First I should say I liked the movie. It wasn't the most amazing film but I enjoyed it.
Second, while Brin writes science fiction books, I don't consid...moreFirst I should say I liked the movie. It wasn't the most amazing film but I enjoyed it.
Second, while Brin writes science fiction books, I don't consider this book sci-fi. He lost credibility early in the book when he uses the term 'cosmic rays' to explain background radiation.
This book is decently written, but poorly thought out. A coming of age story set in a post apocalyptic America. The author throws in some random sci-fi elements in such a manner that it feels more like they're being used to fill and bridge problems with the plot. The end it's self is wrapped up using one of these randomly throwing in elements, which made me groan and shake my head that I bothered to even read the book.
A major problem I had with the book was it's obtuse 1990's mentality. One story point revolves around feminism and whether or not woman should be allowed to fight. To read the ideas 13 years in a book that supposes to invoke some futurism was off putting.
In the end it was the main character of Gordon who made this book worse. His entire mentality and personality never quite fit with his actions. Most of the time Brin uses the excuse that Gordon just does things and he doesn't know why.(less)
Let me begin by saying I absolutely recommend this book anybody, especially a younger reader.
This is a book about rabbits and some of their natural ac...moreLet me begin by saying I absolutely recommend this book anybody, especially a younger reader.
This is a book about rabbits and some of their natural activities. But more, this is a novel about society and ethics without the sensation that your'e drowning in thick concepts.
Adams manages to recreate element and variable in human society, applying them to the path of this rabbit clan. Even the 'scifi' elements are representative of religion and mysticism that play so heavily in our lives.
A lot of people make this book out to be bigger than it is, it's not, its simple and worth reading.(less)
Matheson is one of the originators of modern day horror. Hell house is the origin of what is now the standardized haunted house. But because of this it...moreMatheson is one of the originators of modern day horror. Hell house is the origin of what is now the standardized haunted house. But because of this it makes much of the story seem old hate.
Most of the time I found myself groaning over scenes that have been repeated in a million horror stories. Of course that't not the books fault and credit should be given.
On the other hand, while Matheson has many good storyline ideas, he isn't exactly the best writer. His characters are shallow pop-ups of stereotypes.
This is another one you should read if you're bolstering your literary horror history, but don't expect it to rock your world.(less)
While not a well written book, the author tended to tell rather than show, it does deserve some credit. Written in the 50's it's clear that this book...moreWhile not a well written book, the author tended to tell rather than show, it does deserve some credit. Written in the 50's it's clear that this book serves as a forerunner for apocalyptic stories. Before their were zombies there were trifids, roaming earth after a global disaster. These plants prey on man.
Wyndam goes into what was early concepts of how to survive at the ends of days. He talks about the ethics of survival, whether or not to fend for yourself or help who you can.
It's not a terrible book so if you want to bolster your science fiction history you should pick it up.(less)
I mostly read this because Sam Raimi's prequel movie is set to come out and I wanted to say, yeah I read this book.
It's a very simple story with simpl...moreI mostly read this because Sam Raimi's prequel movie is set to come out and I wanted to say, yeah I read this book.
It's a very simple story with simple ideas and a basic story. I find it hard to make any disparaging remarks because it's a children s book, written o so long ago.
All though I do feel like it's average of four stars is more about nostalgia and less about quality of writing.
As an adult, i breezed through this thing in a night and might have read the other books, just to read them.(less)
It took me a while to process how I felt about this book.
The book itself was an easy read. You'd be surprised how many published authors that can't st...moreIt took me a while to process how I felt about this book.
The book itself was an easy read. You'd be surprised how many published authors that can't string together a intelligible sentence. For the first half of the book I was a little bothered by how simple the writing was, though changed my opinion as realized that it fit the characters; uneducated children from a poor as dirt town.
Carey had some great ideas thrown into this, but their was too many. Every couple of chapters I wondered where she was going with a certain side plot and then it kind of faded away. It made for an original read, though at the same time feel like I was missing out on something that could have turned into an interesting story.
Of course this was all the fault of a writer trying to set up a sequel. She left too many dangling plots that she wanted to cover in the next book. It does leave me hesitant to read the other in case she's going for a trilogy.(less)
I thought it would be filled with old-timey language and ideas. Other than the hardcore southern accents,...moreI didn't think I was going to like this book.
