Scottsdale Book Club Meetup Group Message Board › Discussion thread about Windup Girl
For those who couldn't make the discussion, what did you think?
I'll start you off with a few questions/discussion points that were part of our "in person" meeting...
Was the world created by the author real for you? Did it come alive?
Some of the readers found the world created to be rich and visual.
Some have said the characters in this book are unsatisfactory because there is no one to root for. Others found the presentation of character strengths and flaws a bonus for this book because the characters were fully fleshed out. What do you think?
Did you find this to be a science-fiction book?
Some of the readers thought that this book has some science fiction elements but that the book was not characteristic of classic science fiction (e.g. Asimov). Others found this book fits nicely within the genre. And others, still, found that the book represents the new kind of literary science fiction -- a sort of post-modern collapse of several genres into one -- or put another way, a book that has elements of several genres. What do you think about this book's genre?
Did you find the book hard to follow? Some readers thought the foreign words and dialect in the narrative was off-putting. Others found the language interesting and texture-enhancing. How do you fall on this point?
What did you think about the technology elements in this book? While some readers saw holes or flaws in the presentation of the technological world (inconsistencies in the advancements such as a lack of food and energy alongside the ability to create windup beings) others saw this as a believable part of a post-apocalyptic chaos. What do you think?
Who do you think was the protagonist in the book? Some saw the the title of the book indicative of this being Emiko's story. Other readers saw this book as not having a clear protagonist. However, a few thought this was Hock Seng's story. What about you?
Were you satisfied with the ending?
Would you recommend this book to others?
Who cares what genre label you slap on a book when the character development and story arc are satisfying and engaging? Not me. I could still remember the names and personalities of at least eight characters three whole days after I finished the book. (Those of you who are familiar with the shockingly short span that my memory stretches will know there's not a hint of sarcasm in that sentence.)
I loved this book. The world it created was so complete and so well fleshed out it reminded me of Frank Herbert's Dune. I was a bit surprised that the first person I met turned out to be one of an ensemble of characters and not the protagonist. This brought me up short only a little and I soon got used to it; in fact I liked the conceit because it kept me on my toes and open to how I felt about that person (which reminds me of Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse," but that's a story of another color).
The book is so well-written I did not find it hard to follow. It's world was also beautiful, terrifying and so believable I was hoping there'd be an insert of photographs of different parts of the city, not just the jacket art. The technology (or lack of it) was imaginative and made sense to me - it almost became another character it was so vital to the story. But the science, whether fiction or real, did not matter; the characters were drawn with so much care that my attention was focused mostly on them and how they dealt with the world Bacigalupi forced them to live in, not the world itself. I give it a 9 out of 10, and that's only because I feel that 10's only exist outside our realm of existence as Platonic ideals. Or in wormholes. Or hyperspace. Or Bill's mind.