2009 October 03 » Birdbrain(ed) Book Blog

Review: Freedom & Necessity by Steven Brust and Emma Bull

Posted by Anastasia on October 3, 2009 No Responses »

Oct 032009

Freedom & Necessity big Freedom & Necessity by Emma Bull and Steven Brust
Publication: Orb Books (April 17, 2007), Paperback, 443 pages / ISBN 9780765316806
Genre: Historical Fiction, Fantasy, Adventure/Action
Rating:
Find @ Amazon or IndieBound
Read: September 2009

Oh my GOD I love this book. Okay, don’t be fooled by the cover or the title: this is not, in fact, a horribly boring nonfiction book about some crappy European war. It’s actually a super interesting, super thrilling, super FANTASTIC historical fiction book with a smidgen of fantasy!

Summary from Indiebound:

An extraordinary novel of magic and mystery from two of fantasy’s most electrifying young authors. This wild romp leads readers through every corner of mid-nineteenth-century England, from the parlors of the intellectual elite to the dens of the underclass. Not since Wilkie Collins and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has there been such a profusion of guns, sword fights, family intrigues, women disguised as men, secret societies, occult pursuits, philosophical discussions and sheer adventure!

I’m actually a really big fan of Emma Bull; I’ve previously read War For the Oaks and loved it, and so I was hoping to at least like Freedom and Necessity. I was initially a little put off by the package, but I had high hopes that it’d be really good on the inside. And it was! From the very first page it was interesting and funny and thrilling and though it took a big of work to get through it– it’s long– I can safely say that this is one of my favorite books I’ve read this year.

Okay, so what did I love best? Oh, merely everything. I love the characters, I love the writing, I love the time period and the setting and the plot. It does take a bit of getting used to the format– everything’s told through diary entries and letters and telegrams– but it actually makes for good “bites”, kind of like mini chapters?

Some elaboration: I thought the four main characters were a really good mix of personalities and types, and they meshed really well together. Even when they’re annoyed at one another, you can still tell how much they love each other and what a good family they are. Er, though it was a bit weird when they started have romances with each other, but since they’re all cousins it’s not as weird…maybe.

I did think the romance between Susan and James was a bit forced, though maybe that was because I thought James was gay because of something he did early on in the book (I must have just misinterpreted it). And once I got used to the idea I did think they were quite sweet, and their happy ending made me happy in return. Kitty and Richard were less of a struggle for me, and I thought they made an adorable couple as well.

Speaking of Susan: I really liked her! I thought she was really refreshing, and though maybe she’s a bit of an unusual person for the time period, I think she would have fitted right in with, say, Emma Goldman‘s circle. She’s fierce and tough and I love how she refuses to get married even when she’s in love because she wants to stick to her beliefs. She’s such a great character, and I wish she could be my friend.

Anyway, there actually isn’t much by the way of fantasy in Freedom and Necessity, and when it does spring up it can almost be taken as not being magic, but instead just some weird cult thing. Instead, the book is more about political intrigue and big thrilling scenes (lots of sword fights and things, very exciting) and trying to solve the mystery and so on. It’s all terribly exciting, even with German philosophers running around the narrative.

So, in conclusion: yay! Love this book! SO. MUCH.

If you like historical fiction, or historical fantasy, or both, get this book. And then we can talk about it together! Eee!

Get your own copy from Amazon or your favorite indie bookstore.

Other reviews: Curledup.com

On aging gracefully

Posted by Anastasia on October 3, 2009 No Responses »

Oct 032009

Kim from Sophisticated Dorkiness asked on my review of Thank You For Smoking that really struck a chord with me. Here’s her original comment:

It is interesting how some books age well and some books don’t. I mean, Jane Austen’s books are very much set in her time, but she’s writing about people and their actions somehow transcend time in a lot of ways. Do you think this book might age better when there is some more distance — we’ll be able to look back on it and see something more universal in what it’s commenting on?

And so I want to ask you all something: why do certain books age well, why others become dated nearly as quickly as they’re published? Do you think that the longer a book has been around, the easier that readers can find something profound? Or does it just depend on how the book is written?

There’s two sets of things that date a book for me: if it’s focused on something political/economical/business-y and if it’s focused on trends. Thank You For Smoking is in the first category, and though it’s dated it’s possible that it might age better when a few more decades have gone by. But the books that are focused on trends and what’s popular at the moment…eh.

When I say “trends” I mean things like clothing, slang, and even technology. It’s hard to get past that stuff if it’s something that’s no longer popular (cell phones the size of bricks, hello!), especially if a book is so dependent on them. And then sometimes the things outside of the material seem dated to us modern readers as well. Think of the Sweet Valley High books (the originals, I mean), or even the Nancy Drew books. Totally dated, right? It’s not just the clothes, either; it’s the attitudes of the characters and the social conventions they embody (especially Miss Nancy there). They’re highly entertaining, but I don’t think anyone’s finding insight on the human condition in The Mystery of the Brass-Bound Trunk.

On the other hand, think of a book like A Wrinkle in Time. It was written in 1962, but I don’t think anyone can truly consider it to be dated. It’s got some out-dated stuff in it, sure, but it’s still got enough universal truth stuff that it’s transcended time (lol, pun) while still being very entertaining. Or even E.L. Konigsburg’s From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs Basil E. Frankweiler– written in 1968, and obviously dated simply by looking at the train fares, but it’s still both highly entertaining and profound.

So I suppose that I think books written specifically to be in the moment, to be modern and hip and whatever, like Gossip Girl or The It Girl: they tend to become dated quicker than books written with something other than product placement in mind. Not that both kinds of books can’t be fun to read! But is Gossip Girl seriously going to be as popular with anyone not prone to nostalgia (a la Sweet Valley High) 30 years from now as it is today?

But then what about something like Tartuffe? Totally political and a product of its time, right? But it’s so old it’s gone beyond dated and went into classic territory, so I have no idea. And technically A Wrinkle in Time and From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs Basil E. Frankweiler are classics as well– so does that mean that because they’ve had more time to stew, so to speak, they’ve become more appreciated than books that have only had twenty or ten or five years? Is time really the antidote to dated books?

What do you think? Can you find something universal even in Gossip Girl? Or do you think it’ll take a few more years?