The Sword and Laser discussion

This is still an open question for me as I have yet to start reading it.

My opinions will come.

I opened the book up (Kindle on iPad) looked at the beautiful cover, turned to the next page "Accolades and Praise for Iron Widow" which I expect. Won a few awards. Nice.

But 'One of Book Riot's "20 Best science fiction books of all time" ' 🤔

Now I loves me some hyperbole and it's their subjective opinion, but that's a big statement 😉Talk about setting me up to be disappointed with that buildup 😜

I will give it a fair go. I am optimistic that I will enjoy it, but not expecting it to be in my top 100 Sci-Fi (or even Top 1000)

What are your opinions on the book?

Entertaining, but not among the 20 Best, nor top 100. Needs to be re-readable to be in the top 1000 and I'm not sure I want to re-read. I want to read Heavenly Tyrant when it comes out later this year. Maybe my opinion will change with time.

Really entertaining for me. Top lists always skew too recent, which probably accounts for it being on the list - or else list authors wanted one social media hype book to draw people to the rest of the list. I doubt it will be up there with Frankenstein in 100 years, but who knows?

I'm only 3 chapters in, but already it's definitely in my top 100 SFF reads... And I just checked (because I wasn't sure that I'd actually read 100) and I've read about 150 SFF books. And I'm pretty confident that it could make even the most objective Top 1000.

The world is very unique, the character and emotions are great, and the central theme surrounds fighting monsters in mech suits, which really, is hard to do wrong.
That said, I strongly disliked Sleeping Giants, and that was also centred around people fighting in giant mech suits, and I'm enjoying the character dynamics more than Pacific Rim so far, so this might actually be my favourite giant-mech-suit-based story. We'll see how it plays out... Also, I should probably watch Gundam Wing before I make a call.

It’s definitely one of my favourite mech books, but given my dislike of that genre, that’s not saying much. It definitely wouldn’t make my top 20, but I still think it was a good read, so I won’t begrudge it any praise. I know a number of people who hold it up as a favourite, so although I doubt it’ll stand the test of time, I could just as easily see it staying popular for a while, especially if it lands some cool adaptations, which tends to increase sticking power.

It's good but not good at the same time.

Functional prose and limited characterisation in service to a plot that starts out fast and goes into overdrive by the end. The plotting reminds me of Galactic Patrol in that everything is in service to the plot and no padding is allowed. It is a fast read that doesn't muck around.

The world building is top notch with plenty of clues to the larger plot and happily for a series is self contained.

If you are OK with a feminist scram of rage that lasts the length of a book this is for you.

Mark wrote: "Needs to be re-readable to be in the top 1000"

Curious: how many books have you read multiple times?

I used to re-read a lot, but I think a partial factor in that was because I didn’t have access to millions of books like I do these days. Unlike movies, I don’t have seasonal books that I revisit every year.

Is there a thread for this? I’m too exhausted from this flu to search.

Trike wrote: "Mark wrote: "Needs to be re-readable to be in the top 1000"

Curious: how many books have you read multiple times?
"

In the past few years I've re-read all the Murderbot novels, Dune, Neuromancer and other classic science fiction titles, all the Rivers of London novels, and some thrillers that I read when I was much younger. Many of these re-reads have been audiobooks, which I don't read very often. I suppose you can call them comfort reads, familiar but still entertaining. It may also be an artifact of Covid. I've been re-reading more since Covid than in the past.

I'm enjoying it so far. (Part 1 done)

Iain wrote: "If you are OK with a feminist scream of rage that lasts the length of a book this is for you."

I'm ok with that as long as the reasons for that rage are reasonable. As they are, so far, in what I've read (up to End of Part 1)

Take two parts The Hunger Games and mix with one part Enders Game. Stir, and then strain over puréed mecha parts. Garnish with feminism. This derivative cocktail is sure to please, but didn’t offer anything that wasn’t already available in abundance.

Iain wrote: "It's good but not good at the same time.

Functional prose and limited characterisation..."
I have to agree with this and I’m not a big fan of their “functional” writing style. I’ve been following along with Story Club - a sort of online course on writing by George Saunders (a professor and acclaimed author) and he can explain it better than I. Some context, he was discussing a story by Isaac Babel, an early 1900s Russian author, called “My First Goose”. It is about a man from Moscow, during the revolutionary war, posted to a Cossack unit. They immediately reject him as soft and useless. Their opinion turns around when he is told to kill a goose for their dinner and he does it brutally and without hesitation, an act which comes back to haunt him (and foreshadows the brutality that he will later encounter in war.) Saunders explains:



Xiran Jay Zhao writes in the former manner. Every thought, every action, is mulled and considered and explained - as he says, “extracting sentiment” - and only then done. I know some of this is just my preference and some people like that style, I think it is common in YA writing, but its not for me.

Was just looking at some reviews here on Goodreads, and the bad ones are really scathing. Most of them mention some pre-conceived notion about the book, either from other reviews or from the book's marketing (by which they might mean something official or not). Anyway, I can heartily recommend reading this before engaging with any of the hype.

I wouldn't put Iron Widow on a top 20 sci-fi of all time list, but I did like it. As I was reading IW I was also listening to the Dandelion Dynasty series by Ken Liu.

The fast pace, minimal world building, and small cast of characters of IW stand in stark contrast to Liu's epic. Consuming both at the same time upped my enjoyment of IW. It was a nice break after listening to DD.

I also like a good revenge story, à la John Wick.

Seth wrote: "Was just looking at some reviews here on Goodreads, and the bad ones are really scathing. Most of them mention some pre-conceived notion about the book, either from other reviews or from the book's..."

