What Are You Reading?

[caruso_stalker217]

finished this today. Reminded me a bit of Doctor Sleep in that it's perfectly readable, but the ground has been so well-trod by King at this point that you have to wonder why he bothered writing it in the first place. Many of his tropes are here, but again the stakes are so low and the characters less vibrant and interesting than in most of his other work.

This book has an edge over Doctor Sleep in that it isn't actively terrible and the good guys at least incure a few losses, even if those characters weren't exactly crucial or left much of an impression.

Overall, the villain and his (its?) lacky are fairly impotent and ineffective and easily dispatched by the heroes.

I don't imagine I'll be taking this one off the shelf ever again.

[so sorry]

...Reminded me a bit of Doctor Sleep in that it's perfectly readable, but the ground has been so well-trod by King at this point that you have to wonder why he bothered writing it in the first place.

New York Times Current Best Sellers

At roughly 30 bucks a pop....

[caruso_stalker217]

The man doesn't need the money. Of course the truth is King couldn't stop writing if he tried, I think. It's not a switch he can flip on and off. So we get this stuff.

Here's a fun game to play. What is the most recent King book that you've actually read more than once?

For me, it's The Wind Through The Keyhole which was published six years ago. The next most recent King book I've reread? The Dark Tower VII, from 2004.

I think the man is done writing classics.

[TheBaxter]

i'm not much of a re-reader (too many books i haven't even read once yet, and not nearly enough time to read them (cue burgess meredith's broken glasses))... the only books on my list of King re-reads, not counting short story collections, are Salems Lot, Pet Sematary, The Stand, The Shining and It. i'm planning on re-reading It before the next film comes out, and was thinking of rereading the Shining because i'm staying a couple nights at the Stanley Hotel this summer, but i probably won't have time and so i'll just rewatch the Kubrick film, which i prefer to the book anyway.

so the most recent book of his i've reread or would reread is IT. from 1986. about the only recent work of his i'd consider re-reading is 11/22/63 or Joyland. both of those were much better than his typical output these days, but i'm not that driven to go back to either.

i agree King is a bit of a compulsive writer. i think he'd be much better if he spent more time rewriting and editing his stuff, instead of just endlessly churning it out, but who's gonna tell him to change, when any books of his is a guaranteed bestseller? if he was putting out a book every 2-3 years, instead of 1-2 books per year, the volume might go down but the quality would likely go way up.

[so sorry]

Here's a fun game to play. What is the most recent King book that you've actually read more than once?

I've read The Stand probably 3 or 4 times. Its been a while, maybe I'll dust it off later this year.

[Fievel]

I think I've only re-read The Stand and the Dark Tower series (some books more than others).

[Al Shut]

Probably The Green Mile but then again all King books I've read where burrowed from my parents and it could well be the last recent I read at all.

[Al Shut]

Digging through a box of German childhood horror-pulp bullshit.

Torment and delight at the same time.

[Ribbons]

Torment because the books are scary, or torment because the books are terrible?

[Al Shut]

Definitely terrible!

Scares are nonexistent, even tension is very rare, language is clunky to the point that at times it seems awkwardly translated although it was written in German.
At least once the author forgets what he wrote before and repeats a shocking revelation from twenty pages earlier.
It seems no idea is ludicrous enough to not be used, understandible at a pace of one story a week and part of it's insane appeal (the delight)

[Al Shut]

I just realized that the latest reissue has only reached #22 (of over 2000) and that the price has less than doubled in over two decades. Pretty tempted to jump right back in.

[so sorry]

I was rooting around my (small) collection for something to read (having re-read the GoT series again ), and came across some high school English class books I kept.

I read The Old Man and the Sea last night, and I can't for the life of me think of why this was decided to be a good high school English read. I was thoroughly bored, shocked at the sophomoric style of writing he used, and frankly left scratching my head at the significance of the book in general. I did a little google research today, and there seems to be some notion that this book brought Hemingway back on track in his writing or some such shit, but it gets a big studly MEH from adult me.


I just remembered that I also read Catcher in the Rye early this year too, man that Holden was a total dick.


Next up, the much more intense and worth-it The Lord of the Flies.

[TheBaxter]

it's not boring, it's "literary"

just be thankful you were never assigned War and Peace. it's 10x as long and probably 100x as boring. and don't get me started on Moby Dick. i'm pretty sure the teachers who assigned books like this were just bitter sad people who hated their jobs and hated kids and took it out on their students.

