The Sword and Laser discussion

I was keen to read this book even though it turns out that the author is a different person from Amal El-Mohtar who co-wrote previous S&L pick This is How You Lose the Time War.
However, I’m now about halfway through and I have to admit it’s not really gelling for me. I like the setting but the writing style… isn’t working for me. I get that she’s going for a Holmesian vibe but it just feels forced, not at all natural and flowing. The moment that really threw me out of the story was at the beginning of Chapter 11 when Pleiti expostulated a line of dialogue, and I don’t think that was the first use of that word (I’m reading in hard copy, perhaps someone with the kindle version can do a search). I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never knowingly expostulated anything in my life, nor have I ever heard anyone else expostulate. I’m not even sure I know what it means. I’m also not sure that Malka Ann Older knows what it means, because when I looked it up the meaning I found (“express disagreement or disapproval”) didn’t seem to fit with the scene in the book.

I’m not one of those purists who thinks that the only acceptable way to tag dialogue is with “said”, and that adverbs are to be scrupulously avoided. I read classic novels and can enjoy flowery Victorian prose. However, this book feels like a clumsy pastiche of that style rather than anything more organic and tbh I’m a bit disappointed. I’ll finish reading it, because it’s so short, but if it was 400 pages I think I might have quit long before the end.

What do y’all think of the writing style? Do you enjoy elaborate prose or do you prefer it when the author keeps it simple?

I enjoyed the book although I also noticed a few jarring examples like that but I guess they weren't enough to take me out of the story. I'm not a fan of using big or unusual words just for the sake of using big and unusual words and it seems like some authors overdo that.

I do like prose though when it is well written. I think I mentioned elsewhere I was following an online substack by George Saunders on stories and it has a lot of examples of really good prose. Hemingway's "Cat in the Rain" was the first story he talks about and the first paragraph really stood out to me as a great example of conveying mood (https://biblioklept.org/2014/02/11/ca...)

And there are no big words! "The sea broke in a long line in the rain and slipped back down the beach to come up and break again in a long line in the rain."

^^ Hemingway often gets cited as an example of “good prose” although tbh I hate the way he writes and find his books completely unreadable, which just goes to show how subjective the idea of good writing is.

Wait, this is one of the authors of Time War? Is there a pseudonym involved? Quick search doesn't help. Brain go brrr.

Ruth wrote: "^^ Hemingway often gets cited as an example of “good prose” although tbh I hate the way he writes and find his books completely unreadable, which just goes to show how subjective the idea of good w..."

You and Mrs. Trike. I am indifferent to Hemingway’s prose, personally.


Ruth wrote: "I was keen to read this book and I very much enjoyed the previous pick by this author, This is How You Lose the Time War (although admittedly she had a Co-writer for that one). Howe..."

Note: Older didn’t co-author This is How You Lose the Time War. That was Amal Al-Mohtar and Max Gladstone. Older wrote Infomocracy, which features a world where you can’t do anything without a Pinduoduo-type app. (Pinduoduo is a Chinese app that combines social media, e-shopping, bill paying, etc. in one convenient spot. It also spies on you for the government and is nearly impossible to delete.) Infomocracy is quite good and realistically terrifying.

I bounced off of Infomocracy. Realistically terrifying but I just couldn't get into the story; I know it was buried in there somewhere.

John (Taloni) wrote: "Wait, this is one of the authors of Time War? Is there a pseudonym involved? Quick search doesn't help. Brain go brrr."

Sorry, I’m getting Malka Ann Older mixed up with Amal El-Mohtar. Not the same person at all! A mixup worthy of the book I read recently, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World by Naomi Klein, all about how people keep getting her confused with Naomi Wolf

Oaken wrote: "I bounced off of Infomocracy. Realistically terrifying but I just couldn't get into the story; I know it was buried in there somewhere."

I gave it 3 stars more for the ideas than the prose, but I found the writing fine overall.

I liked the prose. But it didn’t feel Holmesian to me, and I wouldn’t have guessed that was the aim if others hadn’t mentioned it.

Infomocracy sounds interesting and frightening, kind of like what the buyer of a certain social media site is trying to do - I think I’ll read that next.

I suppose the writing was just another indicator that made it seem to me like it was supposed to be Holmesian. I don't remember it being particularly good or bad, just that it blended with the affect of the whole thing - which I suppose makes it good, or at least consistent. In-world, it seemed to be explained by the fact that the two main characters were classicalists by training. One of them even spent months pouring over Watership Down, apparently, noting down the things the rabbits ate and still lived in Jupiter's version of Cambridge/Oxford.

I have to say that if any paragraph read as horrifyingly as that first paragraph from that Hemmingway story I would have stopped reading after a page or so.

It took me a while to get into the language, but English is my second language, so non-standard english in an audio book is always a challenge. But halfway through I didn't even realize anymore that the style had been difficult.

But I also didn't realize this was supposed to be a Sherlock Holmes Hommage, so what do I know ... 😉

Oaken wrote: "And there are no big words! "The sea broke in a long line in the rain and slipped back down the beach to come up and break again in a long line in the rain."" - I'm in Ruth and Mrs. Trike's camp on Hemingway. I see the effect the passage is going for, but the near entire lack of polysyllabic words makes my eye more liable to skim than appreciate.

I got about halfway through this one in ARC form (from a giveaway on this site). It was very easy to put down. I don't have the book anymore, but I remember feeling it lacked vivacity, and a failed attempt at aping late Victorian prose might have had something to do with that.

So when I finished this (audio)book, I went back to the beginning and noticed that the prologue is written normally! It's just straightforward third-person, with a perfectly normal amount of adverbs.

I suspected this because I listened to the prologue to gauge my interest and found nothing to dislike. I started the book in earnest a few days later and, like Ruth, I found Pleiti's narration - as she might put it - utterly insufferable beyond any reasonable explication, if I might expostulate so.

This can only mean that this writing style wasn't necessarily the author's style, or even the book's style, but just this character's! Which makes a lot of sense really, since she explains her obsession with all things Victorian English. Maybe the fact that the language use was so absurdly over-the-top was a statement about how people distantly removed from a culture that they're fascinated with inevitably parody it. Like if someone from Medieval times saw one of our Medieval festivals, they'd probably think we all look and sound ridiculous.

This begs the question: if the story was written in a normal voice, would it have been better or worse? Do you respect the author's editorial choice?

Perhaps listening to it made it harder for me to digest, but I could have done without it. I never thought I'd describe a 170 page book as too wordy, but there's a first time for everything.

Paul wrote: "So when I finished this (audio)book, I went back to the beginning and noticed that the prologue is written normally! It's just straightforward third-person, with a perfectly normal amount of adverb..."

Yes, I remember that the prologue was more normal, and in 3rd person. I kept waiting for the book to return to that perspective but it never did. I feel slightly cheated because I read the prologue before deciding to spend my hard-earned credits on the book, and the rest of the book didn’t match up with the prologue.

I like your theory about why Pleiti writes in that style, it makes sense and retrospectively makes the book a bit better.

I didn’t notice that, I thought the author added some futuristic words and slang, à la The Expanse