Carol. 's Reviews > Monster Hunter International

Monster Hunter International by Larry Correia
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
3978225
's review
May 06, 2011

did not like it
bookshelves: urban-fantasy, male-lead, action, no-negative-reviews
Recommended for: Correia fans and people who don't want to know about authors' politics
Read from April 28 to May 01, 2011


Three stars**

Turned out to be a fun, engaging read, and I'll definitely check out the next book in the series. The first person point of view is told by an unusual hero; a large, "ugly," now scarred accountant who was raised in family that emphasized guns and survival skills. As such, his language is straightforward, but not so simplistic that I was bored. Flashes of humor and modern references kept the voice fresh, making me feel like although he took situations seriously, he also saw the humorous side. A Twilight reference made me laugh but may end up dating the book. It was also nice in the way his voice engaged me into Owen's point of view; the introduction to the world of monsters, the love of guns and his growing competency in fighting monsters.

The overall plot involves confronting one of the ultimate evils that abound, and while there isn't much mystery surrounding the final confrontation, there were a few twists along the way that had me surprised. Correia does a good job of making the ultimate evil frightening, especially when using Owen's psychic connection to give insight into C.O.'s megalomania. The secondary romantic plot was unsurprising in development or resolution. It was a little surprising to me to find it in such an action oriented book, but at least is remained secondary and didn't dominate Owen's thoughts or the storyline.

It felt a little Hollywoodish when (view spoiler) Hard to top that for the final fight. Still overall-very fast paced read that I didn't want to put down.

Cross posted at http://clsiewert.wordpress.com/2013/0...

** Stars removed on 05/14 due to author behavior regarding the Hugos, liberals and generally being a lackwit. His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abducted schoolgirls, as well as mocking the men involved in the anti-pedophile campaign. Plus there's the whole effort to destroy the Hugos by "getting underrepresented white minority conservative writers" 'represented.' monsterhunternation.com (linking done through donotlink to minimize his blog upticks).


Summary of Correia's early efforts to get himself nominated for a Hugo, and transformation into the Sad Puppies group: http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/pupp...
96 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Monster Hunter International.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

02/07/2016 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-50 of 116) (116 new)


Evgeny Can you give a link to author's bad behavior? I have been living under a rock lately :)


message 2: by Carol. (last edited May 09, 2014 01:07PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. He's a dick. His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abducted schoolgirls, as well as mocking the men involved in the anti-pedophile campaign. Plus there's the whole effort to destroy the Hugos by "getting underrepresented white minority conservative writers" 'represented.' monsterhunternation.com (done through donotlink.com to avoid giving his blog upticks).


message 3: by Courtnie (last edited May 09, 2014 12:49PM) (new)

Courtnie Carol. [All cynic, all the time] wrote: "He's a dick. His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abducted schoolgirls, as well as mocking the men involved in the anti-pedophile campaign. Plus there's the ..."

just shoot me.

eta: sometimes, sir author, your opinion is best left to yourself. smh


Evgeny Thanks, I did not know - not that I am going to read his books; I will not.


message 5: by Stephanie (new)

Stephanie Read his blog (thanks for the link)... That is shocking and disgusting. Will NEVER read anything by this guy...


Carol. I knew he was a conservative, but when I found out about the Hugo campaign, I checked his blog for his posts about it (you know, go to the source, right?) Then I bumped into his other misogynist, anti-liberal, hater crap. I don't normally take this route, but, man, he deserves it.


message 7: by Kaora (new)

Kaora Score one for the will never read pile.


Carol. Allison wrote: "Score one for the will never read pile."

Yes. Dropped like a live scorpion.


message 9: by Stephanie (new)

Stephanie Swint I couldn't get into the book, despite people recommending it,and felt bad about it. I have absolutely no guilt about abandoning it after the information you provided


Carol. Me either, Stephanie.


message 11: by Claire (new)

Claire You know what they say about Hitler being a painter..


Carol. Claire wrote: "You know what they say about Hitler being a painter.."

