Thursday, March 20, 2014

Secrets of Language Learning (2)



In my first fieldwork, right after graduating college, I was faced with learning two languages. Fortunately, Peace Corps taught us Pijin, but we had to learn Kwaio on our own. There were no textbooks, it was not a written language (although missionaries had devised a phonetic writing system), and the dictionary was by an anthropologist, so not all that useful for everyday usage.

Fortunately those missionary linguists who develop writing systems for languages around the world so that they could have potential converts read the Bible are darned good linguists. One of them gave us lovely little book about how to learn an unwritten language. We followed that book like, well, the bible.  And we learned Kwaio. We not only learned Kwaio, I developed a literacy program for the Kwaio-initiated schools. (As far as I can recall the book was Alan Healey, editor. 1975. Language Learner’s Field Guide. Ukarumpa, EHD, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics Printing Department.)   

Your basic problem with language is increasing your vocabulary and that requires memorization. Obviously, you should use flashcards, but those do not work. Why? Because you are not moving your vocabulary from short-term to long-term memory. If you memorize a hundred words for the weekly quiz, great, but do you remember those in 2 weeks? Maybe, maybe not.  It’s very frustrating. It is not sticking in your long-term memory.  How do you get it there?

The Secret is to stagger your flashcards. 

The technical term, it turns out, is called spaced repetition. 

This is what I do (I have used it for every single language I have learned since I learned Kwaio, btw).

Each day, select a set of 10 (not more!) vocabularies words to memorize. That’s Set 1.

When you make up Set 1, make a cover card with dates. The dates will be Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 5, Day 10, Day 17, Day 41, Day 71, Day 131 … and that’s it.  If there are any words in that set that you do not remember at the end of that time, you can cycle them back into a new set at the end of that time. [nb, you can add in a day after Day 17, on Day 28, in which case your schedule will be 17, 28, 58, 128, 218.]

Only 10 cards?  What?  You have way more to memorize than that, don’t you? Yup.

So, on Day 2, you make up another set and you label that Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 6, Day 11, Day 18, Day 42, Day 72, Day 132.

On Day 3, you make up yet another set and you label that Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, Day 7, Day 12, Day 19, Day 43, Day 73, Day 133.

On Day 4, the set is Day 4, Day 5, Day 6, Day 8, Day 13, Day 20, Day 44, Day 74, Day 134.

Day 5, the set is Day 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 45, 75, 135.
Day 6, the set is Day 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22, 46, 76, 136.

Obviously, you need to figure this out with a calendar – I put the actual dates on the covers for the flashcard, otherwise it’s confusing.

It will look like this (sort of – in fact, doing it this way is a bit confusing, I am sure I missed some dates. The point is to let you see what your flashcard exercises will look like from week to week).  

