...I read. And this time, I read Game of Thrones and Ready Player One. And now I will discuss them. And none of this is recommended (4 out of 5 dentists agree).
I don't pleasure read very often, so I can't really compare one book to another or say if an idea is original or played-out. But here goes.
Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin
Based on the HBO series (ok, other way around), this is the long beginning (750+ pages) to a multibook series and it feels that way, too. In other words, most times it seems like a big set up rather than an individual story. Characters are introduced, you learn how they tick somewhat, but there are a lot of them. At first, I was worried I wouldn't remember all their names and keep them straight, but this didn't turn out to be a problem after all. However, don't go in expecting some sort of resolution--in fact, things are murkier at the end than they were at the beginning. That said, it's still an entertaining ride, mostly, I guess.
The back of the book says "At the center of the conflict lie the Starks of Winterfell, a family as harsh and unyielding as the land they were born to." ...Huh? Did we read the same book? Eddard Stark, the head of the House of Stark and Lord of Winterfell, may be honorable and duty bound but by the standards of the day, he's one of the most compassionate characters in his position.
See, apparently men are all about going to war and nailing other chicks while they're away from their wives, and there are a ton of disenfranchised bastards (in the literal sense) roaming around. The King, Robert Baratheon, apparently has a ton of them. These bastards have to fend for themselves for the most part--maybe the receive unknown assistance through back channels in some instance, but they never know their fathers and they definitely aren't in line to inherent squat.
Eddard Stark, though, only has one bastard, and rather than support him from afar (or ignore him completely), he brought him home with him and raised him with his other children. His wife didn't like it, but Eddard would never reveal the information about the woman with whom he conceived this child, either to his wife or to the child.
Eddard also strongly believes that, if you're going to sentence a man to die, you should be the one to swing the sword. Don't send another man to do your dirty work. This is also unlike every other ruling man in the book.
So Eddard is interesting and presumably the protagonist, except there really isn't a protagonist. Each chapter is told from another character's perspective: Eddard; his bastard, Jon Snow; his wife, Catelyn; his son, Bran; his daughters, Arya and Sansa. Other perspectives are Tyrion Lannister, known as "the Imp," a dwarf born to a powerful family who are generally at odds with the Starks and sundry others. We also see things from the perspective of Daenerys Targaryen, one of two remaining members of the last king who was overthrown by Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark (but actually killed by Jaime Lannister, now known as "the Kingslayer."). Her role in the book is separate from the rest, as she does not interact with what one might call "the main story" or "main players." Rather, she's on a separate island, involved with a militaristic horse tribe that fears the sea (and therefore is never a threat to "the main players."). Yet, it is perhaps her story and her character that are the most compelling--even though it's outside of everything else, I got excited when the chapter was titled "Daenerys."
But it is also Daenerys's story that points back to the obvious truth of this book: it's a set up for a series, and does not do much (if anything) standing on its own. Clearly, she is going to have to get involved with "the main story" at some point, but that she does not do it at all in his book frustrates, like seeing the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie without knowing in advance they were making a third one for sure. (Sidenote: Back to the Future II avoided this conundrum, I think, but I could be wrong.)
And her story is only the most obvious one, but as things are supposed to be "wrapping up," it's clear that nothing is resolved at all. Everyone is in a considerably more chaotic situation than when they started, and the outcome is incredibly unclear. Which is fine if you're dedicated to reading the series in advance, but I learned through Game of Thrones that I prefer books that can stand alone, even if they are part of a series (like Harry Potter).
I am intrigued with the story and I want to know what happens, but I'm also half-minded to read Wikipedia entries about the characters I care about rather than read the series. Part of the problem involves jumping from perspectives each chapter. I was excited for chapters from Eddard, Bran, Tyrion and especially Daenerys. But whenever it was labeled Sansa or Catelyn, I found myself mentally checking out because I didn't find those characters compelling.
So, I guess if you're into reading a large series of books, Game of Thrones won't disappoint. If not, you still might like this book, and maybe it will help going in that there won't be any resolution.
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
This book came out of nowhere and changed my life. OK not really, but I found it really compelling and very thought-provoking. Yet, at the end I wondered if I really liked the book, or if I was just so happy with myself because I caught most of the pop culture references involved (especially the more nerdy ones).