That he was still a mass-murdering psychopath who should have concentrated on art instead?


message 13: by Claire (new)

Claire Pretty much yes!


message 14: by Virginia (new)

Virginia Was going to put this on my to-read list. Thanks for the heads up that prevented me from inadvertently financing douchebaggery.


message 15: by Mark (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mark I agree the guy seems like a blowhard and if you want to boycott his books, more power to you. However, I question your removal of stars from the rating of the book because you don't like the author.


message 16: by Carol. (last edited Jun 27, 2014 03:29PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. Question away! He's diminished his brand.


message 17: by Brigid (new)

Brigid HAHAHA! romances for men *snort* Thanks for making me laugh Ilona, as always.


Carol. I had to track that reference down, Brigid. Ilona is funny.


message 19: by Brigid (last edited Aug 20, 2014 08:44AM) (new)

Brigid Carol. [All cynic, all the time] wrote: "I had to track that reference down, Brigid. Ilona is funny."

she's the queen of wit.

edit: I honestly thought I commented on Ilona's review, but I guess I commented on yours by mistake. Wonder how that happened....weird.


message 20: by Mark (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mark I understand that Carol, and I respect the fact you dislike the author. However, my point was that if I'm looking through ratings and reviews of books to help me determine the next book I want to read, it would be very confusing to have sort through ratings that were based not just on the book but on the author.


Carol. Mark, I will provide you with this excerpt from my "Why I [Unicorns and Rainbows] Goodreads."

As a reviewer, my goals were very simple: to thoughtfully reflect my views on a book and my reading experience. I've bought into the idea that the personal is political, and I incorporate it, when appropriate, into my reading and thus my reviews.

Some authors are content to release their books into the world and let them develop a life of their own. Others leverage their social power into political power, using their artistic voice to make comments in the political arena. For the most part, I've only followed or heard from authors I've loved, so it was natural to me to focus on the positives. But as I grew more widely read and the barriers between authors and readers have melted down on Goodreads, I've come to realize there are authors I want to avoid as well, some because of their public persona, some because of boorish behavior in groups.... I reserve that right to discuss it in my notes on reads or books.


To which I will also add:
The source matters.


message 22: by Mark (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mark Well stated but I'm not disagreeing with lambasting the author in your written review, merely with the removal of stars from the rating. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree! I'll still follow your reviews. ;-)


message 23: by Brigid (last edited Aug 21, 2014 11:31AM) (new)

Brigid Carol. [All cynic, all the time] wrote: "Mark, I will provide you with this excerpt from my "Why I [Unicorns and Rainbows] Goodreads."

As a reviewer, my goals were very simple: to thoughtfully reflect my views on a book and my reading ex..."


agreed. I can't for the life of me pick up Orson Scott Card's work.


message 24: by Chowder (new) - added it

Chowder You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I have read several of your reviews and find them to be very in-depth and informative and truly appreciate the effort you put forth (as too many reviews are "it was good" or "I hated it" without any real substance). My own opinion, however, is that to downgrade how much you enjoy a book because of the author's political views is not what this site is for. You obviously enjoyed the book somewhat, but to put it at the lowest ratings because his political beliefs don't align with yours?

What if the book was 100% a piece of garbage and intensely painful to read, but the author was an incredible humanitarian, a wonderful philanthropist and his/her political beliefs were identical to yours - would you give the book a 4 or 5 star rating based on that?

Once again, you are entitled to post whatever your opinion is, and I do hope you continue to review authors' works (because you do write wonderful reviews), but I will have to agree to disagree that book ratings should be changed and readers should be discouraged from reading an author because he/she doesn't see the world the same way as you do.


message 25: by Carol. (last edited Sep 08, 2014 10:28PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. Chowder, thanks for sharing your thoughts and your compliments.

I do happen to disagree on what this site is for, which is why I rarely post full reviews here.