March 1
Set 1
March 2
Set 1
Set 2
March 3
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
March 4
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
March 5
Set 1
Set 3
Set 4
Set 5
March 6
Set 2
Set 4
Set 5
Set 6
March 7
Set 3
Set 5
Set 6
Set 7
March 8
Set 4
Set 6
Set 7
Set 8
March 9
Set 5
Set 7
Set 8
Set 9
March 10
Set 1
Set 6
Set 8
Set 9
Set 10
March 11
Set 2
Set 7
Set 9
Set 10
Set 11
March 12
Set 3
Set 8
Set 10
Set 11
Set 12
March 13
Set 4
Set 9
Set 11
Set 12
Set 13
March 14
Set 5
Set 10
Set 12
Set 13
Set 14
March 15
Set 6
Set 11
Set 13
Set 14
Set 15
March 16
Set 7
Set 12
Set 14
Set 15
Set 16
March 17
Set 1
Set 8
Set 13
Set 15
Set 16
Set 17
March 18
Set 2
Set 14
Set 17
Set 18
March 19
Set 3
Set 15
Set 17
Set 18
Set 19
March 20
Set 4
Set 11
Set 16
Set 18
Set 19
Set 20
March 21
Set 5
Set 12
Set 17
Set 19
Set 20
Set 21
March 22
Set 6
Set 13
Set 18
Set 20
Set 21
Set 22
March 23
Set 7
Set 14
Set 19
Set 21
Set 22
Set 23
March 24
Set 8
Set 15
Set 20
Set 22
Set 23
Set 24
March 25
Set 9
Set 16
Set 21
Set 23
Set 24
Set 25
March 26
Set 10
Set 17
Set 22
Set 24
Set 25
Set 26
March 27
Set 11
Set 18
Set 23
Set 25
Set 26
Set 27
March 28
Set 12
Set 19
Set 24
Set 26
Set 27
Set 28
March 30
Set 13
Set 20
Set 25
Set 27
Set 28
Set 29
March 31
Set 14
Set 21
Set 26
Set 28
Set 29
Set 30
April 1
Set 15
Set 22
Set 27
Set 29
Set 30
Set 31
April 2
Set 16
Set 23
Set 28
Set 30
Set 31
Set 32
April 3
Set 17
Set 24
Set 29
Set 31
Set 32
Set 33
April 4
Set 18
Set 25
Set 30
Set 32
Set 33
Set 34
April 5
Set 19
Set 26
Set 31
Set 33
Set 34
Set 35
April 6
Set 20
Set 27
Set 32
Set 34
Set 35
Set 36
April 7
Set 21
Set 28
Set 33
Set 35
Set 36
Set 37
April 8
Set 22
Set 29
Set 34
Set 36
Set 37
Set 38
April 9
Set 23
Set 30
Set 35
Set 37
Set 38
Set 39
April 10
Set 1
Set 24
Set 31
Set 36
Set 38
Set 39
Set 40
April 11
Set 2
Set 25
Set 32
Set 37
Set 39
Set 40
Set 41
April 12
Set 3
Set 26
Set 33
Set 38
Set 40
Set 41
Set 42
April 13
Set 4
Set 27
Set 34
Set 39
Set 41
Set 42
Set 43
April 14
Set 5
Set 28
Set 35
Set 40
Set 42
Set 43
Set 44
April 15
Set 6
Set 29
Set 36
Set 41
Set 43
Set 44
Set 45
April 16
Set 7
Set 30
Set 37
Set 42
Set 44
Set 45
Set 46
April 17
Set 8
Set 31
Set 38
Set 43
Set 45
Set 46
Set 47
April 18
Set 9
Set 32
Set 39
Set 44
Set 46
Set 47
Set 48
April 19
Set 10
Set 33
Set 40
Set 45
Set 47
Set 48
Set 49
April 20
Set 11
Set 34
Set 41
Set 46
Set 48
Set 49
Set 50
… and so on
April 21
Set 12
Set 35
Set 42
Set 47
Set 49
Set 50
April 22
Set 13
Set 36
Set 43
Set 48
Set 50
April 23
Set 14
Set 37
Set 44
Set 49
April 24
Set 15
Set 38
Set 45
Set 50
April 25
Set 16
Set 39
Set 46
April 26
Set 17
Set 40
Set 47
April 27
Set 18
Set 41
Set 48
April 28
Set 19
Set 42
Set 49
April 29
Set 20
Set 43
Set 50
April 30
Set 21
Set 44
May 1
Set 22
Set 45
May 2
Set 23
Set 46
May 3
Set 24
Set 47
May 4
Set 25
Set 48
May 5
Set 26
Set 49
May 6
Set 27
Set 50
May 7
Set 28
May 8
Set 29
May 9
Set 30
May 10
Set 31
May 11
Set 1
Set 32
May 12
Set 2
Set 33
May 13
Set 3
Set 34
May 14
Set 4
Set 35
May 15
Set 5
Set 36
May 16
Set 6
Set 37
May 17
Set 7
Set 38
May 18
Set 8
Set 39
May 19
Set 9
Set 40
May 20
Set 10
Set 41
May 21
Set 11
Set 42
May 22
Set 12
Set 43
May 23
Set 13
Set 44
May 24
Set 14
Set 45
May 25
Set 15
Set 46
May 26
Set 16
Set 47
May 27
Set 17
Set 48
May 28
Set 18
Set 49
May 29
Set 19
Set 50
May 31
Set 20
May 31
Set 21
June 1
Set 22
June 2
Set 23
June 3
Set 24
June 4
Set 25
June 5
Set 26
June 6
Set 27
June 7
Set 28
June 8
Set 29
June 9
Set 30
June 10
Set 31
June 11
Set 32
June 12
Set 33
June 13
Set 34
June 14
Set 35
June 15
Set 36
June 16
Set 37
June 17
Set 38
June 18
Set 39
June 19
Set 40
June 20
Set 41
June 21
Set 42
June 22
Set 43
June 23
Set 44
June 24
Set 45
June 25
Set 46
June 26
Set 47
June 27
Set 48
June 28
Set 49
June 29
Set 50
June 30
July 1
July 2
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9
July 10
July 11
Set 1
July 12
Set 2
July 13
Set 3
… and so on

I laid this out so that you can see why you only have 10 flashcards in a group – they add up. On some days, you will be doing 70 words a night! But note that on some of those days, such as April 20, two of those sets are older sets and you will likely go through those pretty quickly. They might be words that you use fairly regularly in class, or just often enough for you to recognize them quite quickly.  You will likely have to work hardest at the newest flashcards on days 1-5. Still, you need to be aware of this scheduling so as not to overload yourself.

