Mark's Reviews > Boneshaker
Boneshaker (The Clockwork Century, #1)
by
by

I read somewhere on here that "steampunk" defines "genre" and I think that's cute. If so, this book may exemplify steampunk. Every paragraph clangs with heavy iron, slaps brown, oiled leather and cracked rubber, smells of coal dust and sulphur. I liked the description. By the way, I'm interested in the genre and was sensitive to how hard it must be to write "in character" like that: she does a good job. The cover too, does a good job of conveying the atmosphere. Like Jay Lake's Mainspring, Gilliam's movie Brazil (especially), and somehow, the movie Inception, (note so self: why is that?) we're taken into a world where everything's 10x overbuilt, where things get fixed with wrenches as big as your forearm. The singular metaphor that defines this whole sort of thing is of course, "Locomotive," capitalized, because you should always capitalize that word. It's big, magical, ineluctable, hot and smelling of heavy grease. It's impossible NOT to focus on the imagery, even now when writing a book review, eh? But what about the book?
The book is faintly ridiculous, an adolescent cartoon. It'd make a great graphic novel except that it'll be hard to make the clothes sexy. As a book, there are shortcomings, unless you're fifteen and believe a boy and a mother's love can take on the mob, a natural disaster and a ravening herd of zombies. This short paragraph is actually my main criticism. I am bothered almost to the point of insult by that childish premise. Maybe it's from reading too many of my daughter's gushing teen fantasies, I don't know.
Now, back to the camp!
What's with the zombies exactly? Thats sort of busts the genre bubble, though perhaps she works them in well enough; they do match the rest of the scenery in color, clanking and decrepitude I guess. Maybe it's just ME, because I never went for zombies in any setting. Let's face it, they're stupid. I think they exist to allow otherwise prissy moviegoers to play first person shooter in a graphically realistic game or movie that blows away lots of people without feeling bad about it. Or maybe it's the undercurrent of comedy: you can't really be frightened by a dummy whose head you could kick Clean Off, right? It's more of a gross-out thing. Anyway, zombies? "- meh."
One more thing, the whole zeppelin thing is the posterchild for the need to set your reality distortion field to 11. They're steam powered, knock over masonry buildings with a rending tear of iron and fly away from it. I've dealt with plenty of fantasy in my life, from warp drive to Will Smith's superhero "Hancock," (which was awesome) but I've never had quite the trouble suspending disbelief as I did during this book.
The book is faintly ridiculous, an adolescent cartoon. It'd make a great graphic novel except that it'll be hard to make the clothes sexy. As a book, there are shortcomings, unless you're fifteen and believe a boy and a mother's love can take on the mob, a natural disaster and a ravening herd of zombies. This short paragraph is actually my main criticism. I am bothered almost to the point of insult by that childish premise. Maybe it's from reading too many of my daughter's gushing teen fantasies, I don't know.
Now, back to the camp!
What's with the zombies exactly? Thats sort of busts the genre bubble, though perhaps she works them in well enough; they do match the rest of the scenery in color, clanking and decrepitude I guess. Maybe it's just ME, because I never went for zombies in any setting. Let's face it, they're stupid. I think they exist to allow otherwise prissy moviegoers to play first person shooter in a graphically realistic game or movie that blows away lots of people without feeling bad about it. Or maybe it's the undercurrent of comedy: you can't really be frightened by a dummy whose head you could kick Clean Off, right? It's more of a gross-out thing. Anyway, zombies? "- meh."
One more thing, the whole zeppelin thing is the posterchild for the need to set your reality distortion field to 11. They're steam powered, knock over masonry buildings with a rending tear of iron and fly away from it. I've dealt with plenty of fantasy in my life, from warp drive to Will Smith's superhero "Hancock," (which was awesome) but I've never had quite the trouble suspending disbelief as I did during this book.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Boneshaker.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)
date
newest »

Secondly, your observation about Inception is intriguing to me. I'd like to argue that the slightly steampunky feel of the film is due to the vintage button-down suits, the odd-looking mechanisms that seem to defy science, and the loving care with which Christopher Nolan chose his retro-gothic sets. If anything, the entire film has a nostalgic edge to it that steampunk, more than any other genre, exemplifies. Fantasy and gothic horror evoke this a bit, but their lack of modernity makes it incomplete. The world of Eberron, created by Boulder's own Keith Baker for Wizards of the Coast and the D&D universe, falls between fantasy and steampunk, as does much of Terry Brooks's later Shanara series (albeit in many ways to its detriment), bridging the gap between the two.
I've often found myself rolling my eyes at movies and books in which I need to seriously suspend my disbelief, but this is the modern world we live in. No longer does escapist fantasy cut it, instead needing grounding for our imagination to run away. Whether that's the fault of Cherie Priest or the fault of your loss of childhood imagination, I couldn't say, but I expect to run into the same problems you did as I read Boneshaker, and I'm certain to feel shame and sadness of innocence lost.