[R] _Nation_ Review

Raymond Daley wrote:
> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
>> It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
>> possibly-loose
>> thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
>> everything is wrapped up neatly.
>
> I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly" at all.
> I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read it 3
> times I still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are they
> paranormal? Is he going mad? Imagining them?

Before I start, I should say I found one or two places difficult to
follow--but I've had a hard day in a worse week in an even worse month, so
....

IMO, that ambiguity is deliberate. I saw no "proof" in the text either way.
I saw bits you could use as evidence to support an argument for any of those
things, and I'm pretty sure, given the nature of the multiple realities
thought that *is* explicitly laid out at the end of the novel, that they
might all be slightly true at the same time.

> The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still don't
> really understand what they are and why their there. I still say the
> succession story was very badly disjointed, written in a "blink and
> you'll miss" explanation as I had to go back and read really
> carefully to actually find where he'd explained how the father
> suddenly became King.

About the King and the succession...

I don't think that was subtle at all. Not only don't I think it was hard to
miss, I think it was foreshadowed with a club. That's okay, I liked it. I'm
not considering that a flaw. But I saw it coming from the beginning, when
the ruthlessness of the grandmother was first mentioned. The whole first
chapter is a setup for the rest of the novel: here, hold this telegraph.
We're 138th in line for the throne. And now we're going on a short cruise...

> It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently worse and
> much harder to read since The Truth.

Harder in the sense of more challenging, I would agree. Night Watch was
certainly harder to read then The Light Fantastic. OTOH, I enjoy the
complexity of NW, while I can't remember a thing about TLF.

Harder and worse aren't the same thing.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

jim wrote:

> Nation reminded me a little of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared
> Diamond. The book hypothesised most of human development has depended
> upon geography. It hypothesized that Pelagic (nee: Pacific) islanders
> are the least technologically developed because they are the most-
> recently populated and had the fewest geological advantages to
> developing technologically. Nation seems to take a fanciful turn at
> debunking that theory.

I definitely thought of GG&S.

It also reminded me of Call It Courage, a children's or YA book about a boy
who is stranded alone on an island.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

Richard Bos napsal(a):
>
> ...some...
>
> ...spoiler...
>
> ...space...
>
> ...for...
>
> ...those...
>
> ...who...
>
> ...have...
>
> ...not...
>
> ...yet...
>
> ...read...
>
> ...Nation.
>
> That'll do.
>
>
> p124: Pig's milk.
> I have no idea whether the description of the act of milking a pig
> makes sense, but I have this book here[2] which states that (wild)
> pig's milk is rather different from human milk, but not more so than
> cow's, so the feeding could work. Apparently it's much fattier than
> either human or cow's milk, contains much more casein than human milk
> but as much as a cow's[3], more protein than human milk which in turn
> has a lot more than cow's, and a bit more lactose than cow's milk but
> not nearly as much as human. Not, I suspect, indigestible to a human
> child, though of course not as good as its mother's - but the same
> thing is true for cow's milk.
>
The reverse is certainly true.
Native women in some of the Pacific islands have been reported to
regularly breastfeed piglets.
Consequently, they grew emotionally attached to them and were sorry to
kill them for food, so they solved their meat supply issues by
stealing pigs from the neighbours.

Anery
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

Esmeraldus wrote:

> About the King and the succession...
>
> I don't think that was subtle at all. Not only don't I think it was hard to
> miss, I think it was foreshadowed with a club. That's okay, I liked it. I'm
> not considering that a flaw. But I saw it coming from the beginning, when
> the ruthlessness of the grandmother was first mentioned. The whole first
> chapter is a setup for the rest of the novel: here, hold this telegraph.
> We're 138th in line for the throne. And now we're going on a short cruise...

Yes. I thought that was as obvious as a Very Obvious Thing and I'm not
usually accused of noting the subleties of things.

I suppose it might have helped that I read it aloud to my husband - I
find I notice a lot more about the text when I read things aloud because
I have to pay attention to each word, rather than noting clumps of them
when I read by myself.