Another advantage of this system is that instead of memorizing a big batch of cards all together, these are split up. When you use a language, the words are not conveniently grouped according to your flashcard organization. You need to mix it up, learn the words in different contexts. This system helps with that. You will variously do Set 4 with Sets 2, 3, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 35, 134 … This improves your ability to remember vocabulary in new contexts.  

Obviously this system is not in concordance with the semester schedule. For one thing, you probably focus on vocabulary memorization leading up to a quiz or test, whereas this is an everyday activity.  Every. Single. Day. This is regardless of how much new vocabulary is assigned in any given week.  Finally, the schedule goes beyond the semester. And who wants to study after the semester is over?

You do. The only way to learn a language (or at least pass your classes) is to memorize. Use a system and just plain memorize.  Keep going after the semester is over (even if you do not add new flashcard groups) so that you will start the second semester strong. 
A final hint: memorize as your last activity at night before going to sleep. That vastly improves your retention. 

This is my ‘secret.’ Devote a lot of time to memorization, especially in the first semester or two of language learning – schedule that time in – so that you will build up the vocabulary to comprehend the language.  There is no short-cut around this. You simply haven’t got the vocabulary to enjoy conversations or reading short stories, so build the vocabulary. But know that it’s just time, like a game. Get your vocabulary from short-term to long-term memory, and you will do better.

And, btw, you also need to be willing to make fool of yourself as you try to speak. But the language-learner as village idiot is a topic for another blog. 
Posted by at 1 comment:

Secrets of Language Learning (1)

This is a long promised blog post for my students who are studying a language in college and complaining that they can't remember anything. 



When you teach Intro Anthro, as I do, you find the triggers to get your students to oooh and aaaah. This is very useful as a break from detailed-filled lectures.  

One of my favorites is to tell them that I know (or knew) seven languages, most of them fluently.  They look at me in awe, in consternation, or are simply further convinced that I am not on the same plane as them. They are either struggling through fulfilling their language requirements as 1st  and 2nd year students, or they have vivid memories of their recent travails in high school language classes. I don’t blame them. I did not like high school or university French, either. 

And yet, my job has required that I learn languages. If I did not, I tell my students, I would not have been able to talk to anyone in my years in the field. I would have been lonely. I would have wandered through fieldwork convinced that people were talking about me (and, yes, they often were) and that they were misinforming me (not really, at least not intentionally). Most crucially, I would not have been able to participate in social networks, the web of relationships that make up everyday life, and I would not have had access to people’s own explanations of their world.  A quote on my office door from Wittgenstein says “the limits of my language are the limits of my world” – language learning is an essential step toward understanding what anthropologists do – going in, going in deep. 

Those students who go on to become my advisees come to me later and ask me how I did it. They understand, intellectually, that I needed to learn those languages. But seven languages (along with two very long periods of fieldwork in challenging conditions)?  Dr. Kate is indeed a superwoman. 

No, of course not. I wish!  So I tell them my secret … which I’m going to share here with you.  

I hated learning French in high school. I loved many of the end results, like looking like an intellectual when I could read short stories in French and understood some of the language in French language films.  That was significant cultural capital for a marginalized geek girl.  But I hated the process.  

Think of it – you get to college and you are liberated from the stultifying rules of high school, the shallow learning, the endless rote memorization and dutiful spitting back of what the teachers tell you.  You are, at last, rewarded for thinking outside the box, for doing extra reading, for speaking up in class about odd elements of what you read. Your teachers talk to you after class about intellectual things! And in my undergraduate department (Anthropology at The University of Iowa), the faculty invited even the undergraduates to department parties. You were part of a vibrant, questing, community of the mind.  

And then there’s language class. It’s memorization, memorization, and more memorization. Creativity is not rewarded. You try, you make mistakes, you are publicly corrected. It feels punitive. It’s humiliating. You feel stupid & foolish. Plus, you want to know “why” and that’s not a question that gets answered – it is not relevant to basic language learning. The refusal of teachers to answer the “why do you do it that way” question is one of my students’ biggest complaints about language learning (tellingly, they also make that complaint about statistics).  It’s all about the rote learning.