I thought it would be filled with old-timey language and ideas. Other than the hardcore southern accents, Faulkner might as well be a modern writer. He was doing with words what a lot of the hip authors are trying to do now. In a way I'm curious as how he became so successful back in 1920 with what is more an art piece than anything.
While there is no real plot he tells the tale of a family by bits and pieces. I found compelled to continue reading as the mystery of who and what was going on unfolded as I read different people's perspectives.
Faulkner has quickly become one of my favorite authors. I'd recommend this if you want to feel like you want to read some classic literature. I don't recommend it if you're one of those people who were glad they cleaned up Tom Sawyer (this book takes place in 1928 Mississippi).(less)
I really, really wanted to like this book. But in the end it fell flat.
It felt like the point of the book was less about the plot or the characters an...moreI really, really wanted to like this book. But in the end it fell flat.
It felt like the point of the book was less about the plot or the characters and more about being a delivery service for one-liners and zingers (not those awesome frosted mini-cakes).
There were two main characters who were basically the same person except that if you took one of them away they wouldn't have been able to make as many witticisms. The other characters we shallow stereotypes driving my simplistic desires.
As for the plot. It certainly wasn't original and could have been done in a single episode of any sci-fi space show.
I won't even go into the one or two plot holes that suddenly appeared.
They tell writers to write what they know. Eric Idle certainly knows comedy, but if you know how to use a cellphone could you write a book about how it functions?(less)
I should have read this in a day. I read Crime and Punishment in less time.
Perhaps it was because I'm tired of Russian literature. Or maybe excessive...moreI should have read this in a day. I read Crime and Punishment in less time.
Perhaps it was because I'm tired of Russian literature. Or maybe excessive use of internal monologue. But I'm thinking it's about the boats. The one thing I hate more than books about horses are books about boats and sailing.
Because lets face it, this was about sailing. Or more specifically a about a sailor. A story told by an old sailor about this time he met a strange man. Perhaps this might have been an interesting view of white men in Africa and their perception of the natives. But the truth is that it was about what seamen think about those of us who live on the land. The main character essentially spells this out in a scene where he finds a book left in an abandoned hut. He talks about how he takes solace in the idea of one sailor finding the words of another sailor.
I hate stories about sailing. Maybe you do, but I'm too biased to liked this book in anyway other than for in it's time it said something nothing else had said.(less)
Let me elaborate. I don't read spy, political, war thrillers like this and have never read a Jeffery Deaver novel before. I have read all...moreIt was okay.
Let me elaborate. I don't read spy, political, war thrillers like this and have never read a Jeffery Deaver novel before. I have read all of Ian Flemming's James Bond novels, they were kinda crap. Like something you'd pick up next to a cheap romance novel. Never the less I still love the James Bond universe.
So two points, a James Bond Novel, at least that was interesting enough. Except that Deaver attempts to make James Bond more realistic by changing some of the mythos. He doesn't work for MI6, he was born recently so any of those cold war stories are nixed and he's gone and explained all those things Flemming just made up (like M and Q). I feel like I should be upset or annoyed, but I took it with a grain of salt. The James Bond universe was so full of holes already. Besides I like the Code-Name theory, that James Bond, 007, M, Q and even Moneypenny are all code names used by the agency. When an agent dies or retires the code name is passed on. But that has nothing to do with anything.
There was no real thrill in this book. I didn't think anyone was in mortal danger, not even the civilians who were being threatened. Then the twist made the entire book feel pointless and Bond look a bit like a bumbling fool. Even though Flemming was a terrible writer I much preferred his gritty, haunted Bond. Deaver made him sensitive and machine like.
You're probably going to read this book if you like James Bond, but if you want to get into spy thrillers choose another series, I hear that Tom Clancey dude is pretty okay.(less)
I knew I had seen too many TV explanations of Game Theory.
Fisher does an excellent job of explaining Game Theory in a non-mathematical way. Though I s...moreI knew I had seen too many TV explanations of Game Theory.
Fisher does an excellent job of explaining Game Theory in a non-mathematical way. Though I suppose most people interested in Game Theory are also math buffs. But for those of use who can barely function without a calculator the book sheds some light on the subject.