My justification for letting someone's personal life affect my judgement of their work thusly: I pay very little attention to social media, in most forms, including the glorified facebook feeds that are most magazines. So if someone's behavior makes it onto my radar, its likely a very loudly stated view. Corriea really disappointed me with the Hugo stuntmanship. Ergo, he/they fired the first shot in making discussion of their work as more than about the work themselves was the author.

It does work both ways. And it isn't about being identical--it's about being thoughtful. Compassionate. Human. Art is, after all, interpretation. Knowing some of the author's public stances has allowed me at least the illusion of greater interpretation ability. Somehow, Corriea's white-trash fairies have a new spin, maybe?

Ways it's worked positively: I'm only mildly interested in Scalzi's writing, but I give him the benefit of the doubt because I like what he does outside of writing. Likewise, Jim Hines. Cat Valente I admire as a writer and as a semi-public persona. Janny Wurts--another fabulous persona, and I have no idea what her politics are, but I don't care for her writing. So the works I read of hers get uprated because I'm prone to interpret them in slightly more positive ways.


So to be clear, it isn't about identical to me. In fact, I think that's rather a large assumption on your part, as I never stated my opinion on any of the issues, only on his behavior. Because it is about integrity and thoughtfulness. Oh, and not being an asshat.


message 26: by Crystal (new)

Crystal Thanks for the warning. I don't need.more assininery in my life. Book deleting.


message 27: by Carol. (last edited Apr 17, 2015 10:40PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. Leaving troll comment so that I can report a sock puppet profile.


Carol. Troll Be Gone didn't work on my other review, I won't waste my time with it here. Obviously, I got a bad batch.


Before you leave a comment arguing with my review style, ask yourself:

1) Do I write reviews on all books I read?
2) Have I checked out all 5-star reviews for this book to monitor them for star inflation related to reviewer policy?
3) Am I capable of discussing the purpose of Goodreads and the subjective nature of reviewing without implying this review somehow doesn't meet subjective standards?
4) Do I have a life?

If the answer to all the above questions is "yes," you probably aren't going to bother to leave a comment. Because you surely have better things to do.



message 29: by Garry (new) - added it

Garry Hamilton Years ago I read Stephen King's THE STAND.

If was an excellent yarn. One of the best stories I've ever read.

Some time later I came to learn who King, the person, is. I came to learn that, in addition to his politics being at odds with my own, he is careless with data and reasoning.

I have, over a period of time, come to regard him much less as a person.

All of that said, The Stand is still one of my favorite stories. I still recommend it to anyone who needs a good book.

I don't like Stephen King. I still like certain of his works.

----------

Now, about Larry Correia.

I know Larry as a consequence of research in a technical subject requiring specific expertise. Larry and his peers proved quite competent. During this period I learned that Larry was writing a couple of books.

I was of two minds here. I respected Larry for his technical expertise, had come to like him personally, but neither of those held any guarantee that the man could write.

I was greatly relieved to discover that he could, in fact, write -- and write well.

----------

So, I have two authors, one of whom I like, one of whom I don't, who can nonetheless write solid yarns.

I like Larry. I respect -- as an author -- Stephen King.

You're free to like whomever you please.

May I suggest, however, that integrity demands that your evaluations of quality be taken independent of personalities.


message 30: by Stuart (new)

Stuart Tolman Wow so the story isn't as good if you don't agree with the author? At least you're honest about it.


message 31: by Carol. (last edited Apr 29, 2015 08:59PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. Awww, Gerry, just when I started to like you too. It turns out you joined GR this month just to be a supporter of Correia and company. So how, exactly, is your commentary different than me voicing my own opinion? You are joining a book review site just to dispute others' reviews, not to actually participate and contribute your own. Be sure and actually contribute to the site and see how it works before disputing the purpose of reviews.

And read message #28.

Ps. I don't feel anything about Stephen King's politics, because he's content to cash his paycheck and not try to influence major awards ceremonies for political statements. And I didn't like The Stand.


message 32: by Garry (new) - added it

Garry Hamilton My apologies for being new.

I'm here primarily to re-acquaint myself with worthy reading material after a self imposed exile of some three decades.