What I found for language learning is that I needed to flip the script to put rote memorization at the center of my educational value system. How do I do that? I think of it as a relaxing variant on the critical analysis I have to do elsewhere.  It’s your secret ‘dumb job,’ like knitting or washing dishes or fixing the car that lets you slow down and decompress.  I learned to value memorization in its own right.  This worked for me with learning Thai in graduate school. I had the option of ‘auditing’ the course, which meant that the stress of grades and achievement was eliminated. In the end, I earned an A just because I dealt with the stress of the first semester of graduate school by spending a lot of time on Thai (and after that, I took Thai for a grade).

But I can’t remember what I memorize, moan my students!

And thus, the tricks of language learning. You need to learn how to get your new language words from short-term to long-term memory. This is my method, courtesy of bible-translating linguists.  
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Still confused, but returning

When blogspot went to google, or whatever it did, I was left in a bit of a quandary. I already had a Google+ account, and I was not allowed to add that account to account I originally used for this blog. And I am not setting up a second Google+ account. So, I am continuing this blog as is, under the original email, with no connection to my other online persona. Which might not be a bad thing ... I've thought a lot about blogging in the past years, but the all-encompassing and all-consuming process of being on probation (i.e., pre-tenure) at my university meant that I focused on all of the things I needed to keep my job. That process seems to be nearly (!) completed and, darn it, I'm going to wander on my blog again. I am going to post bits of papers as I work on them, ideas that arise out of teaching (see for a class blog for my Anthro Theory course - mostly student-written! - as well as , a wiki for my Peoples of SE Asia class), my anthropological reactions to news and analysis I hear (look out Science Friday! I'm going to prove you need to think about social science), and, finally, I might work on my long-threatened fantasy/scifi & anthropology commentaries. I hope you find this, and I relish thoughtful and insightful or funny comments.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, June 1, 2012

More than one Google+ profile required?

I am currently confused by the joining together of blogspot and google, wherein I was obligated to make a whole new Google+ profile using the email I previously associated with the blog - although I already have another Google+ profile associated with my google email. Go figure. At least I will be able to post here. And so the Great Centralization of All the Internet continues.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, June 27, 2011

An Anthropological Perspective on the Gaian Perspective

I have been working on a review of two books written from the perspective of the Gaia hypothesis: one was a collection of the most recent Gaian science ("Gaia in Turmoil," Eileen Crist & Bruce Rinker, eds.) and a futurologist's polemic on what to we need to do in the climate crisis ("Requiem for a Species," Clive Hamilton). I found serious problems in their perspective, and wrote about them in my review. However, that resulted in a review that was too long for the journal it is to be published in - it's possible we'll have to cut it. But I found the assumptions these authors made about "pre-modern" people interesting and want to explore it more. I thought I'd publish the final 1/3rd of the review essay here. Has the Gaia hypothesis been useful in anthropology? Share!


While the Gaia hypothesis has been useful in clarifying ways we think about the interlinkages among complex adaptive systems, much of it remains in 1960s systems theory – the teleology, the linking of everything to everything, the inability to specify mechanisms for some of these relationships (and especially for a superorgasmic Earth with emergent consciousness). In particular, as an anthropologist, I find the models and visions for the future presented by these authors highly culture-bound. They show no understanding of the dynamics of human institutions or of the time scale of the existence of Homo sapiens, leading to a variety of contradictions and incoherencies.

Ethnocentrism is the judgment of other people by one’s own standards, imagining others as simply the opposite of ‘us.’ Hamilton, in particular seems to see the world in terms of a in a Levi-Straussian hot/cold dichotomy. Cold societies are those that are “outside of history,” retaining mythic modes of thinking. We are modern, the ones who change, progress, advance. It is a binary opposition – modern (the growth fetish, consumerism) vs. “pre-modern” (archaic, loving the Earth). These futurologists telescope the past with current adaptations; those without complex technology or bureaucracies are “archaic” and, in this dichotomy, the solution to what ails us today. This is romanticized ethnocentrism – the primitives or people of yore universally lived in harmony with the Earth, had an Earth Ethic, a love of Gaia (or, as Hamilton suggests in his big finish, a sky/climate god, pp. 219-221).

