I love to read. I talk about video games a lot, but books have always come first. That being said, I sometimes find it difficult to make recommendations for others. I do okay estimating their tastes and interests. Where I suspect I stumble most often is guessing how much work people are willing to do for their reading pleasure. Actually to be more accurate (and somewhat less humble), where I really stumble, is estimating how much effort some books ask of others. And some books really do ask a lot.
Harry Potter, for instance, is a ridiculously easy read. That is not to say it's simplistic, but rather it feels effortless. Dune, on the other hand, requires a bit of patience and diligence. It's the difference between strapping yourself into a roller coaster or running a marathon. Both lead to the release of endorphins, but in one you're carried along while in the other you've got to do the work yourself.
Shades of Grey, as you might have guessed, is one of the latter books. It is a bit of a departure from Fforde's other works. I strongly recommend them, too, but for different reasons. His Thursday Next series is a brilliant, hilarious, highly enjoyable, and somewhat bizarre combination of Robert Ludlum, Douglas Adams, and Charlotte Bronte (start with "The Eyre Affair"). His Nursery Crime series is a brilliant, hilarious, highly enjoyable and somewhat bizarre combination of Dashiell Hammet, Douglas Adams, and Mother Goose (start with "The Big Over Easy").
Shades of Grey is something else entirely. For instance, most of the Douglas Adams is gone. That's not to say it's not funny, but humor is less of a focus. It's a much darker story (ironic, given the central role of color). It's also even more difficult to describe. Among his many talents, perhaps Fforde's most welcome is his ability to deliver something utterly new. This is one of those things. If I were to try to place it in a genre, I might paint it as a post-apocalyptic, Victorian, coming-of-age, social commentary, and color wheel lesson. I might refer to William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Ursula K. Le Guin, or George Orwell (with just a hint of Douglas Adams). None of that would quite work though. Really, to describe it best, I'd have to say it's like a dark Jasper Fforde.
The book is about a vaguely Victorian society based entirely on the limited ability of its members to perceive color. That's all I'm going to describe of the plot or the world because (and here is where my warning about work finally returns) much of the enjoyment in this book comes from piecing together what the heck this world is about. It really is a completely new place, one that Fforde has assembled meticulously and thoroughly, a world he reveals bit by bit through a protagonist who is already frustratingly familiar with it. Harry Potter discovers his new world (and has it explained to him) alongside the reader, but Edward Russet offers no such guided tour (although he tries sometimes). That is where the work comes in, and the patience. The important parts come together in a tremendously satisfying manner, but it will take time and effort to get them there. Some of the unimportant parts do, too, but, just as in the world outside books, much is left unexplained.
So, given that I won't explain what it is about or where it is set or how the world works, how do you, dear reader, know if you will enjoy it or not? Perhaps I can offer a few rules-of-thumb to help you decide.
Read it if:
1. You already know you like Jasper Fforde books
2. You love built-world books like Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness, or Neuromancer
3. You are intrigued by the idea of a world where the social order is built entirely upon what hues people see and how much.
I love it. It's one of the best books I've read in a long time. Take that for what it's worth to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment