God, that was good.(But now, stupid me, I'm wrestling with Infinite Jest which is making me feel like a cartoon of a blonde woman. But there are assassins in wheelchairs in it.)

But there are assassins in wheelchairs in it.

Dude, what's not to love?

Connie, I think the SR story you're thinking of is "Melancholy Elephants".

Mystery novel rec: Last weekend a friend of mine tormented me by reading a novel by Donald Westlake in front of me and giggling. When I finally wrenched Don't Ask from her hands, I loved it. Tonight I'll be heading to the library in the hopes of finding much much more by him.

Oh, gosh, Westlake is a scream. And, yes! That's the story. I knew it was something about elephants.

Hmmm. I was given Don't Ask for Christmas, and have tried three times to get into it. No luck so far.

Maybe I'll give it another pop.

I like it, but it's not so much like reading as translating, despite still being in English. And if nothing else, I will build upper body strength hefting it because even in paperback it's big and heavy.

the only Westlake I've ever read was "Money For Nothing" and it didn't grab me. Mayeb after I finish the Stebenow I will give him another shot.

I finished my little pulp book from the sixties "Assault on a Queen" - I had no idea when I bought or while reading it that it had been made into a movie starring Sinatra. The book was ok, nothing great, but enjoyable and a page turner.

Now reading the nonfiction "Random Family" for bookclub. It is an in-depth study of a small group growing up in the Bronx in the 80s and 90s. It follows a group of people, focusing on two girls and their families and friends, for 10 years. I'm only 50 pages in, but so far it is pretty depressing, also gripping, but more of a book I would have read for a sociology class than what I read on my own. Luckily it reads more like a novel than a textbook, so it is not boring.

I just finished reading The Game by Laurie R. King, and am feeling conflicted. On the one hand it had all the elements I like in her books, the girl spy thing, the Holmes/Russell relationship banter, the quirky characters, the disgusting alleyways and small dimly lit rooms. I'm just trying to decide if it's inconsistent for a character who is so "modernly" feminist to ignore the plight of the Indian people. I don't know, it just seems like the book's message is like "look at what the Brits did for these savages, and can you believe how they repay them," especially in the mentions of the Sepoy Mutiny (which Russell refers to, I believe as "disastrous" or something). There is mention of a massacre I believe initiated by a British officer or something, but throughout the book there are conflicting messages of who exactly is the bad guy here. Maybe I just need to not look for *one*. I think O Jerusalem has similar problems. In terms of character inconsistency I am remembering now that members of the "Famous Five" here in Canada, who lobbied for women's rights were also involved in the eugenics movement- as was the case elsewhere, I believe.

Sorry about the long post, just felt the need to rant a little.

Neil Gaiman on copyright today here. That's the LJ feed from his blog, so if you want to view it on his web page, you...need to go there.

I got tired of the politics in Laurie King's Holmes books. Plus I always have to jump that huge old hurdle of Holmes actually being with Russell. Not that I dismiss the possibility, it just creeps a little close to Mary Sue.