My career field doesn't leave a lot of spare time for such indulgences, and it's my hope that rubbing elbows here on GoodReads will help me find new works.

I hold no other brief. If I cannot achieve this end through GoodReads, I will nevertheless find a path to do so.

My remarks stand as written.

This seems to be unduly personal for you, and I don't wish to disturb you further.

Go in peace.


message 33: by Carol. (last edited Apr 29, 2015 09:51PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. Garry,

sure it is personal. Because people who have no investment in reading, the site, reviewing or history here at Goodreads are presuming to tell me how one needs to review, if one is going to have "integrity" of reviews.

You don't need to apologize for being "new," but you should apologize for attempting to dictate to me what it means to have integrity of reviews on a site you apparently joined this month.


message 34: by Carol. (last edited Apr 30, 2015 07:46AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol. description


Evgeny Carol. wrote: ""

Whoever makes this will make truckloads of money :)


message 36: by Walter (new)

Walter Daniels Chowder wrote: "You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I have read several of your reviews and find them to be very in-depth and informative and truly appreciate the effort you put forth (as too many reviews ..."
The problem is that too many are taking an attitude of
"I don't agree with (author) on political/social/whatever grounds; Therefore (author) is a pile of poop." With regard to the Hugos, as has become obvious to anyone reading widely (not just liberal media "condensed" versions, there was/is a problem. I've been a "Fan," in one form or another, since 1958. For most of my life, the words. "Hugo award nominee/winner," said. "This book is worth reading, *because it tells a well written,_story_.* (Note: whether I _liked_ the story would be decided after I read it.) I knew that it would be worth the price I paid. Then, over the last 10-15 years ago that stopped being a good choice. It would be poorly written, or focus on pushing a message of some sort,instead of telling a story *with* a message. If I want to be "preached at," I go to a church/synagogue/mosque. There are any number of good, popular, well written stories, *with a message.* But, they focus on story first.
Let me put it this way. Would you pay steak prices, for $1 a pound beef, in a burger form? Of course not, you want a quality burger, for that price. But, what if someone says. "You must pay premium prices, for junk beef, or bland tofu." Would you keep buying from them? It's that way with the "Trad. 5" publishers. There "sales" are dropping, year after year, while Indie publishing _grows_. Grows as in not just numbers of authors, but in *sales* totals.
The real problem is that it's this "publisher employee group" that can afford to go, in large groups, to the World Con. Then, Theresa Nielsen Hayden, publicly whined (*4 days _before_ the embargoed announcement of the nominees.) "The wrong people got nominated." If there has _not_, as she, and many others complained, a "bloc of people nominating only who _they_ want to win, but shutting out those they 'don't like,' how did she know that? Supposedly, the list was known *only* to the nominating committee, and the nominees who agreed to accept. Again, *how did she know?* She's _not_ on the nominating committee, and wouldn't have said that, if she were.
Since then, she, and many others, have made libelous statements (LC is a "white male, hater, Homophobe, etc., all of which is provably false. Or, my favorite Sarah A. Hoyte, is a white male, and homophobe. Note: she's a _Portuguese female_, and has been her whole life, also she has multiple "gay" Main Characters in her books.) Thus destroying their own credibility.
Then, a group "criminalized" the act listing a _few_ names, and saying. "We believe that these authors deserve consideration for Hugo's, but we believe the "Liberal" publisher clique, will refuse to consider them;" Therefore, _anyone_ daring to recommend authors not approved by the "in" crowd, became "hateful, bloc voter types, and to be run out of fandom."
If that is what "fandom is," instead of the original "we're all unacceptable to the 'mundanes,' I want no part of it. Let the World Con (I've been to 3 of them) commit suicide. People, and I know many of them, risk their personal financial security, to put them on. *They do _not_ make much, if any profits. By incorporation rules, all "profits" go the next years committee, to help fund the effort. In fact, they *love* supporting members, because they require no expensive programming. The more of them, the better the services of those who attend can receive. So, kill us off, and watch the WC close it's doors forever. Talk about stupid. They should *encourage* "supporting members," who also get to vote for Hugo nominees and award winners, not try to limit us. But, they, apparently, don't understand the economics of running a Con, at _any_ level. I do, I've been on Con Com's.


