat them! Stop the presses, everyone: DOGS AREN'T KOSHER! Ha ha ha, those nutty Jews.
4) The BBC article even links to the English ynet article here. The original article contains the only quote (i.e. evidence) in the entire story, from an unnamed court manager:
"It was ordered by the rabbis because of the grief he had caused the court. They didn't issue an official ruling, but ordered the children outside to throw stones at him in order to drive him away. They didn't think of it as cruelty to animals, but as an appropriate way to 'get back at' the spirit which entered the poor dog."
Aha! So you're saying that a bet din did not, in fact, sentence a dog to death by stoning and then order children to carry out the sentence, but rather, someone asked a few children to scare him away? That's so funny, because the BBC article completely cuts off this quote and changes it to this:
A court manager told Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot the stoning had been ordered as "as an appropriate way to 'get back at' the spirit which entered the poor dog", according to ynet.Wow! If I had read only the BBC article, I would have assumed that the court literally condemned the dog to death by stoning! Ha ha! Silly me!
Now, there is a prevalent fear of dogs in Haredi society (possibly a holdover from the dogs owned by Eastern European Christians back in the day), which is a problem. So I believe that Haredi children might throw stones at a dog to scare it away, despite the fact that this behavior is unacceptable. However, "Dog chased out of courthouse by kids throwing stones" is not, I repeat not, international news.
The ynet article was bad enough. Israeli society hates Haredim, and I know that there are reasons to be critical of Haredi society. But instead of doing it normally, they make up reasons to demonize them, assume the worst when any story is reported on them, etc. But then! The outside world gets ahold of this story, and instead of saying, "Oh, those wacky Haredim," they say, "Oh, those evil Jews" and "Oh, that horrible religion." I'm angry with ynet for sloppy reporting, I'm angry with international news agencies for jumping on this non-story and embellishing it to make it look even worse5, and I'm angry with the world for believing this crap so easily.
External sources:
1. http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/06/maariv-apologizes-about-misleading.html
Translation of the Ma'ariv clarification:
Clarification
On June 3, 2011 we published a report headlined "Mea She'arim: Rabbinical court ordered the stoning of a dog." In the report, it reported on a complaint to the police filed by the SPCA to the police against a rabbinical court for financial matters in Jerusalem. In the report, a sweeping denial was brought by the head of the court, Yehoshua Levin, to this complaint. The rabbi said, among other things: "There is no basis for animal cruelty in Jewish law or in logic." According to him, workers from the municipal center picked the dog up from the court. The headline of the article did not cover the entirety of the story and we apologize for the distress caused to the court and its members.
2. I'm not sure if BBC was the first to pick it up, but their article is the most popular one and the first one I saw, so I'm using it as the main example.
3. A gilgul is sort of like a recycling of the soul, similar to reincarnation in a way. This is a kabbalistic concept and is obviously very complicated, and I don't pretend to be an expert.
4. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/BetDin.html
5. Seriosuly, check this one out: http://www.albawaba.com/dogs-do-not-get-fair-hearing-judaism-israeli-rabbis-sentence-dog-death-stoning-379058
Why Did I Create This?
I don't have that much use for blogs. I prefer LiveJournal for the commenting format and Facebook for the visibility. But LiveJournal is too associated with fandom and fiction (ironic, because my next post is all about fiction), and I like keeping my Facebook private. And there are times when I want to say serious things and I want the possibility of people who don't know me to read them.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)