The species Homo has been around for about 2.5 million years, but these authors lump together all of the ‘pre-modern’ societies despite the range of variety in political economies from foraging bands to pre-industrial states. Hamilton pays lip-service to the ways in which our desires arise out of the consumer/commodity culture of the west, but all of these authors in fact have limited and shallow understanding of the dynamics of social formations. As a result, their suggestions for transforming the currently dominant political economy are preposterous. Many of the authors call for ‘radical democracy.’ Yet democracy is a form of political organization found in states, and by their very nature states have political elites. If our inability to address climate change is due to the vested interests of elites, then democracy might not actually resolve anything. Human history – the whole of human history, not just ancient civilizations from 3000 years ago – shows us that increased population density is closely associated with ever more complex political formations and increasingly more intensive forms of food-production. Hamilton, to his credit, specifically notes the huge numbers of poor and vulnerable around the world who are most likely to suffer in the climate crisis, but his solutions read like New Age middle-class elitism – we should all cultivate a Buddhist mind, for instance. Having lived in Buddhist societies, I can assure Mr. Hamilton that all Buddhists are not, in fact, in gentle harmony with the Earth and all of its living creatures. Like so many other religious forms, how it is practiced depends on the total configuration of political, economic and social structures, as well as cultural meaning, of the system within which people live. All of the authors in these books assert a desire to save ‘human civilization,’ but how precisely can this happen at current population densities? Consumption is not just about individual use of natural resources, but state use as well. This includes state consumption for infrastructure – hospitals, schools, roads, and libraries, for instance. Some seem unaware of the reality of the great divide in access to resources. Foresman’s Earth Operating System fails to notice that his imagined democracy will accrue to the elite (us) who have access to computers. For the poor, spatially-enabled technology can become yet another form of control by government elites, as I have noted in my study of the uses of GIS in northern Thailand. Along with the assumption of an intentional Earth, there is a pervasive sense that human systems are also purpose-driven; the implication is that we can decide to change the social systems of all people on the planet, and it will happen. Statements by these authors that Gaian thinking will be helpful in rethinking human systems (e.g., Litfin, p. 207) are manifestly untrue.

Another key theme in these assessments of the success of ecosystems and species is sustainability. This, too, this leads to logical consistencies. Microbes in a modeled flask (Lenton and William) or soil arthropods (Rinker) are judged as successful because they have ‘enhanced’ their environments for their own long-term success (see also Harding and Margulis). By these standards, humans are a successful species. The rules of nature must also apply to humans as a biological species. We are successful, and we have been successful by cooperation; we survive by living in social groups and creating meaning; we have altered our environment to suit our needs. The difference is that humans have, in the Gaian perspective, destroyed or perturbed their environment past recovery. It is a matter of sustainability. However, by what time scale do we judge sustainability? Is two and a half million years of a species an evolutionary failure?

Neither can we assume that all systems of co-evolution will match together perfectly through time. The Gaian perspective does not account for shifts, change, and open systems; it implies that each ecological community is an organism in and of itself and worthy of saving in that form and no other. The time frame by which Gaians assess the human species is a very short one, as well as ethnocentric (the three key historical points mentioned are the last 40 years, the Industrial Revolution, or ancient Greece). Yet the story of the evolution of life I teach in anthropology courses tells us about profound change and great diversity in adaptations. The Gaian perspective analytically separates humans from nature, applying the standards of judging success differently for the human and other species, possibly because of the blind spot in their perspective for the full time scale and diversity of human life around the planet. Their negative tone toward the evolutionary success of the human species is, in part, based on their perception that humans are destroying the environment for other species – counter to their argument that diverse cooperating species create a successful ecosystem – but this then shifts the discussion back to altruism. Therefore, despite their arguments, inter-species altruism is indeed a core element of the Gaian model of life.

Despite Hamilton’s and others’ points about how the culture of rationalistic science has bounded understanding of holistic linkages in ecosystems, they fail to understand that all humans live within cultural systems of meaning and social relations that create the parameters of a ‘known’ universe. They do not see that their own individualism is culturally-constructed. Hamilton, Thomashow, and others set out from individual psychology (including attribution of motivation to climate deniers) to understand human relationships with the environment (most commonly citing works from journals such as Journal of Environmental Psychology), but they are unable to make the linkages between individuals and the social systems in which they live. Foragers such as the !Kung San or the Mbuti have strong community identities because community identity is produced by specific social relations, rights, and obligations to each other. Imagining a future means we need to comprehensively understand how humans live. When Hamilton says the climate crisis is not the ‘fault’ of individuals, and that individual choices will not change the coming crisis, but then argues that the solution is a change in personal attitude toward humility, compassion, and selflessness, his argument is contradictory.

