The Sword and Laser discussion

I wanted to like it. I really did. But I just couldn't see the point of the book. It's all fanciful exposition, with no conflict. The whole book is just pretense.

The two main characters are ignorant gods, raised by uncaring gods. The biggest obstacle the protagonists have to overcome is weariness (or was it really just boredom?). The biggest conflict in the book is a nebulous contest who's outcome is obvious to the reader, if not anyone involved. The climax is basically a Kobayashi Maru cop out.

The exposition is well done and about the only thing that kept me reading. If this book was written in the 1970s it would have been breathtaking, possibly groundbreaking. But being written in the 2010s, it's just passe.

I liked the rêveur idea. As a literary device it was a fun addition, but in the end seemed just like a vehicle to get a set of characters from point A to point B. It would have been nice to have them serve a purpose other than just one of many unfulfilled views.

I guess I'm just too old for YA fiction. Give me some real conflict where there's actually something at stake. I'm getting weary of reading "oh woe is me" from omnipotent children.

I feel like this whole book was "just a venue".

I lemmed it after ten pages. Opening with a kid thrust onto a father she never knew with her mother's suicide note pinned to her...too dark for me.

David wrote: "I wanted to like it. I really did. But I just couldn't see the point of the book. It's all fanciful exposition, with no conflict. The whole book is just pretense.

The two main characters are i..."

I just wanted to add a couple of things to this, firstly it's not categorized as YA, it's actually usually shelved with Adult Fiction (not even always with the fantasy)

And secondly I wanted to ask if a book always has to have conflict? I am not saying your opinion is wrong (though I liked this book) it is just something I have been wondering about. I love fantasy but it is saturated by giant wars and invasions and gigantic disasters.

I enjoyed just drifting through this book and taking in the atmosphere. It makes a nice change

David wrote: "I wanted to like it. I really did. But I just couldn't see the point of the book. It's all fanciful exposition, with no conflict. The whole book is just pretense.

The two main characters are i..."

Important thing to note is that youths by definition have had shorter lives. Their problems are everything to them because they have had no context to have harder problems. It's fine to not want to read about the issues of youths but I'd appreciate you not diminishing them as if they were nothing.

Also, the "woe is me" in this case is a young girl whose mother killed herself and who was physically and emotionally abused by her father. (He cut her fingers one by one and forcibly starved her so she'd look thin.)

TNC feels closer to literary fiction than typical genre fiction. It's more concerned with prose and imagery than plot. It reminded me of most of Neil Gaiman's novels: really fantastic journeys to destinations that are kind of ho-hum.

Joe Informatico wrote: "TNC feels closer to literary fiction than typical genre fiction. It's more concerned with prose and imagery than plot. It reminded me of most of Neil Gaiman's novels: really fantastic journeys to d..."

I agree with that comparison.

Joe Informatico wrote: "TNC feels closer to literary fiction than typical genre fiction. It's more concerned with prose and imagery than plot. It reminded me of most of Neil Gaiman's novels: really fantastic journeys to d..."

This was my feeling on it too to start with, but once it got going I found myself slowly sucked in. If it had been just a little more literary fiction in its style I would have got frustrated, but it kept just the right side of the line for me.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Anja and Joe here-- let's not pretend like youth= insignificance or YA= frivolous literature, or "I'm traumatized by my horrific, abusive childhood/immense suffering in the present"= "oh woe is me I'm a silly teen with silly feelings."

Also, it's totally ok not to like a book that's more concerned with entertaining the reader through delightful prose and fun, wondrous images. If you like plot-heavy thrillers, you like plot-heavy thrillers, and more "literary" fiction just isn't for you (though it should be noted that plenty of literary books concerned highly with prose still are plot heavy), but let's not pretend like that's a mark against the book itself, that it's somehow lesser, "fanciful" or "just pretense," simply because it's written in a literary style.

It's ok to find something not to your taste. It's a bit silly to take the further step and say, "because this is not to my taste, it is bad."

