(Mild spoilers only)

This book was a Christmas gift from one of daughters. Now aged 23, over the years she has recommended I read the following list of excellent books:

Holes - Louis Sachar
The Fault in Our Stars - John Green
An Absolutely Remarkable Thing - Hank Green
The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon
Fan Girl - Rainbow Rowell

She hasn't got a 100% success rate as she also recommended Twilight. As Ishiguro has won the Nobel Prize for Literature, I could at least console myself that it would be well-written, even if I didn't like it.

Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. One thing I really liked about it was that it was very much "show, don't tell". Ishiguro takes that maxim and dials it up to 11.

The novel is written in first person POV by Klara, whose full name is Girl AF Klara. The back cover blurb told me that AF stands for "artificial friend" and I don't think it's ever explained in the text itself. Klara has no need to spell it out and so we, the readers, aren't told either, although it is fairly obvious from early on that Klara is an AI.

Other oddities like that crop up two. Klara talks about seeing "boxes" and I initially has no idea what she meant until about page 100 when I read:

"The Mother leaned closer over the tabletop and her eyes narrowed till her face filled eight boxes, leaving only the peripheral boxes for the waterfall, and for a moment it felt to me her expression varied between one box and the next."

It then occurred to me that Klara's vision was some sort of limited resolution input arrangement. This was never verified because Klara had no reason to comment on her software/hardware, but I think I'm right. Another author would have put in an explanatory sentence, something along the lines of "I'd heard at the shop that the new Series 4 AFs were supposed to come with enhanced visual sensory equipment." But Ishiguro doesn't do that.

That can make it a frustrating, but rewarding, read. Another are where we, the readers, are left to hypothesize with limited data is the nature of the society itself.

For instance, AFs had been developed because children are raised in isolation from one another. But Klara never had reason to ever wonder why this was the case, it simply was.

Similarly, some children are "lifted". It's clear from context that this is some sort of genetic enhancement, but why or how, no explanation is forthcoming. Klara never has any reason to question how the world works, she simply observes and accepts it.

This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the source of the title..

The society is described at goodreads as "dystopian", but I don't agree. It was certainly different and there was a sub-class of "have nots" who seemed, based on Klara's limited observations, to be those whose jobs had been taken over by AIs. I don't think that makes it dystopian, merely realistic.

In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro. "Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll track it down.

-Moriarty

On 22/01/24 13:44, Moriarty wrote:
snip
>
> This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the source of the title.
>

There was a short story I vaguely remember in which the whole population
was powered this way and there was competition to spend time in the sun
resulting in a hierarchy of control and conflict.

>
> In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro. "Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll track it down.
>

Whilst "Never Let Me Go" was alright, I far preferred "The Remains of
the Day". Far more engrossing for me. I have not read Klara...

Reminds me of a tech guy on some remote web forum who connected together
Chatgpt and an Alexa or other speaker and microphone combo, so enable him
to skip the chore of reading bed time stories for his children.

He programmed it to read stories to his children, and GPT could even
answer questions and change the story a bit.

The future is approaching fast. ;)

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Moriarty wrote:

> (Mild spoilers only)
>
> This book was a Christmas gift from one of daughters. Now aged 23, over the years she has recommended I read the following list of excellent books:
>
> Holes - Louis Sachar
> The Fault in Our Stars - John Green
> An Absolutely Remarkable Thing - Hank Green
> The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon
> Fan Girl - Rainbow Rowell
>
> She hasn't got a 100% success rate as she also recommended Twilight. As Ishiguro has won the Nobel Prize for Literature, I could at least console myself that it would be well-written, even if I didn't like it.
>
> Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. One thing I really liked about it was that it was very much "show, don't tell". Ishiguro takes that maxim and dials it up to 11.
>
> The novel is written in first person POV by Klara, whose full name is Girl AF Klara. The back cover blurb told me that AF stands for "artificial friend" and I don't think it's ever explained in the text itself. Klara has no need to spell it out and so we, the readers, aren't told either, although it is fairly obvious from early on that Klara is an AI.
>
> Other oddities like that crop up two. Klara talks about seeing "boxes" and I initially has no idea what she meant until about page 100 when I read:
>
> "The Mother leaned closer over the tabletop and her eyes narrowed till her face filled eight boxes, leaving only the peripheral boxes for the waterfall, and for a moment it felt to me her expression varied between one box and the next."
>
> It then occurred to me that Klara's vision was some sort of limited resolution input arrangement. This was never verified because Klara had no reason to comment on her software/hardware, but I think I'm right. Another author would have put in an explanatory sentence, something along the lines of "I'd heard at the shop that the new Series 4 AFs were supposed to come with enhanced visual sensory equipment." But Ishiguro doesn't do that.
>
> That can make it a frustrating, but rewarding, read. Another are where we, the readers, are left to hypothesize with limited data is the nature of the society itself.
>
> For instance, AFs had been developed because children are raised in isolation from one another. But Klara never had reason to ever wonder why this was the case, it simply was.
>
> Similarly, some children are "lifted". It's clear from context that this is some sort of genetic enhancement, but why or how, no explanation is forthcoming. Klara never has any reason to question how the world works, she simply observes and accepts it.
>
> This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the source of the title.
>
> The society is described at goodreads as "dystopian", but I don't agree. It was certainly different and there was a sub-class of "have nots" who seemed, based on Klara's limited observations, to be those whose jobs had been taken over by AIs. I don't think that makes it dystopian, merely realistic.
>
> In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro. "Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll track it down.
>
> -Moriarty
>

