Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Looking Back: RI 2024
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 08:42:21 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <p5ranjp4pohlq02o7bsljv8bhr4r2so2v5@4ax.com>
References: <ltjpo4F6r6iU1@mid.individual.net> <vl2e73$2kq3t$1@dont-email.me> <vl2mn9$2ln9q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 17:42:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="324b465f82aaf24ec7409c583d9540d9";
	logging-data="3012598"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//ojxT/NXYvGJxXq+qc2JfRz09diinl/s="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:63v5QQOGFEwrD9vvbiHuqG1hFXQ=

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 22:18:16 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>On 12/31/24 19:53, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 12/31/2024 9:05 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> Looking back over the year, and going through the reviews I've
>>> posted, I think the following are my best RI 2024 books.
>> ...
>>> These are in more or less chronological RI order, not rank order.
>>> The Andrews are generally rock-solid, and if I would rather have
>>> more Inn Keeper or Kate books, the HL books are quite good as well:
>>>
>>> Emerald Blaze: A Hidden Legacy Novel
>>> by Ilona Andrews
>>> https://amzn.to/3SZKfto
>>>
>>> Unsurprisingly as it's an Andrews, this was the standout of the
>>> month.=A0 Like the "Edge" books, the "Hidden Legacy" books are a bit
>>> more romance-y than the "Kate" books, but not a lot much more so --
>>> there's always plenty of plot and action and very little sex by
>>> current standards.
>>>
>>> The Hidden Legacy books take place in a world very much like ours
>>> (realistically, too much like ours, in the same way the Marvel
>>> Universe is too much like ours, but that's not the focus here),
>>> except that a couple hundred years ago a serum, since ruthlessly
>>> suppressed, was discovered which gave people (those whom it did not
>>> kill..) something extra.=A0 Call it "magic", or call it =
"super-powers",
>>> but the gifts largely breed true leading to a semi-overt system of
>>> great houses, Byzantine house politics and marriage alliances all
>>> co-existing, mostly, with a mundane government of nation states and
>>> ordinary humans.
>>>
>>> The series follows the doings of Clan Baylor, a new house, who make
>>> their living as private investigators, and the books are first-person
>>> narrated by different sisters who are leading the house at the time.
>>> After eldest sister Nevada stepped down (for reasons that weren't
>>> quite what they seemed), the last couple books have been told by
>>> Catalina Baylor, whose Siren powers have kept her from relationships,
>>> as she can never be sure she's not influencing her suitor.=A0 Well,
>>> there was that one time..
>>>
>>> Currently she has quite a bit on her plate.=A0 Apart from ordinary
>>> investigations like finding stolen therapy monkeys, someone is
>>> suddenly trying to kill Clan Baylor, the Warden of Texas, whose
>>> covert deputy she is, has dumped a potentially world ending murder
>>> investigation on her, the first non-human intelligence has arisen,
>>> and it's not friendly, her evil grandmother is trying to make
>>> Catalina her creature, and you know, that one time?=A0 He'ssss =
Baaack!
>>>
>>> As always with the Andrews, there's humor, action, relateable,
>>> grounded, characters, and high stakes.=A0 You don't have to have read
>>> the previous books to enjoy this one, but why wouldn't you?
>> ...
>>=20
>> I am beginning to think that anything by Ilona Andrews is 6 stars out =
of=20
>> 5 stars.=A0 Even the Cinderella books (The Edge).=A0 Their books are =
just=20
>> consistently good and rereadable (my definition of a 5 star book).
>>=20
>> Lynn
>>=20
>
>	Despite your strange ideas, I have to agree with you about
>the Illona Amdrews writing tem.

One of my ophthalmologists, as that part of the periodic exam where an
estimate of how clouded the back of lens was getting [1], kept giving
larger and larger percentages until it got quite ridiculous, since I
didn't notice anything. [2]

Since clouding always increases, my interpretation was "rating creep":
every year he had to come up with a higher percentage than the year
before, and it got out of hand. After all, it isn't as if Weights &
Measures came in every six months and recalibrated his eyes to insure
accuracy.

And perhaps that is what we are seeing here -- after declaring so many
books to be "5 out of 5" our reviewer is forced to award the books
that /truly/ deserve a top rating "6 out of 5". After all, reducing
most of those prior "5 out of 5" books to "4 out of 5" would be ...
embarassing.

When he gets enough "6 out of 5" books, then we will start seeing "7
out of 5" for the /truly/ exceptional ones.

[1] I was told of this before my first surgery, after my first
surgery, before my second surgery, after my second surgery (two eyes,
developing cataracts 18 mos apart, two surgeries) and every visit
thereafter. The original story was that they used a laser to blast the
back of the "capsule" away, as the clouding was there. What they do
now I have no idea.

[2] This was somewhat confirmed by the optometrist I went to
(optometrist specialize in prescribing eyeglasses and so get quite
good at it; ophthalmologists are doctors/surgeons so prescribing
eyeglasses is a sideline for them) but he added that the clouding was
around the edges, which is why I didn't notice it.
--=20
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"