One of my top five favorite movies of all time is High Fidelity, along with The Truman Show, Roman Holiday, The Princess Bride, and Saving Private Ryan. Actually I can't swear by that list--the only safe ones are High Fidelity and The Truman Show. I could also throw in Napoleon Dynamite, Good Will Hunting, Garden State, and even Juno if I was feeling a bit frisky.
But the important part is High Fidelity, both because the top five list was a reference to High Fidelity itself, and because it's chock full of references and pop culture stuff, most of which I don't understand but appreciate on a greater level because it's beyond my understanding. See, I'm not a music lover on the level of Rob Gordon, so I can appreciate his love of music as he relates it to me even though I don't share that love. One of the things they talk about, if only briefly, is that Rob, Dick and Barry divined that it's not what you're like, it's what you like that matters. Cartoons, music, TV shows--having this in common is even more important than who you are. At the end, Rob figures out that that's not really the case--that he loves Laura for reasons he can't explain but he fully realizes that the music part (and other things they like) doesn't matter.
But the idea, and the idea of pop culture references, of getting the inside joke (or even appreciating the inside joke even if it's over your head) creates this feeling of belonging or this aura of respect for those that do that you also want to belong.
Ready Player One is about a billionaire video game creator that invents the ultimate MMO video game that eventually takes over the world, voluntary "Matrix" style. Everyone is logging in to escape the harsh reality of real life. The billionaire dies, and his will is really a contest to retrieve three keys, open three gates and find this "Easter egg." The winner wins his estate valued at $250 billion dollars and control this video game, called the OASIS.
In addition to the individuals searching for the egg, there are also egg hunting clans and one super-evil egg hunting corporation called IOI. This corporation fully intends to better monetize OASIS, which the billionaire programmer sold individually for 25 cents and no subscription fee.
In order to find the egg, these egg hunters (or gunters as they are called) research everything they can about this billionaire's life: his childhood, the video games he played, created, his musical tastes, etc. etc., anything that will give them a clue as to where to find these keys. So naturally, there are stacks and stacks of references to movies and music from the 80s, even Dungeons and Dragon modules.
As I read through this book, I got the references (most of them), which enhanced my experience and made me think the book was genius. And maybe it is, but I'm second guessing myself if only for this reason: what would the book be without the references?
High Fidelity includes musical references from a generation before me. Music I've only heard if it was REALLY good, but generally heard by everyone ten years older than me. There is a quiet reverence for this music and its fans, even if it's not my music.
Ready Player One's references are arguably still a generation before. See, I've played Adventure for the Atari 2600... once. I didn't beat it, and I certainly never found within it the very first video game Easter egg. I've heard of Intellivision, I actually owned a Colecovision though I couldn't figure out how to make it work (I just used the Atari 2600 add on instead). I played Pac-Man but never mastered it. My generation was really the Super Mario Bros. generation (and probably more accurately, Super Mario Bros. 3). Regardless of whether it's actually my generation or not, it resonates with me either because it is or for the same reason High Fidelity resonates.
It made me think: what if someone wrote this same book ten years "later" in its chronology, and the references shifted from Voltron to the Power Rangers? From Street Fighter II to Pokemon? Would it be the same, would it resonate?
The answer is no, not at all, not even close. Not only do I not know those, I don't even respect them. Those things--Power Rangers, Pokemon--don't come close, don't have the same depth, are mere imitations of the things in my childhood that were great. Right? Or is that just my perspective--I see the things in my generation as the original and all the followups as ripoffs?
Will people a generation or two before me like Ready Player One?
If I strip away all the pop culture references that I like and understand, is what's left still a good story? Is it original?
As far as I can tell, the answers to those questions are probably good, but probably not original. But thankfully, I don't have to read the book without the references, so even if the book is not an unqualified masterpiece (but rather, a qualified, perhaps limited to a certain group of readers type of book (as most probably are, I suppose)), if you grew up a geek in the 80s or 90s, you will probably enjoy this book. Perhaps immensely.
Next books on my list: NONE. Back to video games. And wishing that the World of Warcraft would somehow be as good as the OASIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment