The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
A fair book that does not compare well with the Hobbit or LotR. So if you are looking for that level of Tolkien story-telling, this book will be a bit of a disappointment.
It presents a couple of good stories that contain an excess amount of exposition. It also presents some story fragments that were clearly not previously published for good reason.
A good book for hard core Tolkien fans. Not so good for a casual reader expecting a fully developed story.
View all my reviews
The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien
Cane and Rinse - No episode specified in the nomination. Sampled Episode 197 from 10/11/2015 covering Halo 4.
Can and Rinse reviews various video games. They had been reviewing the entire series of Halo games. Previously, my primary experience was with Halo CE which I enjoyed a great deal.
The hosts did a great job of sharing the "air time" and providing individual perspectives on Halo 4. They were entertaining and informative.
In fact, I went searching on their website for podcast commentary regarding a couple other games as a result. Unfortunately, either they have yet to cover those games via podcast, or the GUI for their search results is cluttered to the point of obfuscation.
Were I spending more time playing games, I would definitely subscribe to this podcast.
The Rageaholic - No episode specified. Sampled:
- Jessica Jones Review
- Cinema: Sudden Impact
- Skyrim Online: Tamriel Unplayable
- B-but Everyone is Corrupt: The Downfall of Gaming Journalism
The Rageaholic appears to be a persona of a stereotypical person that lives in their parent's basement known as RazörFist. The presentation style is borderline hyperventilating and spittle flying rage; hence one supposes the "Rage" in Rageaholic.
Surprisingly, he loved Jessica Jones for the most part. He had little use for flipping one manipulative male character into being a manipulative lesbian character. He thought Carrie Ann Moss' acting salvaged that change to the plot. His general perspective seemed to be along the line of suggesting that people should worry more about telling a compelling story and less about the supporting/non-critical elements that get incorporated.
He also loved Sudden Impact. That was unsurprising based on the persona.
In the review of Skyrim Online, his chief complaint was that the software publisher had taken everything that was interesting about Skyrim and chucked it aside in order to make something that was played online.
The gaming journalism was the weakest of the four episodes I sampled. Central to his argument was that the percentage of magazine pages dedicated to promoting the products being reviewed was significantly higher in gaming oriented publications.
While I would not want a steady diet of this persona, these videos were entertaining and engaging. I can understand why someone would subscribe to them.
HelloGreedo - No episode specified. Sampled:
- Star Wars: A New Hope - Deleted Scenes
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens Trailer
- Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace
Tales to Terrify - No episode specified in the nomination. Sampled episodes 164 and 204.
Tales to Terrify is essentially a reading of selected short horror stories. Episode 164 wasn't really terrifying, but one story was definitely disgusting. I'm not sure if the characters were supposed to be self-aware zombies that were subjected to all manner of abuse, or people held captive for zombie food that were subjected to all manner of abuse, or just people held captive that were abused. But there was a lot of abuse going on. I bailed on episode 164 after the n-th iteration of "arseholes leaking shit, blood, and cum".
Episode 204 was much better. The two stories presented were Angela Slatter's Sourdough and Patrick O'Neill's Underwriting Department. Both were well written and well read. While not necessarily terrifying, they fit within the horror/fantasy spectrum quite well.
The presentation in both episodes was good but not great. Having a couple more readers to create more of a radio theater experience might have improved things. The editorial decisions for Episode 164 certainly weighed into my ranking for the Hugo Awards this year.
8>4 Play Japan Game Panic - No episode specified in the nomination. Sampled Happy Little Cloud from 11/13/2015.
Quite frankly, this podcast was a mess. All four (?) of the hosts were talking over one another and none of them really had much to add to the conversation.
This episode seemed to focus on classic/older games from the 1990s. Mostly it was a case of "I own this, you own that, how neat is that". I was neither entertained nor informed by this podcast. It reminded me heavily of last year's Galactic Suburbia Podcast; the eventual winner for 2015 that I put below "No Award".
A number of thoughts come to mind in the wake of the British referendum on leaving the European Union as well as events in this year's US Presidential elections.
Central to those conflicts, large and small, is the perceived sense of self-worth of the self-described elites; the folks whose opinion should matter just a little more than the hoi polloi. The suggestion is that the world would be better off if we let those elites offer a bit firmer guidance in the affairs of state.