message 37: by Dave (new)

Dave Evgeny wrote: "Can you give a link to author's bad behavior? I have been living under a rock lately :)"

http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/0...


message 38: by Dave (new)

Dave Also here is a link where Correia tries to boost another new author's sales by raising his sales ranking on Amazon. he has done this for several new authors. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/0...


message 39: by Dave (new)

Dave Dave wrote: "Also here is a link where Correia tries to boost another new author's sales by raising his sales ranking on Amazon. he has done this for several new authors. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/..."

http://monsterhunternation.com/page/2...


Logan Dave wrote: "Also here is a link where Correia tries to boost another new author's sales by raising his sales ranking on Amazon. he has done this for several new authors."

Okay, I'm a little confused as to why promoting new author's works is considered "bad behavior". It helps the author, it helps the readers find the authors. Care to explain? I've actually found several brand new authors I really liked through efforts like these.


message 41: by Dave (new)

Dave Logan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Also here is a link where Correia tries to boost another new author's sales by raising his sales ranking on Amazon. he has done this for several new authors."

Okay, I'm a little confu..."


It is not bad behavior. Carol doesn't seem to like Correia because he exposed the Hugo awards as being hijacked by a small, insular group of political ideologues, rather than representing the Best works of science fiction for the year.

As for the kidnapped girls thing, Correia thought that it might be more effective to actually send people to find them and bring them back, rather than just put some frowny faces on the internet and call it good. But apparently this hurts some people's feelings, or they think it is bad to criticize it because Michelle Obama is involved, or something.


message 42: by Robert (new)

Robert Madam, I hope you realise that by doing what you did with the # of stars on your review, and by saying what you said about Mr. Correa and his books, you just proved his whole point regarding the Hugos


message 43: by Daniel (new)

Daniel Kauffman This is very interesting Star Wars based on acceptable political qualifications rather then quality of work, I wonder if the other side will come here check out the books this reviewer approves of and duplicate her one star punishment?


Jacek Dobrzyniecki "His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abducted schoolgirls, as well as mocking the men involved in the anti-pedophile campaign."

Holy crap! This must mean that he supports abducting schoolgirls and molesting children! Man, that Correia guy sure sounds like a bastard. Good thing you told us--I read the book and liked it, but after reading his blog, I realized that I disagree with an opinion he has, so this must mean the book is crud.

I swear: this is the last time I fail to look up the author's political views before reading a novel. Otherwise how I can tell in advance if I should enjoy the book or not?


Carol. ZZZZ, go back to your Correia fan club, kids.


Carol. Doug wrote: "Carol is a moron and hasn't been laid in years. And you wonder she wonders why that is.
Carol. wrote: "He's a dick. His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abd..."


flagged


Carol. I'd like to give a shout-out to Goodreads for protecting me from the haters by failing to give me updates.


Carol. Robert wrote: "Madam, I hope you realise that by doing what you did with the # of stars on your review, and by saying what you said about Mr. Correa and his books, you just proved his whole point regarding the Hugos"

And I hope YOU realized you proved my point by being a sock puppet with 0 ratings, 0 reviews and 3 books on your shelf.


Carol. Daniel wrote: "This is very interesting Star Wars based on acceptable political qualifications rather then quality of work, I wonder if the other side will come here check out the books this reviewer approves of ..."

Daniel, I'm not sure what you are trying to say about Star Wars. Meaning the post back-and-forth? I'm confused.


Carol. Doug wrote: "Carol is a moron and hasn't been laid in years. And you wonder she wonders why that is.
Carol. wrote: "He's a dick. His latest blog is ranting against the campaign to raise awareness about the abd..."


3 reviews, and none for this book. Fly that flag of freedom, buddy!


« previous 1 3
back to top