SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

A place for those who've finished 'Native Star'.

*** Enter At Your Own Risk ***


Marked spoilers would be preferred, but I suppose that should be fair enough warning for people who don't want to be spoiled. :>

I finished this last night - here's my review: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Looking forward to discussing it.

Just finished. Still letting my thoughts sort themselves out. I enjoyed it enough that I'll be reading the next one fairly soon.

I liked the characters, and the world they inhabited was fascinating, but of course it was frustrating having to learn about it only when Stanton or another character felt like enlightening Emily, and by extension the reader. There's still way too much we don't understand about the world, and even the stuff we have seen and learned about remains something of a mystery. The last chapter in particular was frustrating, in that I kept thinking "am I supposed to know what they're talking about? I feel like I should, and a couple of these names have been mentioned before, but I'm still completely lost..."

Also, the romance was pretty unconvincing, at least in the end. They just treated each other far too poorly to be that in love. The whole "I love you, but I'm still gonna be kind of a jerk to you" thing isn't that endearing.

I agree with Mike about the characters, I wanted to like them a little more and I didn't really feel the romance. Although it was obvious Stanton would be the love interest, Dag's feelings seemed more genuine (despite the love spell).

One thing really annoyed me throughout the book and got worse and worse as it went on... the misogyny. I get that this takes place in the 1800's and that it is a man-run world, and as often is the case in this type of world, strong and independent women are called names implying they are lose. But literally every single man not from (or living) in Lost Pine was a complete and total asshole continually calling her a tramp, etc. Got really annoying and a little excessive. Even Zeno was kind of being an ass at the end and I don't feel like it was thoroughly explained why, although the epilogue was supposed to help.

Although things with the main characters were wrapped up, I would have liked what to learn what happened to Rose, Humphrey, Dag... all the small characters we grew attached to along the way were sort of left hanging.

Overall it was OK but I actually liked the first half better, things just started to get repetitive by the end.

I haven't read up too much on what the second book's about, I'm hoping that people like Rose and Dag and even Pap make a return. They were developed enough that they should be recurring characters.

While I think I liked the book more than you lot, so far, I also agree with the comments about the misogyny being excessive and it being repetitive - especially the whole "they're running for their lives, they get captured, they escape, and they're running, and they're captured, and they're escaping... " thing.

That said - I actually preferred the second half because the first half was kind of slow, for me, and I felt more invested when stuff was actually happening.

I do wish Emily was a bit more proactive, though. It's almost like the author wants her to be, and means her to be, but doesn't quite pull it off.

I did buy the romance, though. Maybe because I've read so many Darcy/Elizabeth type romances (and I do prefer them, at least, to the insta-love types), but maybe because my and my husband have that teasing sort of relationship ourselves.


I was confused by Zeno's behavior towards Emily at the end at first, but I thought it was explained as how he didn't want her and Stanton together and he was annoyed that she walked in while he was still there.

And I don't remember feeling confused as to what was going on at the end, but I'd have to reread it again to be sure.

Oh - I also do hope some of the threads left dangling are picked up in the next book... as you said, I hope to see a bit about Dag and Pap, especially, and to see what became of Rose as well.


Does anyone know if this is a duology, planned trilogy, or just on-going series?

Does anyone know if this is a duology, planned trilogy, or just on-going series?

Looks to be at least four books. She's publishing the third (and presumably the fourth) through Kickstarter.

Third book comes out October 31.

Cool, thanks.

Of course, we'll see how book 2 goes, first, but, still, I like to know what I'm getting into. :>

I'm only about 60% through, but I am having troubles connecting...I just don't LIKE Emily very much, she is kind of a jerk...
Her opinion of Natives is really kind of offensive, and her treatment of poeple helping her rude...I am hoping she learns a few things here though so I will stick with it

Maggie wrote: "Her opinion of Natives is really kind of offensive"

Good point. In fact, I had to think a bit to remember how it was explained/wrapped up, and then I remembered: badly. Yeah, she's got "her reasons", and she realizes they're probably ill-informed, and I guess she gets over her dislike/distrust of them, but it's all skimmed over kind of lazily and we never hear of it again.

I also didn't like that part, and I was sort of surprised that the roles in that weren't reverse - that she was more open-minded and Stanton more bigoted. (Though that wouldn't have worked with Stanton knowing them.)