--
Carol. www.mullimages.com
"This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong".
It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

On 03 Dec 2008, "Esmeraldus" wrote:

> Raymond Daley wrote:
>> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
>>> It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
>>> possibly-loose
>>> thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
>>> everything is wrapped up neatly.
>>
>> I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly" at
>> all. I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read
>> it 3 times I still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are
>> they paranormal? Is he going mad? Imagining them?
>
> Before I start, I should say I found one or two places difficult to
> follow--but I've had a hard day in a worse week in an even worse
> month, so ...
>
> IMO, that ambiguity is deliberate. I saw no "proof" in the text either
> way. I saw bits you could use as evidence to support an argument for
> any of those things, and I'm pretty sure, given the nature of the
> multiple realities thought that *is* explicitly laid out at the end of
> the novel, that they might all be slightly true at the same time.

When Mau asks Daphne if the experiences in the shadow land were real or a
dream, she says she asked Mrs Gurgle that question, and Mrs Gurgle said
"yes".

When Pterry himself was asked if Johnny Maxwell's adventures really
happened or were imaginary he replied:
> But I like to be equivocal about what is 'real' and what isn't -- to
> Johnny it's all real, and that's what counts.
<snip>
> So: is what happens in the books real? Yes. Does it all happen in
> Johnny's head? Yes. Are the Dead a metaphor? Yes. Are they real? Yes.
> Not just waving, but particalling.

With this in mind, I suspect that the answer to the question "are the
voices in Mau's head are real or imaginary?" is *also* "yes".

Having said that ... If the voices of the grandfathers aren't real, then
it follows the voices of the grandmothers aren't real either, and I'm
pretty sure they know stuff Daphne doesn't.

--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> On 03 Dec 2008, "Esmeraldus" wrote:
>
>> Raymond Daley wrote:
>>> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
>>>> It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
>>>> possibly-loose
>>>> thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
>>>> everything is wrapped up neatly.
>>>
>>> I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly" at
>>> all. I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read
>>> it 3 times I still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are
>>> they paranormal? Is he going mad? Imagining them?
>>
>> Before I start, I should say I found one or two places difficult to
>> follow--but I've had a hard day in a worse week in an even worse
>> month, so ...
>>
>> IMO, that ambiguity is deliberate. I saw no "proof" in the text
>> either way. I saw bits you could use as evidence to support an
>> argument for any of those things, and I'm pretty sure, given the
>> nature of the multiple realities thought that *is* explicitly laid
>> out at the end of the novel, that they might all be slightly true at
>> the same time.
>
> When Mau asks Daphne if the experiences in the shadow land were real
> or a dream, she says she asked Mrs Gurgle that question, and Mrs
> Gurgle said "yes".
>
> When Pterry himself was asked if Johnny Maxwell's adventures really
> happened or were imaginary he replied:
>> But I like to be equivocal about what is 'real' and what isn't -- to
>> Johnny it's all real, and that's what counts.
> <snip>
>> So: is what happens in the books real? Yes. Does it all happen in
>> Johnny's head? Yes. Are the Dead a metaphor? Yes. Are they real? Yes.
>> Not just waving, but particalling.

The ideas I'm working with in my dissertation say basically the same thing:
imaginary things are real.

I've brought this up here before. If you act as though something is true, it
becomes real in its effects. It becomes real in the second generation,
whether it was "real" to begin with or not.

That may not be what you mean, but let me back up a little bit.

If Mau is imagining the voices but doesn't know it, they may as well be
real. To him, it doesn't matter. Whether it matters to the outside world,
that's another question.

What you believe makes you do everything you do, whether it's actually
"true" or not.

I think we're saying basically the same thing. I know *I* agree with *you*.

> With this in mind, I suspect that the answer to the question "are the
> voices in Mau's head are real or imaginary?" is *also* "yes".
>
> Having said that ... If the voices of the grandfathers aren't real,
> then it follows the voices of the grandmothers aren't real either,
> and I'm pretty sure they know stuff Daphne doesn't.

