Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

Welcome to June-and our themed read Grass. I read this last year and really enjoyed it so am happy to be able to re-read! There are some really cool world-building elements in here to talk about!

I loved, loved, loved the first half of this book. but I became quite frustrated with the second half. I think I just really responded to the horror elements of that first half, the ambiguity and the vague menace and the eerie atmosphere. and the bizarre religion!

I thought the suspensefulness (I know, I know,but it's the right made-up word) was superb!

The creepiness of the hunt, with hounds that aren't hounds, mounts that aren't horses, and foxen that certainly not fox, all while under a strict sense of foreboding silence.....

I'm only a quarter through. I can feel the horror that Mark references. The aristocrats seem slightly mad!

I read this just over 5 years ago but the memory of how good it was still firmly stays with me. In fact it was so good it was the book that finally pushed me into writing my very first Goodreads review (Poor impoverished repressed thing can be found here).

I remember that everything from the character building, the storyline, the world building and the alien cultures were just superbly done. I'm not sure that anything since has grabbed me in quite the same way.

I found the first half of the book slow and tiring to read. It got better in the second.

I read this one last year, here is my review.

At the beginning I tended to give the novel 3 stars, but I ended up with 4 because (in contrast to Mark's experience) it picked me up in the second half.

I wouldn't recommend this if you don't like philosophical discussions or have problems with backwards oriented religions which drive main protagonists: I don't quite understand why this feminist author projects religions the way she did here: Catholicism isn't known to be exactly feministic, but a woman having to support her man while he has a mistress? I mean, Catholicism and Grass' religion give an interesting contrast and the discussion of original sin and its relation to aliens gives me some thoughts. But why had Tepper to introduce this heavy-handed preachery?

I read this about a year ago. I think the Catholicism of the protagonist is meant as a contrast and part of Tepper's world building. The universe she describes is conservative, but not virulently so. Of the religions on offer now, Cathoicism fits the bill, and enables some of the dissent of some of the settlers. From what I can tell too this is not preachy as Tepper gets. But be assured Catholicism is part of the development of the novel, not a belief of Tepper.

I found the religion depicted in her universe to be pretty extreme - repulsively so, at times. I thought it added to the horror elements in the first half - a sort of horror movie version of Catholicism. wish I still had a copy of the book to cite specifics. alas.

My overall image of Tepper is that she despises all organized religion, but I got the impression she reserved the majority of her disdain for the Mormons in particular. It may be Sideshow where she gets particularly pointed; I need to go back and check on that, it's been too long since I read either of these. Mostly I remember from Grass the horrific ambiance of unspecified dread she manages to create, and then the entirely different sort of horror of the second half. Glorious!

I have finished. Overall I liked it.

Grass is certainly a very different world! The world building was pretty good. One question I had was where the artistocrats got their money to live. None of them appeared to work.

It's interesting that the technology is upscale but the religion is heavy-handed, especially on women.

I liked the tension of the first part of the book better than the action of the second half.

I could have done without the Eugenie character. She seems to have been created solely to use a prop to move the story along.

Marjorie was a likeable "hero." Nice that a 40year old woman got to play that role.

Did anyone think Marjorie was a little 'Mary-Sue'?

Sorry Maggie but whats 'Mary-Sue'?

There are so many different takes on what a Mary-Sue is, it is hard to try and say! Mostly it is an idealized character--a little too wonderful with no flaws that everyone just loves...unrealistic!

I say this because everyone seems to think Marjorie is wonderful, and are kind of falling all over her...

Thanks Maggie.

I read Grass too long ago to remember Marjorie in any fine detail. However I usually find an over perfect, can do no wrong, faultless, brilliant character rather irritating and I do remember that nothing in this book rubbed me up the wrong way like that would have done. You never know, if I could manage a reread or two maybe Marjorie would start to chafe my sensibilities after a closer inspection but I can't say from this distance.

Maggie, Mary-Sue is a new one for me, too! Sounds a bit like a "Pollyanna." Based on your definition of what a Mary-Sue character is, Majorie does not qualify. Yes, she seems to get a fair amount of men interested, but she makes mistakes and has flaws. She is quite intelligent and decisive but lacks a sense of humor.