But I also wrote it off, at least in part, as being true to the time period.

Like the misogyny I thought it was heavy-handed and not really presented or developed all that well - but I think it would've been unbelievable for her to not have fears and prejudices.

Yeah the fears and prejudices were typical of that time, although she was a little excessive (especially once he said he knew them, wouldn't you at least keep it to yourself?!). They did allude to some lost memory she had of being chased by them, I'm assuming once we learn more about her mom and the Russians in the next book we may get more background on this as well.

I find it far more problematic, in that it pulls me out of the story more, when the protagonists seem to always have sensibilities that match what is currently acceptable when the story was written.

i just gave up on this one a few minutes ago, so my bile is fresh. got to a little after page 200 and it was just too much. the magic was interesting, but that was pretty much it for me. really formulaic antagonism for now but soon it will be love between the two leads. Emily sucked, one of the most aggravating protagonist i've read in a while. a very annoying misuse of Native Americans. and of zombies. and of a whirling dervish. inexplicable character motivation. hit-or-miss use of 'evocative' language... peach-colored shadows for chrissakes! and i never want to read the phrase "cash-money" again. i kept trying to find things to like about this one but in the end the effort became too wearying. ah well.

just curious here, but why hasn't this thread been tagged for the book in question? when it's tagged, it not only shows how people rated the book, but viewing reviews from people who post on this thread is just a click away.

I really enjoyed this one. I agree that Emily was a little annoying but she came alive for me about a quarter of the way into the book. I guess her prejudice didn't strike a nerve with me because it fit in with her overall bad attitude.
I was satisfied by the world-building and look forward to reading the sequels but the review inside the book is somewhat misleading. I expected steampunk but it leaned more towards science.

person who added the book to this thread (Colleen?): thanks!

I'm gonna say that was abug, 'cause I swear I set it up when I started the thread.

I didn't find the misogyny heavy-handed, but that may be because I'm so excited that it was even addressed in a book. I thought the way that people dealt with Emily was very accurate for the time period.

I, too, want to know more about the magic, and I hope that it is covered in future novels.

I found the romance to be believable, but annoying. I'm not sure WHY they had to get together. I don't know what purpose it serves. As I wrote in my review, why can't women be single anymore?

♥Meagan♥ wrote: "I found the romance to be believable, but annoying. I'm not sure WHY they had to get together. I don't know what purpose it serves. As I wrote in my review, why can't women be single anymore?"

I've thought this for many books that seem to have romance tacked onto them... and I recall thinking it for this book early on, too.

But then I reminded myself that the blurb did say romance, so I sorta decided I had to just suck it up 'cause I knew what I was getting into. :>

I've just come to expect that if there's a single female of at least 16, then the book has some sort of romance, unfortunately.

Yeah. I've read a lot of YA books where I didn't feel a romance was necessary - especially the few dystopians I've read.

I actually don't mind romance or anything, as a rule, and I've found most of the books I really like have at least some romance to them... but I also do get tired of romance being crammed in to, like, everything, whether or not it seems natural to the plot.

a very annoying misuse of ...zombies.

As far as I'm concerned, misusing zombies is just about the best thing that can be done with them anymore. :p

Heh. I don't quite get the draw of zombies, myself, though I did think it was weird that it was such a throw-away thing in this.

Why not just have them be Abnormalcies, or whatever, instead of zombies?


Random side-note: It's sad that I remember details of books, like, the day after I finish it.

I was relieved that the zombies were just there for that first cinematic scene. I thought they worked fantastic for this book -- it was an interesting use of zombies, they made for a good initial action scene, and then we threw them away because, with zombies, a little goes a long way.

Actually, the zombies are a good example of one of my complaints about the book....too many ideas tossed into the soup, and a great many of them (including the zombies) just weren't explored nearly enough. They were introduced just in time to serve their purpose in the plot, then they were discarded entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I can't really stand zombies and the fewer screen-time (so to speak) the better, but like I said, too much else in the book followed the same pattern.

Speaking only of the zombies, and not the other elements you mentioned in passing but didn't list, but I thought the zombies were explained well. We know where they come from, what they're used for, and even how they work.

What else do we need to know?

i definitely agree with that. interesting origin for the zombies. but poor execution.