In article <uol3su$kl5s$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 22/01/24 13:44, Moriarty wrote:
>snip
>>
>> This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to
>recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to
>her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their
>energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the
>source of the title.
>>
>
>There was a short story I vaguely remember in which the whole population
>was powered this way and there was competition to spend time in the sun
>resulting in a hierarchy of control and conflict.
>
>>
>> In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro.
>"Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll
>track it down.
>>
>
>Whilst "Never Let Me Go" was alright, I far preferred "The Remains of
>the Day". Far more engrossing for me. I have not read Klara...
>

In "Schlock Mercenary" there is a subspecies of human modfied (for some
reason..) to include chlorophyl in their epidermis. It turns out they
can't completely subsist on sunlight (and water presumably), but being
in the sun too much makes them fat.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Ted Nolan wrote:
> Titus G wrote:
>> Moriarty wrote:
>>snip
>>>
>>> This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to
>>recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to
>>her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their
>>energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the
>>source of the title.
>>>
>>
>>There was a short story I vaguely remember in which the whole population
>>was powered this way and there was competition to spend time in the sun
>>resulting in a hierarchy of control and conflict.
>>
>>>
>>> In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro.
>>"Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll
>>track it down.
>>>
>>
>>Whilst "Never Let Me Go" was alright, I far preferred "The Remains of
>>the Day". Far more engrossing for me. I have not read Klara...
>>
>
> In "Schlock Mercenary" there is a subspecies of human modfied (for some
> reason..) to include chlorophyl in their epidermis. It turns out they
> can't completely subsist on sunlight (and water presumably), but being
> in the sun too much makes them fat.

_The Destructives_ (de Abaitua)'s avoidant AIs are all arranged
alongside the Sun, in a Stapledon Sphere outside the orbit of Mercury.
To be more precise, all AI, apart from one robot named Dr Easy, reside
at a place colloquially called the University of the Sun.

*** spoiler ***

It turns out at least one human can be lifted (in the vernacular of this
thread) into the University of the Sun.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

