Dark Satanic Mills

Books read this week: Daily Life in Victorian London 7/10 (Lee Jackson), Anno Dracula 6/10 (Kim Newman), Academ's Fury, Cursor's Fury, Captain's Fury and Princeps' Fury, all 7/10, all (Jim Butcher).

I've been ill this week, so I've had quite a lot of time for reading. As you can see, I re-read most of Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Reading the books for a second time, so soon after finishing the Dresden Files, I was struck by the overt similarities between the main characters (both begin the series as apparent orphans, both find out that someone in authority is their grandfather, and both are selected by their bloodline for some higher destiny). They're both quite fun series, but I think one of the reasons that I have a problem with fantasy in general is the rather lazy (and fundamentally anti-democratic) tendency it has to focus on lost heirs, and true royal blood and chosen ones. People tend to forget that just because your father (or your grandfather, or his father) happened to be a good king, that doesn't mean you're going to be one; in fact, the historical record is full of total fuckwit children of competent monarchs (take a bow, John, Edward II and Henry VIII). And that's before we even consider the inbreeding.

I call it lazy, because it provides a ready made excuse for involving the hero in whatever crisis of the month the author has come up with; why are they involved? because God/the gods/destiny says so! It also discourages the reader from trying to change the world themselves; after all, I'm fairly sure I'm not the secret heir of the last king of Norfolk, so how can I make a difference? I guess what I'm really saying is I prefer heroes that are made, not born; those that achieve greatness, rather than those that are born great.

<Song of Ice and Fire Spoilers>

It's interesting to contrast this with Martin's approach in the Song of Ice and Fire. I think, when the series is finished, we are going to see that one of the overarching themes is that hereditary succession is an absolutely terrible way to decide who gets what job; of the Stark children, Jon Snow is clearly the most like Ned, and would be the best successor - and he's also almost certainly not Ned's son. Likewise, from the hints Martin has been dropping, I'm fairly sure Tyrion is not Tywin Lannister's son, but he is, of the Lannister children, the one most like Tywin (as many other characters have observed). Likewise, the problem with Joffrey as a king isn't that he's not the son of King Robert; the problem is that he's a psychopath.

<\ Song of Ice and Fire Spoilers>


My other two books are mutually complementary; Daily Life in Victorian London is a fascinating anthology of press clippings, letters and diary entries about all aspects of life in Victorian London (hence the name...). Anno Dracula, on the other hand, is a massive mash-up of every possible character, both historical and fictional, who ever walked the streets of Victorian London; the main framing device being a showdown between Mycroft Holmes and Dracula whilst Jack the Ripper stalks the streets of London. It's quite a fun book, and reminded me heavily of Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (much the better book, it has to be said - even if the film was an abomination).

The anthology was fascinating because it illustrates the whole spectrum of experiences in 19th Century London; the marvellous, the inspiring and the horrifying. We have the opening of the first tube line, and the shipping of ice across the Atlantic to cool food. We have operas and the first photographs. We have killer smogs, and vitriol throwers. We have pregnant maidservants killing themselves, and we have factories where girls would start work at 15 and die of lead poisoning before their 17th birthdays. It's a reminder that even without vampires and werewolves and Spring Heeled Jack, 19th Century London was a terrifying, nasty, violent place to live - especially if you were poor.