Porter wrote: "Speaking only of the zombies, and not the other elements you mentioned in passing but didn't list, but I thought the zombies were explained well. We know where they come from, what they're used fo..."

Oh they're explained well, but as mark suggests before me, they just weren't used well. To me, it just seemed a waste of a fully developed idea. Like, I'll read the rest of Hobson's books, and if the zombies don't return as a crucial plot element, I'll be disappointed. And again: zombie hater here.

As it stands, the zombies in this book are just atmosphere.

Well, yeah. It's a steampunk book. Atmosphere is half the point!

Porter wrote: "Well, yeah. It's a steampunk book. Atmosphere is half the point!"

Eh...that's the start of a whole new argument, but my simple thought is that this is decidedly not a steampunk book.

In any case...I'm not a big fan of atmosphere for the sake of atmosphere in books. I like most things to have a purpose beyond simply decorating the walls. I might hold too strictly to the whole "give someone a gun in the first act, it better go off by the third" philosophy, only in this case, you know, substitute gun for zombies.

I agree with Mike in that I don't really consider this a steampunk book, either. But, then, for me the defining characteristic of steampunk is anachronistic tech, which this book didn't have much of, and what tech it did have was more magi-tech than anything.

But the term is so ill-defined and (imo) over-used that it's nigh useless as a descriptive term.

agreed. not steampunk.

In the First Impression discussion of this book, somebody called it "witchpunk".

In my review, I call it "steampunk, but with magic".

I see the two descriptions as essentially the same thing.

Instead of anachronistic tech, it's anachronistic magic. :)

So, "magicpunk"....wait, can we just stop putting "punk" at the end of things? I like that idea best.

To call it steampunk is really to kind of dilute the meaning of steampunk. It's gotta be about more than the era it takes place in.

I mean, I guess the train they took had steam. But that wasn't anachronistic technology. The anachronistic tech that was used had nothing to do with steam, as far as I can recall, like that flying thing (which is another thing that was introduced and dropped too soon.) Same with that odd contraption that baddy was wearing at the end.

Porter wrote: "In the First Impression discussion of this book, somebody called it "witchpunk".

In my review, I call it "steampunk, but with magic".

I see the two descriptions as essentially the same thing.

In..."

To me that's like saying science and magic are essentially the same things.

agree with many of the comments above, especially can we just stop putting "punk" at the end of things? I like that idea best.

i'm curious whether or not folks thought Boneshaker was steampunk.

i'm curious whether or not folks thought Boneshaker was steampunk.

Absolutely.

It's also what the author calls it.

I mean, I guess the train they took had steam. But that wasn't anachronistic technology. The anachronistic tech that was used had nothing to do with steam, as far as I can recall, like that flying thing...Heh. I recently listened to a "Writing Excuses" podcast about steampunk with guest Scott Westerfeld. Throughout the podcast, he kept switching back and forth between calling his Leviathan series steampunk or dieselpunk.

To me that's like saying science and magic are essentially the same things.
Honestly, for 99% of all speculative literature, they really are. Like Orson Scott Card said, the difference between science fiction and fantasy usually boils down to nothing more than whether the cover has rivets or trees on it.

A lot of steampunk technology is like Star Wars. Star Wars is a straight up fantasy story, complete with a princess, magic swords, and wizards. But it is wrapped in the trappings of space travel, so we think of it as science fiction. Steampunk tech is as often as not really just magic handwavium wrapped in the trappings anachronistic tech.

In Native Star, the magic was just more overt. :)

I think the name of a subgenre stops meaning anything when you're so determined to cram something into that subgenre that you start changing the definition of it.

I mean, is it that important to you that this book be "steampunk" that you just start dismantling the subgenre entirely?

At this point, "steampunk" is more marketing term than subgenre anyway. Slap that word on something, and people go all goggle-eyed and trip over themselves to read it.

Porter wrote: "Steampunk tech is as often as not really just magic handwavium wrapped in the trappings anachronistic tech."

I disagree. I think the best steampunk tech has analogues to our real world - such as clockwork automaton, working variations of the Babbage engine, the ubiquitous zeppelins, which, of course, existed, though not as early as in many steampunk stories, and some Tesla tech for good measure. Ya know - tech.

***

I agree with the notion of stopping slapping punk on the end of everything.

