A small disclaimer for this review: I read this book mostly while I had a fever, so I can't be held accountable for accuracy.
This is the second PratchA small disclaimer for this review: I read this book mostly while I had a fever, so I can't be held accountable for accuracy.
This is the second Pratchett book I've read and though I enjoy him, it's hard for me to shake the thought that I'm reading Douglas Adams light, set in a Dungeons and Dragons fantasy land instead of sci-fi outer space. That's not altogether a bad thing though b/c I Adams is one of my very favorite authors and he did not leave this world with too many books.
Thief of Time, appropriately, had some really interesting observations on the nature of time. How we spend it, waste it, kill it, etc. These observations made the book for me. It is generally funny, the characters enjoyable and quirky enough, but it's kind of run of the mill stuff you've seen before. But the peppering of genius dissections made it rise above. It was one of those books you just tear through, sucking down the story, but then out of nowhere you're struck by this quick, sentence-long kernel of knowledge that he nonchalantly threw in there and you're stopped dead in your tracks. You read it 5 times over, marveling at it's ingenuity and simplicity. And that's what I liked best about this book and in general what I love most about reading. I live for those simple little observational nuggets. Those things that the author, for the first time ever, took to a new level or in a new direction, that no one has ever taken it before. Somewhere that makes perfect, elegant sense. Written in a way that no one had ever been able to distill down it quite so purely before. You know, that kind of boiled down perfection that I'm not achieving in anyway in this review. Unfortunately towards the end of this book, Pratchett gets a little caught up in the mystical mood and forgets he's writing a comedy, but the fact that he can distill at all makes him worth reading. And it doesn't hurt that there's a grim reaper rat....more
A decent book, but not really memorable. It had humor and weird shit, but the author referenced some of his own books in a way that felt shamelessly sA decent book, but not really memorable. It had humor and weird shit, but the author referenced some of his own books in a way that felt shamelessly self-promotional. Kind of skeeved me to be honest. BUT it was cool to read a book that was fantasy and comedy and mystery. An uncommon combination that keeps you interested. I guess I just wish that I hadn't heard so much about the author being like Douglas Adams but in a Tolkien world. That's just a ridiculous expectation to try to live up to. ...more
So I feel I must publicly expound my Severus Snape theory before the last Harry Potter book comes out. I know, it's a total guilty pleasure, but damniSo I feel I must publicly expound my Severus Snape theory before the last Harry Potter book comes out. I know, it's a total guilty pleasure, but damnit, I love that ragtag bunch of misfit wizards. So prepare to be awed by my genius analysis of the eternal question: Is Severus Snape evil?
Well, in one word - Completely. Quiet down, quiet down, quit your uproaring and just hear me out. In the world that Rowling created for Harry Potter almost every character is either goodness and light or darkness and doom. Sure they have conflicts and sometimes shit ain't easy, but their motivations are always clean cut. Snape is the one mystery. He seems evil, but he protects Harry, sort of. Dumbledore trusts him, but he makes pacts with the Malfoys. What's a muggle to think? Well, I'll tell you what to think. Snape is only looking out for #1. He's got designs on blossoming from the picked on nerdy potions kid to the unquestioned dark overlord or everything.
Oh, spoiler alert: If you haven't read the 6th book, I'm totally about to blow the ending for you.
You might be saying, 'Well then why does Dumbledore trust him? Dumbledore's super smart and would know if he was evil.' Well it's because when Dumbledore asks him, "No, seriously Snape, are you done with Voldemort?" Snape can say, "Of course, guy," and be telling the truth. He's done with that shit and he's got his eyes on the prize for himself. Even under the control of the Veritaserum he can honestly say he's not working for old Voldy. So thus he gains Dumbledore's trust in that he's no longer a Death Eater. Booyakasha! (And how genius was it for Snape to arrange a plan with Dumbledore to kill him (Dumbledore) at the end of the 6th book!? We all know that shit was preordained, what with all the "Snape, you just gotta do it," jive by big D. So everyone's led to think that even though Snape now seems like a bad guy he really isn't. Oh you poor, feeble-minded saps.)
Ok, so now you're going to ask why would Snape ever protect Harry? He hates Harry's dad and he's got no love for the boy either, so why has he saved him in the past? BECAUSE Harry's the only one who can destroy Voldemort and quite possibly vice versa. So what's Snape gonna do? He's gonna pit the two of them against one another and let them destroy each other. Then the way will be clear for Snape to rule unopposed. Ha! Goddamn I'm a genius! ...more