In article <3e6a4021-5ee1-4bac-826a-425f8c54dd38n@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
>(Mild spoilers only)
>
>This book was a Christmas gift from one of daughters. Now aged 23, over
>the years she has recommended I read the following list of excellent
>books:
>
>Holes - Louis Sachar
>The Fault in Our Stars - John Green
>An Absolutely Remarkable Thing - Hank Green
>The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon
>Fan Girl - Rainbow Rowell
>
>She hasn't got a 100% success rate as she also recommended Twilight. As
>Ishiguro has won the Nobel Prize for Literature, I could at least
>console myself that it would be well-written, even if I didn't like it.
>
>Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. One thing I really liked about it was that
>it was very much "show, don't tell". Ishiguro takes that maxim and dials
>it up to 11.
>
>The novel is written in first person POV by Klara, whose full name is
>Girl AF Klara. The back cover blurb told me that AF stands for
>"artificial friend" and I don't think it's ever explained in the text
>itself. Klara has no need to spell it out and so we, the readers, aren't
>told either, although it is fairly obvious from early on that Klara is
>an AI.
>
>Other oddities like that crop up two. Klara talks about seeing "boxes"
>and I initially has no idea what she meant until about page 100 when I
>read:
>
>"The Mother leaned closer over the tabletop and her eyes narrowed till
>her face filled eight boxes, leaving only the peripheral boxes for the
>waterfall, and for a moment it felt to me her expression varied between
>one box and the next."
>
>It then occurred to me that Klara's vision was some sort of limited
>resolution input arrangement. This was never verified because Klara had
>no reason to comment on her software/hardware, but I think I'm right.
>Another author would have put in an explanatory sentence, something
>along the lines of "I'd heard at the shop that the new Series 4 AFs were
>supposed to come with enhanced visual sensory equipment." But Ishiguro
>doesn't do that.
>
>That can make it a frustrating, but rewarding, read. Another are where
>we, the readers, are left to hypothesize with limited data is the nature
>of the society itself.
>
>For instance, AFs had been developed because children are raised in
>isolation from one another. But Klara never had reason to ever wonder
>why this was the case, it simply was.
>
>Similarly, some children are "lifted". It's clear from context that this
>is some sort of genetic enhancement, but why or how, no explanation is
>forthcoming. Klara never has any reason to question how the world works,
>she simply observes and accepts it.
>
>This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to
>recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to
>her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their
>energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the
>source of the title.
>
>The society is described at goodreads as "dystopian", but I don't agree.
>It was certainly different and there was a sub-class of "have nots" who
>seemed, based on Klara's limited observations, to be those whose jobs
>had been taken over by AIs. I don't think that makes it dystopian,
>merely realistic.
>
>In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro.
>"Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll
>track it down.
>
>-Moriarty

[Hal Heydt]
Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
of world building.

On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3e6a4021-5ee1-4bac...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >(Mild spoilers only)
> >
> >This book was a Christmas gift from one of daughters. Now aged 23, over
> >the years she has recommended I read the following list of excellent
> >books:
> >
> >Holes - Louis Sachar
> >The Fault in Our Stars - John Green
> >An Absolutely Remarkable Thing - Hank Green
> >The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon
> >Fan Girl - Rainbow Rowell
> >
> >She hasn't got a 100% success rate as she also recommended Twilight. As
> >Ishiguro has won the Nobel Prize for Literature, I could at least
> >console myself that it would be well-written, even if I didn't like it.
> >
> >Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. One thing I really liked about it was that
> >it was very much "show, don't tell". Ishiguro takes that maxim and dials
> >it up to 11.
> >
> >The novel is written in first person POV by Klara, whose full name is
> >Girl AF Klara. The back cover blurb told me that AF stands for
> >"artificial friend" and I don't think it's ever explained in the text
> >itself. Klara has no need to spell it out and so we, the readers, aren't
> >told either, although it is fairly obvious from early on that Klara is
> >an AI.
> >
> >Other oddities like that crop up two. Klara talks about seeing "boxes"
> >and I initially has no idea what she meant until about page 100 when I
> >read:
> >
> >"The Mother leaned closer over the tabletop and her eyes narrowed till
> >her face filled eight boxes, leaving only the peripheral boxes for the
> >waterfall, and for a moment it felt to me her expression varied between
> >one box and the next."
> >
> >It then occurred to me that Klara's vision was some sort of limited
> >resolution input arrangement. This was never verified because Klara had
> >no reason to comment on her software/hardware, but I think I'm right.
> >Another author would have put in an explanatory sentence, something
> >along the lines of "I'd heard at the shop that the new Series 4 AFs were
> >supposed to come with enhanced visual sensory equipment." But Ishiguro
> >doesn't do that.
> >
> >That can make it a frustrating, but rewarding, read. Another are where
> >we, the readers, are left to hypothesize with limited data is the nature
> >of the society itself.
> >
> >For instance, AFs had been developed because children are raised in
> >isolation from one another. But Klara never had reason to ever wonder
> >why this was the case, it simply was.
> >
> >Similarly, some children are "lifted". It's clear from context that this
> >is some sort of genetic enhancement, but why or how, no explanation is
> >forthcoming. Klara never has any reason to question how the world works,
> >she simply observes and accepts it.
> >
> >This is amusing in some ways. For instance, Klara is solar powered: to
> >recharge she simply has to stand in direct sunlight. It never occurs to
> >her that this is not how other beings - such as humans - get their
> >energy. Klara's relationship with the sun is a major plotpoint and the
> >source of the title.
> >
> >The society is described at goodreads as "dystopian", but I don't agree.
> >It was certainly different and there was a sub-class of "have nots" who
> >seemed, based on Klara's limited observations, to be those whose jobs
> >had been taken over by AIs. I don't think that makes it dystopian,
> >merely realistic.
> >
> >In summary: I really enjoyed this book and I shall read more Ishiguro.
> >"Never Let Me Go" seems to be another SF offering from him, so I'll
> >track it down.
> >
> >-Moriarty
> [Hal Heydt]
> Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
> of world building.

