A great, fast-paced mystery. If you don't like gory and violent, don't read this book. (I'm not saying that I especially like gory and violent, howeveA great, fast-paced mystery. If you don't like gory and violent, don't read this book. (I'm not saying that I especially like gory and violent, however!) The protagonist, Will Graham, is a reluctant profiler seeking an evil monster, The Red Dragon, who has killed two families the most brutal way.copyright 1981, the book takes place in the world before cell phones and before instantaneous information. Even so, the action is believable, And the lack of modern technology does not detract from the story.
Because fast-paced. I wanted to read more. The sign of a good tale is when it's compelling and yes in deed this was compelling. The ending was somewhat of a surprise to me. I knew the ending was not the end, however, because there were more pages leftin the book. Harris' evil arch fiend, Hannibal Lecter, is one of the characters in this book, but he is not the focus....more
1066 interesting pages! L. Ron Hubbard was a prolific SF writer. Prior to this, the only book I'd read by this author was "Typewriter In The Sky" in t1066 interesting pages! L. Ron Hubbard was a prolific SF writer. Prior to this, the only book I'd read by this author was "Typewriter In The Sky" in the early 1980s, of which I remember nothing except the interesting title.
This book has it all: a likeable protagonist, evil overlord alien race, post apocalyptic civilization, advanced technology, some humor, occasional seat-gripping tension, and a happy ending. The character development is strong and the story goes quickly…while you are still gripping a heavy, thick book. Read it.
I'm going to get some more Hubbard SF. Something tells me I'll be entertained and enlightened. ...more
This is a lightweight history with recipes. It didn't really hold my interest too well but I read it anyhow. Only the protagonist, Hannah, was well-deThis is a lightweight history with recipes. It didn't really hold my interest too well but I read it anyhow. Only the protagonist, Hannah, was well-developed. Learn to love interests were flat. The murder it's self was… Bland. Writing this review, I can't even remember what the premise was. But, it was a quick read, and I grabbed the book off the free exchange bookshelf by the subway station, so I really can't complain. Some of the recipes looked really good but luckily for my waistline, I'm not one to jump up from a book to bake some cookies. ...more
I would love to say this is a 4- or 5-star book but I can't. In fact I stopped reading it on page 78 and just don't have the heart to pick it up againI would love to say this is a 4- or 5-star book but I can't. In fact I stopped reading it on page 78 and just don't have the heart to pick it up again. And for me to not finish a book is rare.
It's not a bad book; I simply can't follow the nuances of the author's argument.
The cover flap synopsis says: Japanese has a term that covers both green and blue. Russian has separate terms for dark and light blue. Does this mean that Russians perceive these colors differently from Japanese people? Does language control and limit the way we think, such that each language gives its speakers a different "worldview?"
The author, John McWhorter, tries to refute the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that the language we speak shapes the way we perceive the world. He tries to show that cultures without certain words or expressions perceive the world as vividly as those that do. In this work, however, he has not convinced me by example.
I'm no linguist but I do know several languages. Biblical Hebrew uses what we would call euphemisms to express certain activities, such as "he knew her" for sexual congress. It's a more refined and nuanced way of speaking of physical love and also expresses the mental connection between the participants. Contrast that to the language that is used when discussing farm animals copulating, which is also in modern parlance used for human relations, and you get a different concept of the act. If you never speak of an act in a coarse way, you are more likely to not view it in a coarse way.
I'm not buying McWhorter's hypothesis mostly because his argument doesn't seem linear and direct to me. And that's a shame, because I'd like to be able to see the other side of the argument clearly and be convinced of looking at things differently. But, with this book, I simply can't get through it.
It did make me think, however, so that's why I gave it 2-stars. ...more