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.

connie, that aspect also kind of gives me the wiggins, too. I can objectively appreciate that an older man can be sexy (for example, Sean Connery), but marriage? To me, it's like if Buffy and Giles had married. YWMV.

Also, I think, to put it concisely, what really bugged me about this book was that I didn't really like Russell, when she is a character that I have previously enjoyed. She has always seemed in some ways like a character of today, when in this book she's pretty much a product of her time.

I did like the fact that King dropped the whole "these characters are based on a true story" pretense.

The old "newly discovered chronicles" thing you see in new Holmes' books? It was clever the first few times I saw it, but now, just get into the story.

I brought the game home from the library , but never really got past the first few pages.

I got "A Door in the Hedge" in the mail today. What a trip down memory lane. It's very, very apparent how much McKinley has matured. The stories are good, but they very much have the flavor of sweetness that characterized her early works.

Robin McKinley describes herself on her website as “intransigent,” and relates the story about how her sensibilities were completely outraged when she read The Sheik, a gripping tale of white slavery and the harem life in the romantic desert.

Quoted from alibris dot com: “The Sheik,” the basis for the famous movie starring Rudolph Valentino, this 1919 novel tells the story of a haughty Englishwoman who is captured in the Algerian desert by a handsome prince, who rapes her, after which she promptly gives up her imperious ways and becomes a loving, surrendered wife.

The idea that woman requires that man master her like a horse or other domestic animal stuck in McKinley’s craw and pissed her off. (Alert readers may reference my earlier rant about domestic violence upthread). This feeling became part of her urge to write stories about heroines who were more than pliant sex recipients. Thus the world got to read about the mythic adventures of Aerin and Harimad-Sol, who are heroic in their own right (and get to have The Sex, off-screen).

Today, I live in a world where I’ve seen Xena, Buffy and Zoe stride across my screen and take care of business; a world where Princess Leia is no longer the only spunky heroine. I have come a long way from the disappointed four year old I once was, who sadly decided that the stories she was making up had to be about boys, since there were no stories about girls doing anything interesting. Girls only had pretty clothes, which bored me. I don’t think I can express the amount of satisfaction this trend in fiction gives me.

The idea that woman requires that man master her like a horse or other domestic animal stuck in McKinley’s craw and pissed her off.

Really? Has she re-read her own Beauty recently? I did, and it was like a Stockholm Syndrome extravaganza.

I'm all for spunky heroines, but perhaps my definition of 'spunky' is a little more out there than hers.