Mostly, however, Fisher talks about examples and little about practical application. In fact he spends a lot of time pining away about how Game Theory could end war. Which made the book more about the theoretical uses of this mathematical science. And since there is very little math in this book, no conclusions are made, only hopes.
Still, if you just want to know what people are talking about when they say Game Theory its a good book. Though in the end I wasn't as impressed by the science as I thought I would be.(less)
Girardi does an excellent job of creating the scenes in his period piece shorts. He chooses the perfect words and seems to have an in depth knowledge...moreGirardi does an excellent job of creating the scenes in his period piece shorts. He chooses the perfect words and seems to have an in depth knowledge of what he's writing about, from diving to Italian history.
One thing that should really be noted is that the sub-title of this story collection is, 7 Moral Tales. What Girardi does is create these vignettes of the world to philosophize on the ambiguity of morality. But that is also the problem. A firm and compelling story can not be an ambiguous one. He leaves the stories drifting in a sea of grey with the feeling of no conclusion. At the end of each one they fell flat, lifeless and empty. Which is sad because I did like his ideas and concepts.
I was also a bit confused initially feeling that the stories had a science fiction/fantasy element, demons, post apocalyptic America and Knights though I don't think that was the intention. Especially since the finally two stories had none of the elements. From an editorial perspective they should have gone with one or the other and not a mixture, if only to keep the theme going. A side note to the publishers: your margins are to small, top, bottom, right and left.(less)
Have you ever been hyped for a movie and then when you see it find that the movie is just average. But you know if there hadn't been that hype you mig...moreHave you ever been hyped for a movie and then when you see it find that the movie is just average. But you know if there hadn't been that hype you might have had a better opinion. Exact same thing here.
Crime and Punishment has been heralded as a classic, praised and assigned as necessarily reading. I question however, the title of "classic" that has been given to this book, because to be a classic I think it should be also good. The fact is the only reason it's been given the title is because it's old. There is little a person can get from this book other than an insight into pre-Stalin Russia and the mindset of it's people.
Most of the book consists of characters over verbalizing and ranting about this and that, making it feel more like platform for half realized philosophy. The same kind of philosophy that's developed by youthful ignorance. the other half of the book is filled with descriptions of people fainting, trembling and having fits. While I'm no expert on historical psychology I feel like all these frenzies were a dramatization that made the novel untrue to reality. Somewhere deep in paragraphs of diatribe from the main character I thought I was reading a poorly written play, watching Raskolnikov pace the stage talking moaning out loud about his thoughts so as to keep the story moving.
And I know that it's uneducated of me to complain about, but I found the fact that every character had multiple names distracting. Despite knowing that it's a culture matter of translation.
In the end that I had been duped. Crime and Punishment was less about punishment and poor about the criminal activities of the poor and unfortunate. Dostoyevsky may have attempted to compare the morality of humans and their crimes, but only succeeded in revealing his own person beliefs that in this day and age look petty, self centered and lacking integrity.(less)
I gave this book some credit for decent writing. Of course you might thing that decent writing might be something p...moreA retelling of the 1930's Superman.
I gave this book some credit for decent writing. Of course you might thing that decent writing might be something present in all published books, but it's not. DeHaven's sentences say what they intend to say, never mixing too may ideas at once. It's this basic writing the creates the vision of 1930. A quick look at the authors resume and you'll see he's written about early 1900's America before which probably made it easy for him to write this. On the other hand it made it tough for me to read this. Like any hobbyist or aficionado DeHaven says too much. You know that guy who's way into sports or car; the gal who cooks all the time or follows some TV show? They talk and talk in extreme detail that no other person with a purely passing interest could follow. As a reader we don't need to know the name brand of the phonograph, what jazz artist played with who and a list of popular celebrities at the time.
DeHaven had the difficult task of correcting the Superman history. He did a PG job of integrating the reality of the 1930's and the Superman lore. Clark Kent had cursory entanglements with racism, the depression, mob warfare and the suppression of rights (to women, non-Christians and non-whites). But they were only cursory and yet they should have been things that deeply effected someone from that time period. I will say that I'm glad the author stuck to a narrow time frame and didn't try to take on too much of the Superman universe.