Finally, these authors argue that the Gaia hypothesis provides us with a powerful metaphor (see, for instance, Volk, who is otherwise quite critical of Gaia for science) that will help us to avert the looming climate crisis by personalizing our relationship with the biosphere. This personification, they say, is a useful metaphor for learning to respect the earth, to take better care of it, to be humble about our place in it and the limits to our consumption. Is this a valid statement?

We all use metaphors – that’s what language and modeling are. To say that science is rooted in metaphor is not to question the validity of science. It is a matter, however, of recognizing that metaphors not only make a positive model (what things are) but also blind us to assumptions and possibilities (Lakoff and Johnson 2003). However, as scientists, we need to constantly question these, just as we verify our results. Our goal is, ultimately, to come to a greater verisimilitude with the world. Metaphors are useful in this; they can also be a hindrance if the metaphor does not fit with the phenomena we seek to explain. This makes the Gaia metaphor is invalid and even dangerous. The metaphor places humans outside of nature, while making a super-organism out of the Earth as a whole. Gaians have performed a reversal of a dichotomy inherently built into their model, as if they can only envision a vague, utopian opposite in which we are all subject to a new moral ontology, similar to what they imagine “pre-modern” people to have had. The metaphor also leads scientists to assert that Gaia has consciousness and intentionality. In so doing, these thinkers are trapped by the individualism of Western social life. This is the Animate Fallacy, the inability to perceive communities outside of an (implicitly) intentional life force of the superorganism itself. Ironically, these authors in fact extensively demonstrate that they are people of their own cultural system, the western culture of individualism, in their obsessive focus on Gaia as a living entity.

Ultimately, what do we need Gaia Theory for? Clearly, Gaian influenced science has come a long way, e.g., the forest and water studies, the study of nutrient and carbon flows. The Gaia hypothesis inspires us to love and respect the wonderful processes that created this living planet. And an amazing thing Earth is, indeed, as are the processes of life and multiple levels of complex adaptive systems. But I do not need to think Gaia is a living presence to be overwhelmed with the wonder of the web of life and feel a heightened sense of despair and outrage over what humans have done to the planet.

References

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson (2003). Metaphors We Live By, second edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.


Posted by at 2 comments:

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Disappointing Scifi

I really enjoy my summer reading. It's time for entertainment, for scifi and mysteries and YA fiction. But I have to admit I like well-written entertainment. This book was a major disappointment.

Reader that I am, I still finished it by virtue of rapid skimming. Which is probably how a lot of things ought to be read.

Leviathan Rising (Pax Britannia)Leviathan Rising by Jonathan Green

My rating: 1 of 5 stars


I love scifi and alternative histories, so I thought I had a winner when I started this book. The prologue is set on a tramp ship smuggling opium TO Britain (google "steps to opium production" to see why this thrilled me!).

If you read because you like good writing, then avoid this book. After the promising prologue, you'll be dropped into a world of writing in which characterizations consist of the hero going around the dinner table listing key points of each character to himself, and the author has never met an adjective he didn't like and use. For instance, at the height of a scene in which the horrible monster - perhaps a Kraken, perhaps the result of horrible scientific experiments - is being attacked by giant sharks, Green writes: "There wasn't one thought to the contrary in his mind that the sharks' attack against the Kraken was a happy accident as far as those on board the Nemo were concerned but then serendipity was playing its part quite nicely nonetheless, and suddenly the facility was a viable objective again, the open hole of its docking gate within reach." In the first 1/5 of the book, Green repeatedly refers to the shadow of the cleavage of the female romantic's lead about 5 times. She is, by the way, svelte AND curvaceous. And a range of discriminatory comments about people who are not Anglo flow out of character's mouths or the hero's internal dialogue. Historically accurate? Ironic? Perhaps, the way Green writes it seems that these are simply acceptable ways to refer to Indians, Chinese, and so on.

I haven't read the earlier book in Green's series, which means that in my reading experience of this book there was no world-building whatsoever. Darwinists of some sort are bad, and Queen Victoria has been ruling for 160 years. Green might want to spend a little more of his words on showing his world, and far fewer passages like: "The other more senior ladies of the party had wisely kept to more traditional, and therefore, restrained designs."

Oy.





View all my reviews
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)