I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.

-Moriarty

On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
snip

>> [Hal Heydt]
>> Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
>> of world building.
>
> I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
>

I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.
Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's. This
became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in
moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous
appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in
characters. However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
a struggle to finish.

On 29 Jan 2024 at 03:13:29 GMT, "Titus G" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> snip
>
>>> [Hal Heydt]
>>> Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
>>> of world building.
>>
>> I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
>>
>
> I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.
> Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
> interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
> environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
> that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's. This
> became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in
> moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous
> appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in
> characters. However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
> if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
> building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
> I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
> a struggle to finish.

Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
first time.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
d> It's OK. I'm an atheist catholic.
g> So you just feel guilty for /no readily apparent reason/.
- deKay and Gareth Halfacree, ugvm

In article <l1pkh7F2bdU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
>go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
>then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
>building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
>first time.

I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the
criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable. THE
MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he
started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
quite fit the later books' kit of pegs. But what first-time author
can say otherwise?

They're definitely not for everyone; these books are more about
exploring a theory of social organization than they are about Our
Plucky Heroes Joining Forces to Defeat the Big Bad or insert your
favorite fantasy tropes here. That Saunders finds a way to do this
that's not didactic -- indeed, that is positively entertaining -- is a
triumph. But it's reasonable to argue that in avoiding didacticism he
may have leaned too far into "readers are geniuses".

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On 1/29/2024 10:35, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <l1pkh7F2bdU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
>> go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
>> then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
>> building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
>> first time.
>
> I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the
> criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable. THE
> MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
> end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
> clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he
> started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
> quite fit the later books' kit of pegs. But what first-time author
> can say otherwise?

Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.

Once I found them I just tore through them. I think 2 & 4 are my
favorites, but I like 1 & 3 a lot also. Even liked 5 better last re-read.

> They're definitely not for everyone; these books are more about
> exploring a theory of social organization than they are about Our
> Plucky Heroes Joining Forces to Defeat the Big Bad or insert your
> favorite fantasy tropes here. That Saunders finds a way to do this
> that's not didactic -- indeed, that is positively entertaining -- is a
> triumph. But it's reasonable to argue that in avoiding didacticism he
> may have leaned too far into "readers are geniuses".

I don't think I'm a genius, but I've had everyone else I've pushed these
on say they were hard to get into.

This world has another distinction -- it's the nastiest world (lots of
sudden death around! Not much long-term security, either) that I would
seriously consider living in if given the option.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Words Over Windows http://WordsOverWindows.dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/

On 1/21/2024 18:44, Moriarty wrote:
> The novel is written in first person POV by Klara, whose full name is
> Girl AF Klara. The back cover blurb told me that AF stands for
> "artificial friend" and I don't think it's ever explained in the text
> itself. Klara has no need to spell it out and so we, the readers, aren't
> told either, although it is fairly obvious from early on that Klara is
> an AI.

I am sad! I was so amused by a character known as "Girl as fuck Klara"!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Words Over Windows http://WordsOverWindows.dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/

On 1/28/2024 21:13, Titus G wrote:
> On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> snip
>
>>> [Hal Heydt]
>>> Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
>>> of world building.
>>
>> I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
>>
>
> I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.

I knew Graydon, and tracked them down when I heard (not so promptly)
that they existed.

And dived in and have loved them. They went instantly on the heavy
re-read loop (which I do way too much of).

> Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
> interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
> environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
> that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's.

Original and weirder than most is entirely fair, yeah.

But I never had any trouble figuring out the environment. I mean, I
don't actually know whether that's a far-future Earth, or an unrelated
planet (or, in between, I suppose it could be a colony planet), but I
don't think I'm supposed to know, and I don't care, it doesn't matter.

I don't think that was the thing you were complaining about; but I'm not
sure what it *was*.