As for the story, like any other prequel there is no suspense. You now Clark will make it. you know Lois will survive. The author had to create some new characters to kill them off. As well he made the mistake of trying to tie everyone together in some universal cog of fate making the plot weak and cheesy. I liked the juxtaposition he made between Clark and Lex Luthor (though he might have pushed it a little too hard). I liked the homage to classical Superman gripes; that in the original comic he didn't fly but jumped really high and the practicalities of a cape.
The novel did lose points for originality for rehashing Superman once again. See my blog if you want toe read more on this.(less)
I made it 42 pages into this book so i can't say how the story is but the writing is atrocious. I though I was reading something from a teenage author...moreI made it 42 pages into this book so i can't say how the story is but the writing is atrocious. I though I was reading something from a teenage author I(you know the ones publishers print as a gimmick and then eventually realized they've been plagiarizing). When I was in high school i wrote like Ramsey Campbell. Here's and example:
...Why am I trying to piece this together when I should be watching? I hurry into the communal lounge and switch on the video player.
A tape is nesting in it. When I eject the cassette, which bears only a blank label, I can't find its slipcase. I stow it in the case of my film and plant it among the cans and dreggy glasses on the mantelpiece. Once I've entrusted my tape to player I clear a pizza box off the least lumpy armchair as the television screen lights up. It looks as if the brightness is trying to scratch the screen white, but surely only the start of the tape is worn. Most of the ragged glaring strips drift off the screen and the distributors trademark appears--two Vs so close together they could be taken for a W--and I'm able to suppress some of the lingering interference with the remote control, which is sticky from someone's television dinner. Those Golden Years of Fun is compiled and narrated... (The main character goes on to tell us exactly what's on the video for the next 5 pages.)
(my rendition): And then I ate some food, and it was a microwavable meal that I always get at the grocery store six blocks away because the one down the streets is run by a clerk who always asks me about what I'm buying. When I put it in the microwave I'm reminded that I haven't cleaned it in months and it smells like old broccoli and other things that I've microwaved a bunch of time in this very dirty microwave because I live with roommates. Oh and did I mention this is a horror novel?
Seriously? What is the point of the inane play by play. Put the damn tape in show us what happens on the screen and get to the next point.
And what the hell does this mean, "It looks as if the brightness is trying to scratch the screen white"?
A large part of the first 42 pages are filled with these types of scenes. At first I chalked it up to the author being British, but I was wrong. And I can't fathom how he won as many awards as he has. Or maybe it goes to show you can have a hundred ribbons but that doesn't make you a general (or good writer).
Read this book if you want a good example of how not to write or is you like being annoyed.
I really want to talk about the idiotic introductory scare tactics he was trying to use, but I don't want to click the "this has spoilers" box.(less)
For a while now I've been trying to get around to reading JG Ballard novel (they don't stock them on any shelves for some reason, despite having had t...moreFor a while now I've been trying to get around to reading JG Ballard novel (they don't stock them on any shelves for some reason, despite having had them turned int films). So i ran into this one at the library and grabbed it, only briefly glancing at what it was about.
It was a slow read. Not boring, but certainly not enthralling. I had jokingly guess the twist of the story while reading chapter two, though didn't realize it till the reveal (so their was some anticipation).
Something about the characters thoughts and decisions didn't seem natural to me. I found it hard to understand how they fall further and further into trouble. The most annoying thing was the main character. There was a constant literary aura around him that said, he will be the hero. but in my opinion turned out to be a waste of space.
Some of my trouble with this book is probably Ballard as a person. He lived in England but he's a through and through European. With European ideas and points of view. His long descriptions of France did nothing for me except make me never want to go. It hadn't occurred to me how racist French people really were (the racist attitudes are not made up for the book). From hearing stories I knew it, but I didn't really know it.
The only reason this book is getting three star is because of the ideas. While flawed Ballard has some very interesting theories about sex, drugs, insanity, wealth and the natural hierarchy of society. I myself began thinking about these things as I read further and further into the book.
This might be a good read for someone who doesn't usually think about things like BDSM or has an infatuation with Europe. For me I felt like I missed the exciting ending as Ballard swifty wrapped up the novel in the last 50 pages.(less)
Loading...
