Penny Dreadful

[karohemd]

I started reading Unnatural History (which was a giveaway at Constitution) on the train yesterday. Set in an alternative, steam/dieselpunkish London in 1996, it's extremely derivative and contains pretty much all turn of 19th/20th century mysterious/scifi/fantasy concepts in a weird but strangely cool mix of Victorian adventure/mystery and pulp story, complete with all relevant character stereotypes. The protagonist, Ulysses Quicksilver, is a mix of The Shadow and James Bond (agent of Her Majesty's government and a bit of a cad).
It's rubbish but highly entertaining rubbish. :D

I'm amused by the negative comments on amazon who all miss the point.

Comments

[caseytalk.livejournal.com]

There's a reason why there are formulaic works -- certain formulas strike a chord in readers. J.K. Rowling is extremely formulaic, but I like her Potter books because they're also very well-written and amusing.

So, if you're entertained, the book is worth reading.

I'm more inclined to call something 'rubbish' if it's fresh and new and dull as doorknobs.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. I love trash. ;o)

Just came across something in the above book that was really cheap editing. The narration jumps between various scenes (on the ground and above ground) and in the last scene with Quicksilver, his adversary fires a pistol at him but when we come back to the scene, he ducks an attack with a bowie knife...

As much as it pains me to say, I really liked Dan Brown's Angels&Demons and The DaVinci Code because they were engaging reads.
I read for entertainment, "literature" bores me as do people who try to interpret who knows what into books. Why can a made up story not simply be a story? Not everything needs a deeper meaning.

[caseytalk.livejournal.com]

I liked the DaVinci code because I like mysteries and puzzles and so it was fun. I certainly don't ascribe any grand truth to it, but I enjoyed the book. I haven't read Angels and Demons.

Some 'literature' really deserves the status, like "To Kill a Mockingbird." That's the sort of thing that deserves its pedestal. I'm not so keen on 'Ulysses.' If it's torture to read it, why should I bother? It may well be brilliant, but I can't get past the first few pages.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Not everything needs a deeper meaning. But if a book has a deeper meaning as well as being a good story, and the deeper meaning is one that you notice and it speaks to you, then surely that must be better than something that's "just" a good story? I mean, a lot of books that are considered "literature" are also good stories.

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

Ah. You know how some bad films make excellent MST3K material, and others just ... don't. I tried to read said thing on the bus back from the con, but after four chapters not even my love of steampunk ridiculousness made it worth continuing. I can't say why - I mean it's not as though I'm immune to the charms of trashy genre fiction. This ... it wasn't good enough to be good, and it wasn't bad enough to be good, either. It was just eminently forgettable. I have no desire whatsoever to finish it.