Chris’s Comments (group member since Dec 29, 2011)

Chris’s comments from the Inklings group.

To answer Sarah - I certainly did, but don't think Jeff doubled in English.

To answer Jeff - The degree in History is valuable for critical thinking, research, and developing and defending your position. At the very least, look at the folks in this discussion. All pretty awesome folks as far as I'm concerned.

Now, about this article -

Okay then. I mean, on the one hand, sure, there’s more than 2 genders, physiologically, psychologically, it’s a fact that there are more genders than male and female. Got it. On the other hand, the representation of non-binary gendered people (either self-defined or other otherwise) is what percentage of the population? Is it 1%, or is it that high? What percentage of fauna on earth has evolved into a non-binary gender situation, physiologically or socially? We can easily identify said fauna because it’s so rare that it is novel. For the author of this article to insist that a blanket of non-binary gender definition across the whole of SF is so amazingly self-entitled. Should we be sure to include the presence of Baha’i in all SF because… it exists in any capacity? Should we demand that pure Libertarian ideology be represented because a tiny footprint of society adheres to those principles?

I understand that people do not want to be ignored, and they don’t want to be misrepresented. Demanding that non-binary gender be present in all SF going forward ceases SF to be about the exploration of the unknown. It turns it into gender studies, which has an important place. Instead, Alex Dally Macfarlane could step up and present us with some compelling SF that addresses the fluid nature of gender, rather than demand that the whole of what is arguably the most successful of genre literature be turned into Alex's personal sociological tool.

Well, firstly if there's any sort of abridgement, it simply cannot count, because you aren't hearing the proper work. With that out of the way, I do think that production values matter. If the reading is evocative, or if there is a level of attention to detail to make the audience immersed within the work, then I think that it can be an adequate replacement for actually reading the book, though not the same. If that isn't there, then it's no better than a film, and shouldn't count. Personally, I generally don't count audiobooks for myself. It would be like counting "A Prairie Home Companion" or some other radio play as "reading", and I didn't do anything other than zone out on the highway (leading to other issue to which Teresa can attest). It's too passive for my taste, but if the story is told with nothing missing, and you now know the story, it could be good enough.

Is this the list?

http://io9.com/361597/the-twenty-scie...

I did not know most of those books. Certainly piqued my interest, though.

I can see that it might be important to keep a decent page-count, but for me personally it has more to do with finishing something that I started. I'm terrible about doing things awesomely... and then stopping before I finish. I get distracted, burnt out, or lose confidence. Having a goal of actual books where I can pick up a copy, read it, and have the satisfaction of saying, "Done!" and then setting it down is more meaningful to me than stacking up pages.

Like Teresa, I read a few "in one sitting" books, but I also read some real beasts. I think that it evens out, as far as having a respectable page-count is concerned. I think that the important part, though, is to be engaged in reading, to actually enjoy it, and to get something out of it.

I finished it yesterday afternoon (actually almost finished it in one sitting). I don't actually think that this book is *for* guys or girls. Please muscle on to the end, because I totally want to talk with you and everyone else about this book. I think that this book, more than any other book we've read, is going to make for interesting discussion.

Actually, I think that it was done on purpose. The names were similar enough that, when the action was thick that Dahl or Duvall would have been appropriate as the stand-in, because they're only there to swell the scene or move the action. Also, completely losing gender until it was specific to the dialog was also on purpose. I mean, it doesn't matter if the red shirt is female or not, unless it's for special interactions.

Good question!

I do have some inconsistencies in my own reviews, but I think I recognize from where the issue derives. If I read a book, then it's an investment. Since I've made such an investment of my time to finish something, I feel... not exactly obligated, but that's close. I don't like to feel that I actually wasted my time, and so I'll often elevate a book to reflect the investment.

For example, I really wanted to like "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell". It was a huge book, took me a couple weeks of solid reading, and when I was finished I did have the satisfaction of completing the book. I was, however, left unsatisfied by the book itself. I still rated it highly until Teresa pointed out that I groaned throughout reading it. The high rating came, in part, from my consideration that I just spent a lot of time on the book, so it must have had *some* value, right?

I'm not always subject to this. I've read stinkers, and have evaluated them as such. I do know, however, that I have this tendency.

There's an omnibus edition that has the first three books in the series, including this one.

You know, I had a tough time, too. There was only the one copy in the Jeffco library system. I was going to get it online, but Hoover happened to have a copy. I didn't think through that the book would actually be scarce. I'm sorry guys!

So, I've been wanting to read Octavia Butler for some time, and I thought that this would be a solid introduction to her novels. Has anyone read this?

Sounds good to me.

I love A Clockwork Orange. Ah well...

I like the idea of each person going for it, but perhaps we could draw numbers for the order, or something similar?