> This
> became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in
> moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous
> appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in
> characters.

Is this ophidiform graul? Otherwise I haven't the faintest clue. Those
bothered me, seemed a weird intrusion to no real purpose.

I'm deeply invested in the 4 main students and the 3 main teachers as
characters, though. And then the wizard without power from book 4.

> However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
> if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
> building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
> I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
> a struggle to finish.

Books 1 and 2 are an interesting decision about where to start. When in
doubt I recommend publication order, so that's what I recommend in this
case.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Words Over Windows http://WordsOverWindows.dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/

On 31/01/24 13:09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 21:13, Titus G wrote:
>> On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> [Hal Heydt]
>>>> Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
>>>> of world building.
>>>
>>> I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by
>>> others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
>>>
>>
>> I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.
>
> I knew Graydon, and tracked them down when I heard (not so promptly)
> that they existed.
>
> And dived in and have loved them. They went instantly on the heavy
> re-read loop (which I do way too much of).
>
>> Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
>> interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
>> environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
>> that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's.
>
> Original and weirder than most is entirely fair, yeah.
>
> But I never had any trouble figuring out the environment. I mean, I
> don't actually know whether that's a far-future Earth, or an unrelated
> planet (or, in between, I suppose it could be a colony planet), but I
> don't think I'm supposed to know, and I don't care, it doesn't matter.
>
> I don't think that was the thing you were complaining about; but I'm not
> sure what it *was*.

It is a long time since I read it but by environment I was recollecting
how the magical reality was interpreted. I didn't mean to imply
complaint but to express why my interest waned.

>
>> This
>> became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in
>> moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous
>> appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in
>> characters.
>
> Is this ophidiform graul? Otherwise I haven't the faintest clue. Those
> bothered me, seemed a weird intrusion to no real purpose.
>

My vague memory recalls a principal character having the appearance of a
knitting needle wielding sheep.

> I'm deeply invested in the 4 main students and the 3 main teachers as
> characters, though. And then the wizard without power from book 4.
>
>> However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
>> if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
>> building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
>> I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
>> a struggle to finish.
>
> Books 1 and 2 are an interesting decision about where to start. When in
> doubt I recommend publication order, so that's what I recommend in this
> case.

My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
to start" as recommended elsewhere?

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
> characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.
>
> Once I found them I just tore through them. I think 2 & 4 are my
> favorites, but I like 1 & 3 a lot also. Even liked 5 better last re-read.
>
> This world has another distinction -- it's the nastiest world (lots of
> sudden death around! Not much long-term security, either) that I would
> seriously consider living in if given the option.

I'm a fan. ISTM Bujold's _Sharing Knife_ world might have a
similar backstory.

Cheers, David Duffy.

On 30/01/2024 23:55, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 10:35, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the
>> criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable.  THE
>> MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
>> end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
>> clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he
>> started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
>> quite fit the later books' kit of pegs.  But what first-time author
>> can say otherwise?
>
> Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
> characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.

Did someone say recently that characters
in these books can edit past events? I mean.

In article <upghe0$2516t$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 30/01/2024 23:55, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
>> characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.

>Did someone say recently that characters
>in these books can edit past events? I mean.

Yes, one of the principal modalities of sorcery is changing which past
is manifest in the present, that present being viewed as an
accumulation of chance events which could have turned out differently.
There's an off-hand mention that all of then-surviving human ancestry
may have been pulled out of an alternate history this way after a
war-induced extinction event 100,000 years previously.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <upc2ad$16oqb$1@dont-email.me>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>On 1/29/2024 10:35, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <l1pkh7F2bdU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
>>> go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
>>> then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
>>> building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
>>> first time.
>>
>> I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the
>> criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable. THE
>> MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
>> end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
>> clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he
>> started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
>> quite fit the later books' kit of pegs. But what first-time author
>> can say otherwise?
>
>Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
>characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.
>
>Once I found them I just tore through them. I think 2 & 4 are my
>favorites, but I like 1 & 3 a lot also. Even liked 5 better last re-read.
>
>> They're definitely not for everyone; these books are more about
>> exploring a theory of social organization than they are about Our
>> Plucky Heroes Joining Forces to Defeat the Big Bad or insert your
>> favorite fantasy tropes here. That Saunders finds a way to do this
>> that's not didactic -- indeed, that is positively entertaining -- is a
>> triumph. But it's reasonable to argue that in avoiding didacticism he
>> may have leaned too far into "readers are geniuses".
>
>I don't think I'm a genius, but I've had everyone else I've pushed these
>on say they were hard to get into.
>
>This world has another distinction -- it's the nastiest world (lots of
>sudden death around! Not much long-term security, either) that I would
>seriously consider living in if given the option.