Interesting thoughts all. I totally did not expect this to revolve around the child abuse. I guess I didn't see it as the main theme of the book. Whenever mentioned, it was a jarring interruption in the flow of the book.

I liked what I called the "fanciful exposition". It was what kept me going. Not sure how fanciful became "bad". It isn't.

P.S. I realize my use of "just pretense" was over the top. I hate the word "just" and try not to use it. Sorry about that.

David - I'm a dad. I can not take this subject lightly. But then, becoming a dad also ruined some good Jethro Tull music for me that I used to like.

David wrote: "I wanted to like it. I really did. But I just couldn't see the point of the book. It's all fanciful exposition, with no conflict. The whole book is just pretense.

The two main characters are i..."

Interesting. I didn't expect to like this book at all. The description felt all "Geek Love" to me and I was somewhat turned off. But I felt honor bound to give it a go as I head up a local S&L Meetup in my area. It seem a little de rigueur to actually read a book if you're organizing a discussion around it.

Turns out I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm not quite finished, but the wordsmithing with lavish descriptions incorporating more than just the visual appeal to me. I long ago realized I read in black & white. Sensory descriptions other than visual hold far more power for me. This book seems to hit the right notes with it's depiction of sounds, scents, tastes and feels in addition to the visual. It doesn't hurt that almost everything is black and white, either. I can relate to that easier and more easily appreciate the splashes of color thrown on top sometimes.

I read this over a year ago and while I kind of enjoyed it while reading it I was happy when it ended. I can also honestly say I know I read this book but couldn't tell you one specific thing about it.

I felt very "meh" about this book. I don't think it's bad, but it's just not for me, and it's taken a bit of thinking to figure out why.

It's not the lack of any real "conflict" - I loved Quarter Share by Nathan Lowell, and most of his books are pretty conflict-free. But at the end, it doesn't feel like anything was really accomplished. Yes, Celia and Marco managed to "beat the system", but that doesn't feel like much of a victory, since the reason for that being a victory comes in so late.

On top of that, no one else is really all that affected by their final act. Yeah, the circus gets to go on, but it's not like most of the people involved knew about the competition, or would have been significantly impacted if the circus were to close. And I guess there's the fan club, but again, their lives would go on regardless.

And there's another thing - as much as the circus is central to the story, it's pretty empty. Apart from Celia, only four people who are part of the circus are even named, and all of them are eventually involved in the competition. Maybe I only noticed this because this book inspired me to watch that old HBO show Carnivàle, and while that show didn't identify everyone involved with the carnival, there were still characters with lives outside the main plot. Morgenstern's created a beautiful world, but it's very small and empty.

So, yeah. I didn't hate the book, but it was hard to motivate myself to finish.

I expected to enjoy this book since I usually enjoy coming of age type of books. (I loved Among Others) I just found myself really not caring all that much for most of the characters. It probably took me about 3/4 of the book to really start to get into it. Too much world building and not enough action. I'm glad I listened to it otherwise I would have just lemmed it. I love Jim Dale's voice so that helped the story for me. It was just "meh" for me.

The comparison to Neil Gaiman's books is valid except his books always seem to sweep me up and I get lost his books and can't put them down. My favorites being The Diamond Age

Joyce wrote: "The comparison to Neil Gaiman's books is valid except his books always seem to sweep me up and I get lost his books and can't put them down. My favorites being The Diamond Age "

Did you mean Neal Stephenson? He's the one who wrote The Diamond Age, not Gaiman. :)

I listened to the audiobook of this one, and it may have been the medium, but I felt like the descriptions of the circus went on auto-repeat after a while. Lots of "And the _smell_ of the best ever _hot cider_ etc, etc."

Also, it seemed like it jumped around a lot, though all the plot lines were tied up nicely at the end.

I agree with Sean and Joyce. While I enjoyed the excellent descriptions and strong dialog, the book became a slog for me after the first half. I rarely can finish a slow moving, atmospheric, book without much conflict (my shortcoming). It is a tribute to the author's descriptive skills that I finished it. Here is this wonderful playground filled with beautiful characters and the plotline is pedestrian and predictable.