Isn't it also a property of a "Mary-Sue" that it reads like the author inserted himself/herself as a wish-fulfillment character, or am I thinking of something else?

yeah that's how they started...

Can't answer your comparision to Mary-Sue. But I wanted to thank you, Maggie, to bring out this term. I didn't know it - there is a whole wikipedia article about it (it seems to stem from Trekkie fan fiction), wow!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-sue

This book has been on my to-read list for awhile now, near the top but always getting pushed aside (or down the queue) when something else grabs my immediate attention, so I was glad this group chose the book as it gave me a final kick in the butt to read it. I'm not at all disappointed with the selection, I really enjoyed the book.

Loved the world building, loved, loved, loved how the animals/sentient non-humans/creatures took such a central role in the book. Being a big animal lover myself, anything that incorporates animals and beings that are animal like but possess qualities that propel them in ways to be valued as equal (perhaps even superior) to humans will always be of interest to me.

Equally enjoyable is anything that pokes fun at, ridicules or criticises religion in any way - it's a perverse pleasure of mine, and this book tickled it very well so I'm all around quite a happy boy right now. :-)

Good nomination, good selection, really good read!

Thanks Andreas for the link. I now think I will try to forget I ever heard the term! Because otherwise I'll find myself listing the zillion Marty Stu's that exist!

lol Linda!

and Todd-I agree wholeheartedly with all your assessments!

"a whole wikipedia article about" Mary-Sue?

There's a whole web-site: http://www.themarysue.com/ !

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: ""a whole wikipedia article about" Mary-Sue?

There's a whole web-site: http://www.themarysue.com/ !"

uh-oh I just wasted a ton of time with the Drunken Cersei piece....

I decided I just had to go back and reread this one. It's brilliant the way she creates an entire world and an atmosphere of dread in just the first few pages. And then it just goes on to get more and more ominous! I'm truly having fun!

I also find it somewhat awesome and somewhat sad that a book that is making such pointed political commentary is still completely relevant 25 years later! Sanctity is clearly meant to represent the Mormon church, but most fundamentally she is attacking any patriarchal religion, whether it is the Mormons' refusal to allow women into their temples, or the "Old Catholic" belief (which may actually be more prevalent in Protestant religions today) that women owe obedience to their husbands or the belief that divorce is a sin, or any current permutation that patriarchal religions might take on. She is also making a pretty clear point about the evils of letting religious beliefs guide public policy or scientific research. Her depiction of the "illegals," while pointing out the hypocrisy of simultaneously prohibiting contraception, abortions, third children, and emigration can also be applied to undocumented workers and the cries of many to deny them educational and medical services.

I really enjoy the social and political commentary in this, but no one else seems to have mentioned it. Did it just seem routine to folks, or perhaps too heavy-handed?

at first I thought it was interesting. the intensity (or, I suppose, the heavy-handedness) of the religion really contributed to the feeling of horror & strangeness in this unpleasant universe. but eventually I grew annoyed by the book and then the religion started to seem cartoonish.

I did appreciate the social commentary. but even that got lost for me in the end, perhaps even betrayed, with the eventual fate of the daughter. I just got the feeling that even the author thought this was a good thing. I also got quite annoyed at the repetitiousness of the lead character's obsession with 'what makes a good wife'. I understand the author's intent with that, but it didn't make it more enjoyable to read.

I do hate to dis this book. I truly loved the first half. then I think Tepper lost control of her material.

When I first read this (oh many years ago) I was absolutely amazed by it. It just seemed that back then this kind of political commentary was just so hard to find (and particularly so in sci-fi). It seemed like I just had to haunt the library and bookstores to stumble upon stuff like this. Now I have to admit that for me it has probably been down-ranked from "amazing" to "really liked." But it also saddens me, that a feminist diatribe against patriarchal religions is perhaps even more relevant now than it was 25 years ago; and the fact that her depiction of "illegals" is even more appropriate, when applied to undocumented workers in the United States today, is even more depressing. Chilling.

Alexa wrote: "When I first read this (oh many years ago) I was absolutely amazed by it. It just seemed that back then this kind of political commentary was just so hard to find (and particularly so in sci-fi). ..."

While there have been steps forward for women, the battle is not won and diligence is required, as yesterday's Supreme Court decision highlights.