I took a look after you wrote this and I’m not sure it’s just anger at the hype machine. Certainly a lot of reviewers mention that it just inflames them more but the problems are there regardless. A big complaint is that this was hyped as “Pacific Rim meets The Handmaid’s Tale.” And lots have pointed out that a tale of a violent, vengeful anti-hero who kills everybody she disagrees with, including families and other women who are victims of the same patriarchy, does not qualify as feminist or rate comparison to The Handmaid’s Tale in any way.

But even without that comparison the criticism isn’t unfounded. The author enthusiastically positions and justifies everything their character does - they want you to love and cheer on Wu Zetian - but the fact that she feels no consequences and shows no remorse makes for a very shallow retelling of the original empress’ tale. There isn’t anything in the way of character development at all.

^From what little I know, so far of the actual Wu Zetian, I never had the impression that she was remorseful. In which case, it's a solid retelling.

While I did think there were flaws with the book, making it hard for it to get into the top 20, what really impressed me is how often it surprised me with the story. Just when I thought I knew how it would go, it zigged hard from my expectation. Like Oaken, I expected the protagonist to behave the way that every protagonist does in popular culture and when she didn't, it made the book seem that much more real to me.

The comparison to The Hunger Games is apt. However, my big issue with that book was that the protagonist spends so much time not trying to kill anyone... in a battle to the death. It's an issue with western culture, I think, since Battle Royale didn't have any qualms about who was going to survive and what they would be willing to do to ensure that.

I decided to see where the book ranks on my top Sci-Fi books list and it turns out its #34.

J wrote: "It's an issue with western culture, I think, since Battle Royale didn't have any qualms about who was going to survive and what they would be willing to do to ensure that."

I’m pretty sure it did. We saw folk choosing suicide over murder, and folk doing their very best to avoid having to kill, then feeling super guilty when they had to.

I think we are in agreement on that point - actually.

In Battle Royale, the characters reaction to the situation is more realistic (IMO). Some people choose to die but most people try to survive, knowing that survival means murder.

In Hunger Games it is treated as though the normal reaction would be to avoid killing.

Is it? Pretty sure there are a bunch of kids completely down with the killing in The Hunger Games books.

Plus I think wanting to avoid murder is a completely normal reaction; even in real life or death situations, plenty of people can’t bring themselves to do it.

Avoiding murder would definitely be a normal reaction.

My problem with Wu Zetian is she’s just like, “Should I kill these people? Ok, let me catalog their offenses. Yep, they come out wanting.” Zoink. And then she never thinks about it again.

That’s not normal. It’s very robotic. There are reasons why they teach soldiers to hate their enemies, and even then a lot of them come back from war a complete mess. There may be nothing in the historical record to tell us that the real Wu Zetian was anything but a cold-blooded sociopath (although they do talk a lot about how she improved China, not normally something we would expect from somebody who cares only about herself.) But we have zero idea how she really felt because that wouldn’t be in the historical record. So, yeah, I find her relentless judgement and execution style in this book to be very one-dimensional.

Oaken wrote: "Avoiding murder would definitely be a normal reaction.

My problem with Wu Zetian is she’s just like, “Should I kill these people? Ok, let me catalog their offenses. Yep, they come out wanting.” Zo..."

Would this be a problem if she was a man.

Jack Reacher? James Bond?

Absolutely. Let’s tackle a few of these.

I don’t read James Bond novels but in most of the movies he is completely 1-dimensional, I don’t think anybody would deny that. The Daniel Craig version probably did the best job of putting some humanity into him. There are articles out there that analyze him clinically as a psychopath, arguing that likely all of the ’00’ agents would have been.

I never read Jack Reacher but, yeah, another killer who is 1-dimensional that I have no interest in and from what I've heard I would criticize the same way.

Let’s talk killers who aren’t 1-dimensional. Female? Nevernight chronicles by Jay Kristoff mirrors Iron Widow in many ways. Our young protagonist is a chosen-one on a vengeance journey for her family and, like Wu Zetian, in doing so she discovers how deep the corruption goes and brings the whole system crashing down. But along the way she refuses to kill an innocent person even though that mercy gets her kicked out of assassin school, and she comes to understand and regret some of the deaths and certainly the collateral damage she causes. Sanderson’s Mistborn also spends no small amount of time on the impact of character choices.

Male? I don’t even know where to start. Pick one at random. Richard Morgan’s fantasy series “A Land Fit for Heroes” is filled with characters like Gil who can – and do – cut a swath of destruction when necessary but feel the cost to their humanity. Steven Brust’s Vlad Taltos series. Even the old series like Elric of Melnibone, Gene Wolfe’s Shadow of the Torturer. I could go on forever. It’s kind of a thing that killing other people affects you. Well, most people. Its more than a little bit strange when authors leave that bit out.

The big difference with those latter examples especially, is that they are series. We just have a single book (so far), it is smart for the author to leave character development for later books.

The consequences of the one big murder at the end of the first Mystborn book aren't realized until much later. Wolfe's protagonist is just a cog in the system for the first few books (not even realizing it - but just doing his job (particularly book 2, where he is an executioner). Melnibone is an exception since the final book was published first.

One of my favorite series is the Manga Berserk, in which the character is wholly motivated by revenge and we don't see him develop a conscience until he almost hurts the person he cares about the most. It's actually one of the most important storylines of the series. He uses his anger to power his fighting (becomes Berserk) but will inevitably be consumed by it and become one of the monsters he hates if he doesn't learn/change.

In Iron Widow, we do see Wu Zetian change as a character when she comes to realize that not all of the men she thought of as cold blooded murderers were wholly to blame for their actions.