This perspective is shockingly highlighted by the usually progressive....more accurately socialist leaning....Rolling Stone magazine. Matt Taibbi's article suggests that the reaction to Brexit justifies why Brexit became an issue in the first place.
The overall message in every case is the same: Let us handle things.
But whatever, let's assume that the Brexit voters, like Trump voters, are wrong, ignorant, dangerous and unjustified.
Even stipulating to that, the reaction to both Brexit and Trump reveals a problem potentially more serious than either Brexit or the Trump campaign. It's become perilously fashionable all over the Western world to reach for non-democratic solutions whenever society drifts in a direction people don't like. Here in America the problem is snowballing on both the right and the left.
Even the quote from Mr. Taibbi illustrates the sort of non-self-aware perspective that pervades the leftist perspective. It is most certainly undeniable that Mr. Trump has used indelicate language on the subject of race on mulitple occasions; specifically in commenting on American immigration policies.. It is equally undeniable that blatantly racist individuals and groups have come out of the proverbial woodwork in support of Mr. Trump. Similarly, there were racists supporting the Brexit initiative.
Mr. Taibbi fails, as do many critics of Mr. Trump, when he conflates the small but vocal racist component with the respective larger movements.
Permit me to pause here to note that I didn't have any position on Brexit...that is for British citizens to decide....and I am 99+% certain to vote for Gary Johnson in the U.S. Presidential election this fall. Back to the issue at hand.....
What Mr. Taibbi and those critics fail to understand is that the U.S. government has the authority and the responsibility to determine who gets to immigrate into our country. There is nothing racist with expecting that immigrants obey our immigration laws. There is nothing racist with the expectation that potential new citizens abandon the governmental traditions of their home nations in favor of the governmental traditions expressed by the Constitution of the United States.
I possess a passion for the US Constitution. It describes a limited scope of authority for the federal government and presents an expansive view of individual liberty. American liberals have generally been successful on those issues that can be properly framed as pursuing the interest of individual liberty. American conservatives have similarly been successful on issues that are framed by the Constitution's limits on the size and scope of government.
The Constitution is the rhetorical DNA of the American political system. America succeeds when the plain language of the Constitution succeeds. We falter when that same language is subverted.
A similar perspective applies in the case of Brexit where an unelected and largely unconstrained government in Brussels perceives itself to be superior to the founding documents of the British commonwealth. The British people have the reasonable expectation that they will be governed in a manner consistent with which they have previously given their consent.
Michael Totten, an author I hold in high esteem, offered his perspective on Brexit.
If I lived in the United Kingdom, I would have voted to Remain in the EU, but it’s not hard to see why the majority voted to Leave. I wouldn’t want the United States to join the EU for the same reasons the Brexiters want out of it.
The EU is a brilliant idea. Unite splendidly diverse yet like-minded nations into a powerful bloc that’s greater than the sum of its parts. Provide minimum standards and guidelines for countries that aren’t as advanced (such as Greece and Romania). Pull down trade barriers and do business in a common market. Open up job opportunities and leg-stretching room for all. (I wouldn’t want to be confined to a place as cramped as Belgium for the rest of my life, but I’m one of those cosmopolitan "elites" everyone likes to complain about nowadays.)
The actually existing EU, though, isn’t so brilliant. It includes all the good stuff, yet it’s crushed by a staggering amount of centralized regulatory bureaucracy and a disregard for the wishes of its individual member states. It’s hardly a gulag empire, but it’s autocratic enough that Europe’s democracy deficit has its own Wikipedia page.
Mr. Totten is what I consider to be liberal of the old-school variety; open-minded and tolerant. While I suspect that we would disagree on some of the particulars that describe an appropriate level of government, we most definitely agree on the basic instrument of the role of the people in establishing and maintaining that government.
It is regrettable to note that the "elites" have little interest in analyzing where they went wrong. Instead they work for another referendum, another election, another opportunity to get an answer of which they approve. If only we can give them enough time, they will develop a system of mathematics that will let two plus two equal five.
In their minds, the only election that matters is the one they win.
I do have to offer some appreciation for former President Bill Clinton in his response to the 1994 elections that saw both houses of the US Congress to the Republicans. Rather than dig in his heels, he eventually modified his agenda to work with the Congress. The Republicans did the same. It wasn't perfect, as illustrated by the government shut-down. But Mr. Clinton did demonstrate an appreciation for the fact that ALL elections matter; not just the one that he won.
