Books read in June 2019 (Reply)

Definitely recommend

The Silence of the Girls, Pat Barker. This was very good, if emotionally difficult at times, and I would recommend it with a warning for fatphobia (dear authors, please stop doing this, it doesn't make your books better). There's also a lot of violence and misogyny, but that's an in-universe thing rather than bigotry leaking in through the fourth wall.
Lent, Jo Walton. I didn’t find the first part of this particularly gripping, but because I trust Jo Walton I persisted, and I'm glad I did. I'm looking forward to re-reading it now I know what happens in the later parts. And I'm not saying the first part was boring, either — I don't know a lot about that period of history but I re-watched The Borgias last year and it was interesting to see another retelling of the events. It was kind of the opposite of Robert Graves’ King Jesus in a way — King Jesus gives real-world explanations for supernatural events, whereas Lent gives supernatural explanations for an individual’s real-world behaviour. The ending was... I won't say a let-down, since I thought the tone was just right — matter-of-fact rather than overly dramatic - but I did find it a bit underwhelming.

Maybe recommend

Efuru, Flora Nwapa (re-read, DNF). The dialogue is often very awkward and stilted, which is a problem when it’s the way that most of the story is developed. I liked this the first time I read it but didn’t finish it this time — perhaps I just wasn't in the right mood.
In The Last Analysis, The James Joyce Murder, and Poetic Justice, Amanda Cross. I didn't actually realise how long ago the first one of these was published (1964) until I googled to check — nothing felt dated to me except some stuff about telephones and the reference to someone as “colored” (though I suppose the uncritical acceptance of Freud as a "genius" also comes under this). I was a little baffled by the idea that the baseline for analysis is that you go every day — was that really a thing? The second one has a couple of shockingly homophobic passages, equating gay men with paedophiles so casually that at first I didn't quite twig what I'd just read. The third one seemed to be assuming a lot more background knowledge about American universities than I actually have, and I struggled to stay interested. Overall it looks like a good series, though, and I’ll continue with it.
Terra Nullius, Claire G Coleman. This kind of dragged a bit, and some of the writing and plotting felt a bit clumsy. There was a Very Obvious Twist, and I found myself quite grateful that the author didn't make me wait too long before revealing it.
The Calculating Stars, Mary Robinette Kowal. This was OK. I kept waiting for it to get interesting but it never really did. I'm unlikely to read the sequel.

Wouldn’t recommend

In Other Lands, Sarah Rees Brennan (DNF). The worldbuilding is paper-thin, the protagonist is unrealistically good at things, and the structure is non-existent. And the whole “portal fantasy with a genre-aware viewpoint character” has been done before and better. I also got a strong feeling that it was going to do that “bisexual man dumps a woman for a man who’s actually been the love of his life all along” thing, which I do not like. But if you're after some light reading that goes on for a very long time and doesn't tax your brain, you might find this useful.
How Not To Run A Club, Peter Hook. There's an interesting story buried in here, but it's constantly being interrupted by dry recitals of facts, none of which ever seem to be referenced again. The structure is also very confusing, with large passages told in the third person and set in italics for no obvious reason. Also, the thing about being off your face is that it makes meaningless chaotic events seem interesting, but this effect doesn’t carry over when you write them down in a book.