[Hal Heydt]
They are definitely a cure for too much "As you know, Bob...".
Switching to the palces you see being in the Southern Hemisphere
is kind of nice. (I *still* don't have a good feel for the
layout of the geography. Wish Saunders--or somebody--would do a
map.)

In article <s89n2t.1L9z@kithrup.com>,
Hal Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:

>They are definitely a cure for too much "As you know, Bob...".
>Switching to the palces you see being in the Southern Hemisphere
>is kind of nice. (I *still* don't have a good feel for the
>layout of the geography. Wish Saunders--or somebody--would do a
>map.)

So I've been pondering this on and off for a few years, and while I
don't think it's an exact match, I've been thinking the southeastern
coast of Australia -- keeping in mind that they're in a glacial period
and sea levels are lower than here-and-now. That would put the First
Commonweal in inland South Australia. (There's no plausible analogue
of the Main River, though -- the Murray rises in the wrong place.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <upep36$1oc9h$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 31/01/24 13:09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>My vague memory recalls a principal character having the appearance of a
>knitting needle wielding sheep.

[Hal Heydt]
Thinking about Halt? Spends her time knitting and has created a
species of large "weed" eating sheep. ("Weed" in quotes because
of the internal special meaning of the word.)

I'm not sure where he's going with the ophidiform Graul. I
suspect we'll find out in some future book. I suppose it's
possible they were introduced to provide a group of Graul who are
not tied to quasi-religious beliefs of the few existing Graul
from the first Commonweal. Possibly as a way to free them from
the social constraints that led to The Captain (for whom we still
don't have an actual name) to be the first Graul to take a
commission as a officer in the Line.

One of the few things we do know is that about 4 years after the
end of book 5 the Sea People are back. One might anticipate
that, by then, there are one or two additional batteries in the
5th Battalion.

On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:

> My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
> Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
> to start" as recommended elsewhere?

Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.

One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Words Over Windows http://WordsOverWindows.dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/

On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:
>
>> My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
>> Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
>
> Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
> think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
> which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
> Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
>
> One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
>
Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal
chronological order" situations?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 16 Feb 2024 at 23:25:55 GMT, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:
>>
>>> My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
>>> Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
>>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
>>
>> Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
>> think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
>> which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
>> Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
>>
>> One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
>>
> Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal
> chronological order" situations?

No, it's that 2&3 are really one story over two volumes, so starting
with 3 (Safely You Deliver) would be hard work.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
....there should be a feature added to the RAID 0 standard
stating that if anyone selects RAID 0 as an option, they
must type in, "I know what I am doing and that it is wrong" before they can proceed.
- Archangel Mychael, ArsTechnica comments

In article <uqoqu1$2jot$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
>> think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
>> which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
>> Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
>>
>> One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
>>
>Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal
>chronological order" situations?

No, these are both "the same", except that both books 4 and 5 are not
themselves written in order and overlap to a large extent (but are
mostly different stories told by different viewpoint characters).

I think there are maybe three sensible ways to read the series as it
currently stands:

1) All five books in publication order.

2) Books 1 and 5 only (if you're interested in MilSF but bored by
magic school).

3) Books 2 and 3 only (if you like magic school and are bored or
disgusted by military stuff).

There's good stuff in book 4 (UNDER ONE BANNER), but it doesn't make
much sense by its own, and it doesn't really provide much help in
understanding book 5 either because there's so little overlap in
events. (Like, the whole second half of UNDER ONE BANNER is reduced
to a couple of paragraphs of A MIST OF GRIT AND SPLINTERS.) One gets
the impression that books 4 and 5 were written, or at least planned,
as a single volume and then became too unwieldy and were split by
viewpoint, not entirely successfully.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <uqoqu1$2jot$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:
>>
>>> My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
>>> Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
>>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
>>
>> Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
>> think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
>> which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
>> Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
>>
>> One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
>>
>Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal
>chronological order" situations?
>

IMHO, publication order is *always* the order in which to read a series.
(Except that sometimes skipping the first published book helps).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..