In contrast, American leftists only seem to care about Mr. Obama's election. Mr. Obama himself has demonstrated little interest in working with Congress to achieve whatever might be possible within two very different philosophical agendas. Hence the his lack of success when compared with Mr. Clinton.
While I would certainly disagree with the average Briton about what constitutes an appropriate level of government, I wholeheartedly agree that the perspective of the average voter ought to influence the actions of government. When a government undermines the legitimate objectives of all people to freely pursue a satisfying life, those same people have the right to change their government, or institute a new one, in a manner that to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
When the elites in government lose the tangible supports of the average citizen, it is incumbent upon those elites to undertake serious self-evaluation and reflection on their actions and whether or not they have been good stewards of the public interest. Their first step should not be to change the rules of the game so as to ensure a different (electoral) result. Their purpose should be to respond in a manner that is above the brown-shirts attacking people peaceably attending political rallies in California. It shouldn't be to join them.
*modestly edited 6/29/2016
In a conversation I am having at File 770, I was asked to define what makes a science fiction/fantasy book "great" for me. Rather than losing these radiant pearls of wisdom to the effluence of teh intertoobery, I thought I would cement them here in my personal record.
As this is the season of Hugo 2016, there will be some references to the current finalists for Best Novel as well as others from the recent past.
[In looking at my examples, it might appear that I am unfairly focused on N.K. Jemisin's work. I am not.
I just finished her book "The Fifth Season" as part of my reading for the Hugo awards and thus it is simply the most current example with which people may be familiar. I enjoyed that book a great deal. I'm glad that I bought it. I wish her every success in the future. She has some work to do before her work should be considered the best of the best, IMHO. added afterwards - ed.]
You may find the following links to other blog entries to be useful as well.
I Have Already Read Something Better
Naming the Names (books that were not as good as those in the first link, IMHO)
I know that the following is numbered. Don't think of them as being particularly prioritized in that order.
1. It Works For Me
Every book has a certain un-quantifiable factor, a je ne sais quoi if you will permit, that engages the reader in a unique, ethereal bond of the soul. What moves me at my deepest core (or in the case of MilSF, my corps) may not be nearly as impressive for another individual.
Another person who does not enjoy a of similarly satisfying experience with a given book is not defective. They might well be defective, but that difference of opinion about a book isn't enough to define the defect. The same works in the other direction as well, or at least it should.
But that isn't really very definitive, so perhaps we should look at factors that are more je sais quoi instead.
2. Take Me Some Place New
We have all ready books about elves and dwarves and tentacled gods from other dimensions and interstellar navies and armored soldiers. There are a couple thousand new books in the genre being published each year. Coming up with something genuinely new is pretty hard. So make it a new twist on an old trope. Or use a different configuration of old tropes. Just do not follow the herd.
Just imagine how many fewer sparkly vampire novels we would have if more writers followed that sage advice.
3. Focus On Interesting Characters
I'm not terribly interested in what characters look like. Get them dressed/undressed as the story demands and we can move on. What is interesting are the motivations and actions of those characters as they unfold in the story.
This is where "The Goblin Emperor" fell down just a bit for me. There was an awful lot of focus jewelry and other adornments that
had did not do much for me in terms of character/plot development. Some of that activity was certainly required to tell the story, but at some point it detracted from my experience with the book.
4. Value Humanity/Value The Individual
This is where I think Robert Heinlein shined. He put the focus on valuing the individual rather than talking about groups.
N.K. Jemisin's "The Fifth Season" was a very enjoyable read. But I have already read something better....link above. One area where her book
feel fell short for me was the emphasis on class/caste structures. Very few had problems with class/caste structures existing. The ones we followed had more of a problem with the way those structures were being administered.
There was also a minor theme where the refugees/pirates had some sort of communal lifestyle where all cooking was done daily by one smaller group for the larger group. They were detailed (in a manner akin to a command economy) to that task. Child care was also communal. And I mention "pirates" as that is precisely what they were; remorselessly stealing the wealth produced by others.
"Socialism" is truly the economic system of fantasy writing as fantasy literature is the only place where it can produce desirable results. When socialism stops being evil in reality, then I'll adopt a different attitude towards socialism in fiction.
4. Be Tied To Reality In Some Way
SF/F stretches the boundaries of human conception for the purpose of giving us new ways of thinking about old issues. That is a property that makes the genre so influential and satisfying. However, there should always be some useful connection between the fictional characters/story and real human interactions.