They may know stuff Daphne isn't conscious of knowing, but that's not what
you mean, is it? Or, they may be a slight intrusion from one of those other
realities. Who knows? We don't see much of them. I took them for insight.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

On 03 Dec 2008, "Esmeraldus" wrote:

> I think we're saying basically the same thing. I know *I* agree with
> *you*.

Sorry, I know I agree with you as well. I thought of the "Johnny and the
Dead" comment when I first read Raymond's post, but decided I should wait
until I'd read the book before commenting. When I did I found the line
about the "dream", and recognised it as being the same point. So when I
logged onto Usenet yesterday, the post was already pretty much formed.

I originally intended it to be a reply to Raymond, but decided to post it
as a response to your post, since I was basically going down the same
track and felt I should aknowlege this. In retrospect I should probably
have started with "Yep, that's how I see it" or similar.

>> Having said that ... If the voices of the grandfathers aren't real,
>> then it follows the voices of the grandmothers aren't real either,
>> and I'm pretty sure they know stuff Daphne doesn't.
>
> They may know stuff Daphne isn't conscious of knowing, but that's not
> what you mean, is it? Or, they may be a slight intrusion from one of
> those other realities. Who knows? We don't see much of them. I took
> them for insight.

That's me backtracking and looking for evidence one way or the other
*even though* I've just said it doesn't matter...

--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

"Richard Bos" wrote in message


> p373: "an almost Australian talent for vicious and forensic accuracy
> with the [cricket] ball"
> Australian? Ahem - _who_ invented Bodyline, again? Then again,
> Bodyline was vicious, but not necessarily accurate. Still - not fair,
> you Pommy author!

Larwood and Voce were most certainly accurate, at least during the so-called
"Bodyline" series which has spawned the greatest sporting whinge in history.
(And would you believe Australia STILL, even after 75 years of whining AND
having produced Lillee and Thomson, have the cheek to call *us* "Whinging
Pommies"?...)

Jonathan.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

carol.DeleteThis@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:

> Esmeraldus wrote:

Spoiler space, please!

..

It's not as if this is about a trivial non-issue in the book.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

> > About the King and the succession...
> >
> > I don't think that was subtle at all. Not only don't I think it was hard to
> > miss, I think it was foreshadowed with a club. That's okay, I liked it. I'm
> > not considering that a flaw. But I saw it coming from the beginning, when
> > the ruthlessness of the grandmother was first mentioned. The whole first
> > chapter is a setup for the rest of the novel: here, hold this telegraph.
> > We're 138th in line for the throne. And now we're going on a short cruise...
>
> Yes. I thought that was as obvious as a Very Obvious Thing and I'm not
> usually accused of noting the subleties of things.

Well, when the first chapter is titled "The Plague", and contains choice
phrases such as "'The king...' '...is /dead/.'" and "'I said, worse than
you could possibly imagine'", there is, IYAM, very little subtlety about
it, and no reason to even read as far as the 138th bit to realise that
someone is being sent for to be the new king, and it is probably going
to be either of the two main characters[1], or someone very close to
them.

Richard

[1] During the first chapter, it's not yet obvious that it's not going
to be Mau.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 

"Jonathan Ellis" wrote:

> "Richard Bos" wrote in message
>
> > p373: "an almost Australian talent for vicious and forensic accuracy
> > with the [cricket] ball"
> > Australian? Ahem - _who_ invented Bodyline, again? Then again,
> > Bodyline was vicious, but not necessarily accurate. Still - not fair,
> > you Pommy author!
>
> Larwood and Voce were most certainly accurate, at least during the so-called
> "Bodyline" series which has spawned the greatest sporting whinge in history.
> (And would you believe Australia STILL, even after 75 years of whining AND
> having produced Lillee and Thomson, have the cheek to call *us* "Whinging
> Pommies"?...)

You forget one thing, Rooinek. I am neither a Pom nor an Ozzie - I am an
impartial observer. And impartially, I say: Poms should not, ever,
complain about Ozzies playing vicious cricket. (Neither should Ozzies
say anything similar about the Poms, but that's not relevant to /this/
case.)

Richard
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review