So, somebody looked down and said "Boy, that David character sure has been having a pretty bad time of it the last two weeks. We should make it better!"

I opened my New York Times today, and what to my wondering eyes should appear but an advertisement stating that Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood (long awaited sequel to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants et al) is on sale TODAY wherever books are sold! Yay!

I left work as fast as I could, headed straight for the Barnes and Noble, bought some soup and ice cream, got in a tub, and binge-read.

It is an excellent read, if you go in for that sort of thing. Ann Brashares' wordcraft has improved immensely since the first book, and, though the storyline is still less compelling than the original, it was undoubtedly better than the third book and better in most respects than the second. It is pretty definitely the last book in the series - four were always intended, and the ending makes it pretty clear that it will stay that way - and it's a good end to the series, with a strong callback to the original themes while allowing that the characters have changed immensely, have truly grown up, in the four years the series covers. My only quibble is that, well, the characters act like nineteen-year-olds in this one, but they often still seem to think, internal-dialogue-wise, like the fifteen-year-olds they were at the beginning. Consistency of character is all well and good, but I think she under-shot the growing up thing a bit.

Still. I love the characters, and it's nice to have the series concluded so well. It will definitely live as one of my favorite teen angst series, especially as I can feel myself, slowly, outgrowing the genre once again.

Nebula Awards Shortlist.

1. How is a novel that came out in March 05 still eligible?? I know the Nebulas are annual awards.

2. As usual, I have read exactly 0 of the novels. (I do have one in my house, because I got it for free, and I've heard of exactly 2 others.)

3. How hilarious is it that the 3 Norton shortlisters are by two authors, who are husband and wife?? I'm not sure I would want to compete with my spouse.

Here you go, Nutty:

A work's eligibility period runs for 12 months, counting from its official month of publication. Thus, a work that was published in June 2004 is eligible to receive recommendations until May 31st, 2005. This rolling eligibility period is intended to level the playing field so that works published at particular times of the year do not receive any benefit. As a consequence of rolling eligibility, a work published as early as February 2003 may appear on the 2004 Preliminary Ballot

So it's just the fact the shortlist is coming out in January 2007, which is 22 months after the book came out (and presumably 6 months after the ballots went out), that is confusing.

Still, kinda lame.

What's lame about it? Without this, works at the end of the award year are relatively fucked--works from the beginning of the year have had 12x as much time to accumulate recommendations. So they'd be much likelier to win.

Is there a better solution that you're thinking of?

Faster eyeballs.

Nebula Awards Shortlist

Hey, cool! I *just* finished reading Ellen Kushner's The Privilege of the Sword yesterday, and I really loved it. I haven't read anything else by her (though I now own Swordspoint as well, to be read soon) so I don't know how it compares, but I thought it was fantastic. The writing is lively and smooth, the plot quick and intriguing without being overly complex, and I loved all the characters. Some plot threads get wrapped up a little too quickly at the end, IMO, but that didn't bother me too much; I just would have liked to get to see more of Alec and Richard at the end, and maybe see Lucius and Teresa get to be happy together too. I can highly recommend it to anyone who likes fantasy of manners -- it's excellent stuff.

Ha, to the Larbalestier/Westerfeld domination of the Norton list. I just started Peeps a few days ago and am enjoying it immensely so far -- though it's not a book to read while eating, FYI. A little more information about hookworms and all kinds of ooky parasites than I need to see while putting food into my mouth.

Haven't read anything else on the list yet, but I'm about to order Paul Park's A Princess of Roumania for my section in the library, and we just got in Theodora Goss's book, which I've been meaning to read for a while. Ooh, and it's great to see "The Girl in the Fireplace" on the list! Doctor Who love! Didn't Steven Moffat also write "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" (also nommed for last year's Nebula, IIRC)?

Me: It's where Jesus went to talk to G-d before the crucifixion,

and this sparks a maybe-dumb question: I know Jews don't write down all of God's name down, out of respect for it's holiness, right? How do you SAY "God" in convo, if you're an observant Jew? Or do you?

I never wondered this before now. Huh.

If you're talking in English, you say "God." Which is not God's name. (I think the writing of "G-d" is mostly a tradition to preserve the idea of not writing God's name. Most Orthodox folk would tell you it's unnecessary, since the word "God" is not the holy word. My Orthodox ex-GF definitely wrote it out regularly.) If you're talking in Hebrew, I believe (though I'm uncertain) that you would say "Elohim" instead of His actual name. When you come to the name of God in the prayer books, anyway, you say Elohim.

The main reason it's not spoken often, I believe, is simply to preserve the reverence of it. It's not precisely forbidden to speak it, so much as it's seen as a very powerful word to say. Like the way fantasy novels talk about the true names of people/things.

The main reason it isn't often written down, from what I understand, is because if it is written down then the paper it is written on has to be treated as holy - there are various rituals that must be observed in its disposal, for example. Can't just throw God's name in the trash.