Jim Butcher's "The Aeronaut's Windlass" did a very credible job of using the unusual circumstances of his imagined world to talk about a bit about race/class issues. He did so in a way that didn't beat the reader over the head. He was also able to create feelings of empathy for both of the military groups present within the story. At the very least, you could understand/appreciate some of the motivations of the "bad guys" group even if you disagreed with the actions they ended up taking.
Naomi Novik's "Uprooted" accomplished much the same thing towards the end when you got a chance to examine the experiences of the "evil" forest from their perspective.
5. Show A Sense Of Humor...or Humour
Give me a reason to smile. Even in the grim darkiest of the grim dark sub-genre there are examples of humor used to help lighten the mood. Humor also serves to provide a contrast that highlights the more serious events experienced by the characters.
Joe Ambercrombie's "The First Law" trilogy contains characters that use a fair amount of humor....typically gallows humor....to help them get through the challenges in their lives. Sebastien de Castell's deft use of humor in his "Greatcoats" series provides such a tremendous contrast that his books had me in tears over the breaking of his characters.
N.K. Jemisin's "The Fifth Season" lacked an appreciable amount of humor and as a result my experience suffered.
6. Show Don't Tell
SF/F works traditionally involve a fair amount of info dumping. Topics ranging from orbital mechanics to computer based intelligence to sword play to the function of gemstones as a power source are generally beyond the daily experience of the average reader. So the author has to draw the reader into their fictional world by describing what makes that world work.
One way of describing that fictional world is to dump pages and pages of dry dissertation, treatise, and exposition on the reader. Erg.
Another method is to have one of the characters experience the limitations of the fictional world as a way of giving the reader a window into those limitations.
I have generally shied away from the steampunk genre precisely because they involve a fair amount of info dumping. That process has generally been along the lines of "Look! Gemstones! Chemicals! Miraculous hand-waving! Stuff happens!" Given how well I can suspend disbelief for tales involving magic, you would think that I could get past that sort of hand-waving. Alas no. So I haven't delved deeply into that sub-genre.
This year's Hugo nominee, "The Aeronaut's Windlass" by Jim Butcher, involves some heavy steampunk elements. But he limited the info dumping and had most of it occur in conjunction with events experienced by his characters. He did a good job of making his steampunk elements seem credible and translating them to the reader in a convincing manner.
Another Hugo nominee that has thus far (I'm still reading it) done a credible job with info dumping is Neal Stephenson's "Seveneves".
In comparison with those two novels, Ms. Jemisin's "The Fifth Season" made greater use of the dry expository passage approach.
7. Stay Away From Check Boxes
Whoo boy. I can smell trouble burning at the other end of the wire already.
"Check box" fiction really undermines the quality of my reading experience. What is "check box" fiction? It is a story that includes elements indicating diversity in the cast of characters that has zero impact on the the story.
In a reverse of the above, I'd like to suggest N.K. Jemisin's "The Fifth Season" as a good example of not doing "check box" fiction. One cluster of protagonists included a character that is straight, one that is seemingly bi-sexual, and one that is decidedly homosexual. They have a three-way.
And while the more patently descriptive passages of those events didn't do much for me, the fact that their respective sexuality helped inform their motivations and moved the story forward made the effort in describing their sexuality worthwhile reading. She also did a reasonable job at expressing how physical appearances differed based on regionalism. [There were one or two other moments that could be considered "check box(es)", but for the most part it wasn't a factor in this book.]
IMHO, including a character that is "different" without having that difference impact the story is at the very least a waste of time that detracts from the story and at the very worst insultingly dismissive of the people that possess the same
Unfortunately, there has been a developing trend where authors appear to think that including such elements is the same thing as quality story-telling. Water is still wet. People still exist in a multiplicity of skin tones and gender identities. If they story takes place in the desert, then we should probably be focused on something other than how wet water can be.
And yes, I realize that the absence of water spoils the analogy. Work with me on this.
8. Tell A Good Story
That heading seems about as nebulous as the first one, no? But it isn't.
A lot of writers have "big ideas" about "meaningful stories". Which is fine.
Don't let those big ideas get in the way of good story-telling. Given the option of reading an engaging story without deep meaning or an OK story with deep meaning, I'd rather read the engaging story.