[Fievel]

I'm about 80% of the way through Bob Woodward's Fear. I had to stop. The whole Kavanagh debacle (and Trump's UN statements) elevated my feelings, but the book is just depressing as hell. I didn't find anything new in it. It doesn't present new facts, but rather it provides factual insight into what is already known. I knew that's what this book offered but still I tried. What a fucking clusterfuck. I hope to return to finish it at some point.

[so sorry]

I'm about 80% of the way through Bob Woodward's Fear. I had to stop. The whole Kavanagh debacle (and Trump's UN statements) elevated my feelings, but the book is just depressing as hell. I didn't find anything new in it. It doesn't present new facts, but rather it provides factual insight into what is already known. I knew that's what this book offered but still I tried. What a fucking clusterfuck. I hope to return to finish it at some point.

You better finish it now before the Gestapo comes to take it away for the book burning...

[TheBaxter]

looks like i've got another shitty Anne Rice Lestat book to read

[Wolfpack]

looks like i've got another shitty Anne Rice Lestat book to read

Performance Review with the Vampire?

[TheBaxter]

looks like i've got another shitty Anne Rice Lestat book to read

Performance Review with the Vampire?

"congratulations, Lestat! your review is in and you've received AB Positive!"

[TheBaxter]

finished reading Blood Communion, the latest and shittiest Anne Rice vampire chronicles book. the previous 2 books were pretty shitty, but i think this one has them beat.... which is saying a lot considering how bad those last two were. at least those books had some kind of coherent story to tell. this book starts off a jumbled mess, Rice seems to have no idea who she wants to be the villain of this particular book so she introduces a few possibilities, before finally settling on one about halfway through the book... leading to the only good part of the book, a way-too-brief section where a thing actually happens. once that thing happens, the book quickly returns to being an empty void of nothingness. seriously, the last 50 pages are so are devoted to a dance ball--a fucking DANCE BALL--which Lestat spends the entire time brooding over some grand personal revelation that, when finally revealed, has all the emotional Punky Power of a Sally Field oscar speech. that's 50 pages of an approximately 250-page book padded out with that shit (about the only positive thing i can say about this book is that at least it's short).

when Rice started writing Lestat books again, she gave some interview where she said the hardest thing about writing these new books is that she had so many ideas, it was hard to choose which ones to write about. if this book is any indication, she solved that problem by choosing not to write about any of them. though maybe that's better than writing about a really dumb idea, like she chose to do in her last book.

i've really disliked all 3 of these new Lestat books, and while a lot of that is due to the subpar writing, lack of originality, and just plain stupid crap that happens in these newer books, i realized by the end of this one another huge reason why these books just don't work for me. the original Vampire Chronicles books were all about the loneliness and isolation and alienation felt by these vampires, a heightened metaphor for the kind of alienation so many people feel. i read those books in high school, the time in most people's lives when those feelings of loneliness and alienation are at their height, so i could really identify with those characters. but in these new books, Rice is obsessed with the idea of her vampire "tribe" coming together and becoming a shiny happy family of bloodsuckers. this most recent book is the ultimate culmination of that effort, and it's incredibly dissatisfying. i don't want to read about happy vampires socializing and repeatedly telling each other they love them. i get that the whole miserable, self-pitying vampire thing has probably been done to death by now, but this is not a good substitute. vampires are supposed to be solitary creatures, not a bunch of fucking jaycees. at this rate, the next VC book is going to be 300 pages of Lestat worrying about what to make for the potluck dinner at next week's meeting of the vampire book club.

so yeah... this book really su-- er, stank.

couple other notes:
-- there are way too many fucking vampire characters in these books now. and the new ones are not nearly as interesting as the old ones.
-- the "replimoids", "atlanteans" and other silly fantasy-sci-fi characters introduced in the last book are still around. basically they're just background characters, but they still exist as a reminder of just how much Rice has fucked up her original vampire mythology with all that crap.
-- please make it stop.

[so sorry]

- the "replimoids"

Ha ha! Wtf are those?

[Wolfpack]

I'm reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation. I'm probably having more fun than Bax right now.

[TheBaxter]

- the "replimoids"

Ha ha! Wtf are those?

i can't even begin to explain. however silly that term makes them sound... multiply that by 1000.

this article gives a very brief summation....but seriously, it doesn't even begin to touch on how bizarre they are. for example, they can clone themselves by hacking off a body part, which then grows a new clone of themselves. i can only imagine the despair of that wiki author, probably a long-term anne rice fan, who was forced to add these things on to their wiki site.