Justin’s Comments (group member since Dec 21, 2012)

Justin’s comments from the Sacramento Public Library group.

I really do need to read Quiet. But in the meantime, revisiting my favorite Mlodinow book was fun. He also wrote a book called Subliminal that looks at how influenced we really are (or are not) by our subconscious, which was also fascinating.

I hope you all found something interesting in this genre to read! I realized this month that I haven't read a pop science book in a while, I think because my nonfiction reading got hijacked by history books (as it is wont to do). Finding a good book in this genre can not only be an illuminating experience, but make you a pretty interesting conversationalist, as well.

In The Drunkard's Walk, I'm most taken by the section that talks about baseball players and CEOs in terms of how we assign order to things; namely, how they get raises and lose their jobs based on performance that looks like it has a trajectory but is mostly beyond their control and due to general fluctuations as they rise/regress to the mean. It's a thought exercise that reshaped how I statistically analyze just about everything.

And I haven't read Quiet yet. I've been meaning to for a long time, but I think I've stayed away so far mostly because I'm a textbook sociable introvert, and tend to react to the excerpts I've read with a general feeling of "yeah, I could have told you that."

I've always had a complicated relationship with what many people call "pop science:" nonfiction books that tackle hard science concepts in a way so that they read like narratives or consumer handbooks. On one hand, these books can often be overly trendy or even misleading in the way they present scientific information. On the other hand, some of the most fascinating books I've read, including a few that have indelibly taught me something and become part of who I am, fall into this category.

I'd wager to guess that for some, reading anything associated with hard science can be a bit of a challenge. Which is why I'm going to challenge you with it! There's a nonfiction book designed for the layperson on just about any scientific topic you can imagine, from neuroscience to animal husbandry. I've listed some of the most well-known pop science authors on the group bookshelf (Michio Kaku and Mary Roach, for example). However, for the "official" book, I've selected The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow, a physicist who collaborated with Stephen Hawking on the latter's A Briefer History of Time and The Grand Design. This book talks about the underestimated effects of chance in just about everything, and the ways in which people assign patterns to things in order to make sense of it. It's got some truly insightful things buried between the covers. It's also full of math, and if you're like me, that's a challenge worthy of a triathlete.

Whether you get a hold of that book or give a pop science book on your favorite topic a try, make sure to talk about it here for a chance at a pre-published book. Happy reading!

I'm finally reading Graceling. So good.

So, Ancillary Justice didn't quite blow me away, but I really did enjoy it. I found it to be complex and full of really interesting ideas, and while the pace felt a bit slow and there was almost too much "show" and not enough "tell," the wonderful setting made up for all of the little problems I had with it. I'm definitely interested enough to read the next book.

I hope your picks treated you well this month, and I hope some of you were introduced to some great authors. Feel free to keep discussing, and in the meantime, Chip has been selected as this month's winner of a brand new advance reader's copy! Let us know what you like to read and what branch you'd like to pick it up (either here or by message), and we'll get something sent over to you.

Happy reading!

Susan, I've got Uprooted on my to-read list. I really like Novik's Temeraire series, and we're actually considering Uprooted for our Teen Book Award (since the protagonist is younger).

Chip, I agree with you on Ancillary Justice, but I found the lack of hand-holding to be refreshing. I did get lost a few times, but the annoyances I had with not fully understanding what was going on were balanced by what I felt was some pretty incredible setting work.

Heck yeah, Margaret Atwood counts! In fact, it's a crime I didn't put her in the suggested reading list. Although, at times, she's had issues with being classified as a sci-fi/spec-fic author.

For my part, I'm quite enjoying Ancillary Justice. The slippery gender pronouns are confusing at first, but fade quickly into the background and actually do wonders in creating a sense of the alien. My biggest complaint with it right now is how slow the plot is moving, and that the flashback/flashforward stuff is disorienting (I suspect on purpose). But Leckie's worldbuilding is absolutely fantastic.

The two are definitely separate genres; I myself prefer fantasy, if forced to choose between the two. But they share a common history and pedigree, and I embrace any chance to bring separate camps of genre nerds together!

Susan: Frankenstein is one of the first novels within the framework that we currently consider science fiction, and set the precedent for the theme of technology's social ramifications.

David: I've been meaning to read Bishop for a long time. I got into Janny Wurts instead, and don't really regret that decision.