The Dragonlance series written/shepherded by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman includes good examples of good story-telling. Some of those stories had some sub-textual themes. Mostly they were just entertaining.
And I loved almost every book from that fictional world that I read. In fact I would take "Dragons of Winter Night" and/or "Dragons of Spring Dawning" over Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" precisely because they are better told stories. (I haven't read all of the books from the Dragonlance 'verse, but of those that I did read, the stinkers were few and far between.)
Tell a good story. Make the characters interesting. Make the factors of their personality matter to the story. Let the characters experience the world instead of dropping endless pages of exposition. Don't add characterizations if those characterizations do not have an impact on the story arc. Have a sense of humor. Place a high value on individuals. Have a tie to reality so that the story is relevant outside of itself.
Do this and I will enjoy your book. Do it not and I probably will not.
Pardon me whilst I don my asbestos Underoos.....
As I have become more focused on reading for the Hugo Awards, I have spent quite a bit of time looking over some recent nominees. I have pointed out that I have read other works that I found to be better reading experiences in comparison with recent nominees. What I have not done is pointed out those nominees that I found to be less than stellar.
A note just in case. I have enjoyed reading all of these books. I am proud to own at least a signed copy of at least one of these books. I am glad that all of these authors are experiencing different levels of success.
I just do not happen to think that these are one of the five best SFF novels produced in their respective years. I have read something better.
- 2016 - The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
- 2015 - The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison
- 2012 - A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. Martin
- 2011 - The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin
- 2009 - Zoe's Tale by John Scalzi
- 2008 - The Last Colony by John Scalzi
- 2000 - A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge
I can't comment on the rest of the nominees as I haven't given them a full reading.
 By John's own admission, The Last Colony was missing something. Which is how Zoe's Tale came into being. Two halves of a good book are not independently worthy of being a top 5 book, IMHO.
 This was the winner in 2000! I enjoyed it, but didn't think it was that great. Curiously, I did like A Fire Upon the Deep by Mr. Vinge a great deal and can see why it won in 1993. The two books are related.
 Added on 5/16/2016. I just finished it over the weekend. While it was a very good book, I have, indeed, read better books.
Michael Mann is a well known scientist for folks following the science behind climate change policies. He is lauded by people that endorse rigorous government responses to curb carbon dioxide emissions. He is held in somewhat lower esteem by people that are skeptical on the issue.
I would fall into that latter group, FWIW.
However, I remain committed to giving credit where credit is due.
In 2015, NOAA "updated" their temperature records and insisted that there had been no "pause" in the increasing temperatures of the planet. Two of the many reasons for my skepticism are the regular fiddling with the temperature records that go on from time to time and the documented pause in global warming that began in 1998.
While there are many legitimate reasons to adjust the recorded temperature data (i.e. change in recording equipment/location, etc.) it seems that there have been other adjustments to the record that are less legitimate. In this case, the NOAA "update" was timed to coincide with the Paris climate conference. Such a coincidence inspires the suspicion that this particular adjustment was done to provide a media opportunity in support of additional carbon restrictions.
There have been other examples of "adjustments" that are questionable as well. For example, there were questionable changes made to 20th century data collected from long term sites in Australia.
As I know someone will misconstrue this, let me reiterate: there are many legitimate reasons for adjusting the temperature record. And those legitimate adjustments can and will push the recorded data higher.
The pause in global warming is important because it was not predicted by the many models used by scientists to evaluate the impact of carbon dioxide on our environment. Skeptics, like me, point to that oversight and respectfully suggest that the models may not accurately reflect the actual functioning of the environment.
Do you know who happens to agree with me? Michael Mann and a host of other scientists that have published a letter in Nature Climate Change. This summary by Scientific American is also helpful.
Now I think it is fair to say that Mr. Mann still believes that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant problem that is worthy of immediate government action.
My perspective on government action is a bit complex. I think there are things we could do to reduce CO2 emissions that would benefit humanity even if science inevitably discovers that the climate isn't very susceptible to those emissions. Things like promoting power via nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and various biofuels come to mind. I think there are things that we could do that would devastate humanity such as the various carbon tax proposals.
However, I also believe in giving credit where it is due. In this case, Mr. Mann participated in countering a flawed process and insisted on doing the hard scientific work to make the models accurately reflect our world. Getting it right matters. On that subject, I agree with Michael Mann.