As for Boneshaker, I would say it's more steampunk than Native Star, what with the drill engine that started the whole thing, and the zeppelins and the one chick's arm... but they the steampunk elements were still a bit sparse for my preference.

But, then, most 'steampunk' stories today just have a dash or two of clockwork of steam-powered tech in them anyway. But, hey, at least they have some actual tech that might qualify.

And since we're on the topic, I get the share this lovely video: Just Glue Some Gears On It (And Call It Steampunk)

I swear to god, if I see one more new book in the store with the word "Clockwork" in the title, I'm going to do something arbitrary and dramatic.

Go look up "Clockwork Vampire Chronicles".

It's a real thing, and appears not to be ironic.

I looked it up. When I first saw the name I thought it might be so cheesy it's awesome... but, no. Just no.

At this point, "steampunk" is more marketing term than subgenre anyway.
I think that most subgenres exist more as marketing terms than anything else.

I disagree. I think the best steampunk tech has analogues to our real world - such as clockwork automaton, working variations of the Babbage engine, the ubiquitous zeppelins, which, of course, existed, though not as early as in many steampunk stories, and some Tesla tech for good measure. Ya know - tech.
More often than not, this tech does things that are physically/technologically impossible, which brings it a lot closer to the magic side of things.

As for Boneshaker, I would say it's more steampunk than Native Star, what with the drill engine that started the whole thing, and the zeppelins and the one chick's arm... but they the steampunk elements were still a bit sparse for my preference.
Heck -- she engineered her setting so that all of her characters had a good reason to have to run around wearing goggles. That book was almost a love story to steampunk. (Fortunately, that's not all it was -- it was also a good story.)

I agree with the notion of stopping slapping punk on the end of everything.

I think that calling a story *punk says very little about what sort of story it actually is, and a lot more about its aesthetic.

Porter wrote: "(Fortunately, that's not all it was -- it was also a good story.) "

Yeah, disagree with you there, too. :>

Porter wrote: "I think that most subgenres exist more as marketing terms than anything else."

I think this couldn't be further from the truth. Time travel? Alternate history? Space opera? Post-apocalyptic? These are all subgenres, and they are all clearly defined so there can be no mistaking what you're getting from a story. That's the purpose of a subgenre, for when it's not enough to say something is "science fiction".

But "steampunk"...that's coming less and less to mean anything at all, and when something is described as such, you don't really know what you're getting. Could be a giant robot made out of gears and pullies, could be nothing more than some lady with a fancy dress and an umbrella, nay, "parasol".

See, it's the "...punk" that makes it a marketing term. Because otherwise, what's that even mean? Nothing.

Porter wrote: "More often than not, this tech does things that are physically/technologically impossible, which brings it a lot closer to the magic side of things."

No, the idea is that it's perfectly possible technology, just happening in the wrong time period.

It may not be practical technology, but in the context of the time period, you work with what you have. That's the idea. Lacking better technology, you make things like steam and gears and whatnot work for you.

And I also don't chalk up everything that's "not possible" as "magic". Faster-than-light travel may not be possible, but nobody really calls it "magic". I get the notion (was it Clarke or Bradbury?) that science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, but that doesn't make it "magic".

Porter wrote: "I think that calling a story *punk says very little about what sort of story it actually is, and a lot more about its aesthetic. "

And what exactly does it say about its aesthetic other than it desperately wants to be cool?

So I read up a little more on this series, and here's what I learned.

Apparently Hobson's writing a series of duologies, the first of which was this book and the Hidden Goddess. So the first thing I didn't realize was that Hidden Goddess is actually "the conclusion" of this chapter of the story. So it gets bumped way up my backlog.

Books 3 ("The Warlock's Curse") and 4 evidently take place 20 or 30 years later. And they're about (view spoiler)[Stanton and Emily's son Will and his childhood friend Jenny (hide spoiler)]. (Really, that's hardly a spoiler at all, but still.)

And I guess the series as a whole is about (view spoiler)[the generations of their entire family up until the present day (hide spoiler)], which is kind of awesome and makes me more intrigued by the series. (Again, that's barely a spoiler at all if you've finished the first book.)

That does sound pretty cool. I'm intrigued.

I bought 'Hidden Goddess' the other day, so I'll be reading it soon.

It's in my to-list as well.