Quote:
Originally Posted by BookStop  I am tempted to read another of the books to see if the emotionless theme is carried throughout.(Parson - you've read Emerald Eyes, saying you identify with the characters more. Why?) Even with all the problems identifying with the characters, I did enjoy the book, although I won't be putting it at the top of my must read list or anything.
I asked my husband what he thought of our critiques of the characterization (or lack thereof) in this one, and while he maintains The Long Run is one of the best sci-fi books ever, he does agree with pretty much everything we have been saying.
I haven't read so much in the science fiction genre as to be spoiled by the technology yet, and did enjoy the futuristic descriptions quite a bit. I do wonder if our lack of enthusiasim might have anythinig to do with sex of the reader. My husband sees the book's faults, but is able to look past them a lot easier than I am. Who all here is male? (I can't always tell by avatar obviously, I mean, I'm not a cat...) Could it be a guy/girl thing? |
This is a good question. I think Emerald Eyes was much the more enjoyable novel for me because as I said I identified much more with Carl Castanaveras then I ever did with Trent Castanaveras. But why is that? I think it has something to do with the internal struggle that Carl Castanaveras is going through. He is troubled by what's happening in his world and to him and those for whom he cares/loves. And he is forced to make some hard and troubling decisions. Life's like that. He has those who love him and those who hate and are scared by him, but he holds all of them at a distance. Frustrating but it makes for a kind of inner tension in him, and you want to see how it will be resolved. The truth is the ending there was so much more believable than "The Long Run." There is great sadness, and yet a ray of hope. (Trent and his sister have been spared. What will become of them?) Also in Emerald Eyes there is the occiasional look in from someone in the far distant future, who has an obvious stake in what's going on, but we lack details enough to really even know if these are the "good guys" or the "bad guys." And much more about the genetically altered cats, which I also found interesting.
As for the Male/Female thing, I believe it's there. I know that my wife and I have very different tastes in things. For example I thought Titantic was a pretty good 30 min. TV program made into an interminable relationship story. My wife, predicatably, loved it. But I don't know that this card can be played here. I do not identify nearly well enough with Trent, or any other character for that matter to make them matter to me. Also I am sure that you can play the male/female card too strongly too. My favorite character in all of science fiction is Honor Harrington. And another of my favorites is Miles Varsakians, (spelling?) mother, Cordelia. While Miles, obviously a sexy male, I find a lot like Trent in this book, cardboard and predictable. My all time favorite book of BuJold is "Shards of Honor" with the next "Falling Free." So going from my own experience, I think that "The Long Run" is simply flawed outside of the usual sexual identification differences.