From: Sheila Welch <sheilawelch>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:27:16 -0600

I wrote the following a few days ago but had a problem sending it. Now that I've read other people's comments, mine seem redundant, but here goes --]

I've read both books a while ago but don't have either one in front of me, so I've hesitated to express opinions without being able to be specific. But since Kathleen suggested we compare them, I'll make a stab at it. The following is my general impression of these two books.

FEED struck me as very imaginative, clever, and in some spots, touching. The construction of the narrative-- with the flow broken up-- conveys the feeling of the characters' super-connected yet ultimately fragmented lives. Any teen reader or adult who's seen the way so many teens and 20-somethings are tuned in to the current culture would applaud the way Anderson conveys that connection--amplified many times in his futuristic world. (There's an article in a recent issue of the NEW YORKER that describes how science is almost to the point of connecting to the brain directly for communication, bypassing the body. I find the whole idea fascinating and while very useful for physically impaired patients, startling in its similarity to the technology in FEED. One scientist even mentions the possibility of wiring "people's brains together instead of making them meet in a committee room." Spooky!) Anderson's main character's voice rings true, and I felt some sympathy for his confusion when he actually begins to question his own acceptance of the way things are. The love story provides for some sweetness in an otherwise depressing story. The humor in the book struck me as bitter or "sick," such as the lesions becoming a new fad. While I found this book for the most part compelling, I didn't have much emotional connection with the characters. (I felt the same lack with BURGER WUSS.) It could be that having raised seven kids, I am not too anxious to revisit those teen years of such absorption in the consumer culture. Ultimately, I found FEED a strong book, well written, and I can understand its appeal to many readers.

THE HOUSE OF THE SCORPION, while a future vision of the world, gives readers a totally different feeling. The manner in which Farmer tells her story is much more conventional. As I recall, its told in third person, the sentences are complete, there are clearly defined chapters and a solid sense of a story being presented. In fact, it felt as if Farmer were making a conscious effort to make certain that her story was clearly understood. There were several places where I noticed repetitions that seemed uncalled for. (Not just the old guy's repeated ramblings.) I especially appreciated the beginning of the book but felt it lost some of its strength as the story progressed. Like FEED, the main idea behind the story is imaginative and quite clever. With so much talk of cloning in the news, I believe children and teens would appreciate this story for its presentation of some of the moral issues involved. Maybe because the story is told in a "normal" manner, I found myself questioning various parts more than I did while reading FEED. For example, why were there so many clones (was it 7?) all of whom had been raised whole as Matt had been--as complete people without the needle insertion? That sounded like too many extra body parts to me for a man who was only, I seem to recall, 140 years old. The ending seemed weak, but I'd have to reread before being too critical. In general, this book is for a younger audience than FEED. And I've noticed that it's popping up as a mock Newbery winner as a result of some people's mock Newbery discussions. As with FEED, I didn't feel the emotional connection with the characters that I was anticipating in such a well received book. However, the concept, the sweeping story, the vivid descriptions are all elements that make for a "good read."



Sheila Welch
Received on Sat 18 Jan 2003 03:27:16 PM CST