Those of you who follow the science-fiction genre are probably aware of the controversy surrounding this year's Hugo Awards, a fan-driven and fan-selected award run through Worldcon. There are a variety of perspectives on what exactly happened and what it means for sci-fi fandom, but a common topic that arose from the brouhaha is the representation of female authors in sci-fi, the themes that they supposedly prefer to write, and whether the genre is being politicized as a result. Being a lifelong reader of speculative fiction, this "controversy" was especially silly to me, seeing as how some of the sci-fi greats (and some of my personal author heroes) are women. In fact, I wouldn't be reading science-fiction as an adult at all if Lois McMaster Bujold hadn't pulled me back into the fold some years back with her Vorkosigan Saga.

Still, recent demographic data from publishers show that female sci-fi and high-fantasy authors are heavily outnumbered, which tends to limit readers' exposure to them and contribute to the sort of silliness that we saw this year. So, for this month's challenge, I wanted to shine a light on some of these authors and their wonderful fantasy and science-fiction books.

I just finished a rollicking YA space-thriller called Illuminae by Amie Kaufman and Jay Kristoff, and loved it. That's not a fair book to put in the challenge, though, since it doesn't come out until next month (I'm a librarian and get to do stuff like read much-hyped books early). So, instead, I'm going to make the official book the one that's been sitting on my to-read pile for a while: Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, which won pretty much every sci-fi award possible last year. If you've already read that one, I've suggested a list of classic mainstays and hidden gems on the group bookshelf, including books from all four female Grand Masters of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. If you try any of them, or have your own suggestion, make sure to discuss it below for a chance at your own advance reader's copy to lord over your friends and family.

Happy reading!

Thank you all for reading along with me in this experiment! I enjoyed focusing on one book and picking apart some specific things to talk about. For my part, I still love this book as much as I always did, but the question about whether the age of the reader affects which storyline/character you relate to was something new to think about.

If you haven't already, post your thoughts and questions on the book here. Also, if you've got any suggestions for a "one book" book club pick in the coming months, make sure to let us know!

That's entirely possible. I certainly understand the nuances of the trial more, since I have a deeper understanding of the themes (though, I did pay close attention to the trial even as a young reader, and didn't find it boring at all). But I was a bullied, soft-hearted introvert as a kid, so Boo Radley was kind of my spirit animal.

TKAM has two central plot threads: the kids' fascination with Boo Radley and the trial of Tom Robinson. The two stories don't really come together to until the end, which I personally think is brilliant but know is a point of contention for others. Do you think the two threads are properly connected? And whether you do or not, do you have a favorite? Despite the perfection of Atticus Finch, I've always related more to the Boo Radley stuff.

There is absolutely merit in that perspective. I think you're right in that it is a product of the setting of the book and the time it was written (the same could be and often is said about Huckleberry Finn).

Regarding Scout, I've heard some people say that she is awfully introspective and mature for a 6- to 8-year-old in parts of the book, but I think that's going to have to be the case when you have a protagonist that young in a story like this, so I'm perfectly able to suspend my disbelief. Also, I think small children are much smarter and more prescient than we often give them credit for.

So, a lot of praise gets heaped on Atticus Finch when we talk about the book's characters, but what about Scout? Particularly, I'm wondering if people feel she is written as an authentic child (she is six years old at the start of the book).

No, I don't think there's anything redeemable about Bob (Mayella is a different story, in my opinion; she is lonely and damaged, and doesn't stand a chance with a father like that). But it took me a few years to understand why Atticus was pitying him, I think.

Did your view of Bob Ewell change upon a reread as an adult? I remember loathing him without reservation when I first read the book as a child, but upon rereading I was struck by the scene where Atticus basically pities him for being a victim of his own circumstances ("I destroyed his last shred of dignity at that trial, if he had any to begin with."), which changed the timbre of my loathing for the character a bit.

Basesloaded32 wrote: "Now if I am reading correctly the new book was written first but it is set 20 years after TKAM. Is that what you guys have seen too or did I interpret that incorrectly?

No, that is correct. Written first, but set after. Which I think might be part of my worry, because speaking as a writer myself (and as Chelsea wisely noted) there's usually a good reason why your first book is put into a drawer. Then again, maybe a publisher's advice from 60 years ago doesn't apply the same way today, and Harper Lee has had a long time to think about it (since I'm not sure I buy the notion that she only decided to publish with external influence).

Well, the first question I can pose before people delve into the book and start talking about it in detail is: what do you personally think about the news? For those of you that haven't read it, how do you feel about a classic getting a sequel after spending so long in the pantheon of school reading lists and Great American Novels? For those of you that have read it, does this book need a sequel?

I'll admit, I'm torn. TKAM is one of the few books that I consider perfect, and I'm a bit worried about it falling off my pedestal if I don't like Go Set a Watchman. Call it George Lucas Syndrome.