minstrel wrote:Just finished Dawn, by Olivia Butler. Kind of disappointing, given the reputation she has.
I felt that way about Fledgling.
minstrel wrote:Just finished Dawn, by Olivia Butler. Kind of disappointing, given the reputation she has.
Maui wrote:Ready Player One by Ernest Cline.
This was an enjoyable read for the somewhat tech savvy reader. I've read Spielberg is in the works to put this on the big screen so hopefully he can do the book justice.
Ribbons wrote:
but I'm not a child of the '80s so I don't think I got into it as much as a lot of people.
magicmonkey wrote:I am reading Masquerade by Terry Pratchett. About time I caught up really... as I have never read any pratchett other than playing the DIscworld computer games. Discworld Noir being particularly memorable. Only a few pages in and eager to see how he develops the narrative! Other than that I got George RR Martin's The Armageddon Rag to be splaying.
The 2015 Giller jury citation:
'What does it mean to be alive? To think, to feel, to love and to envy? Andre Alexis explores all of this and more in the extraordinary Fifteen Dogs , an insightful and philosophical meditation on the nature of consciousness. It's a novel filled with balancing acts: humour juxtaposed with savagery, solitude with the desperate need to be part of a pack, perceptive prose interspersed with playful poetry. A wonderful and original piece of writing that challenges the reader to examine their own existence and recall the age old question, what's the meaning of life?'
Al Shut wrote:Doing a in memoriam read of Eco's The Prague Cemetary. Not an easy read even the second time around.
Doing Foucault's pendulum next.
TheBaxter wrote:[b]Ready Player One
i don't know how they're going to make a movie out of this, the rights fees alone would bankrupt a small nation. they'll probably trim it way back, but i'll be interested in seeing just how many of the book references, particularly the ones that are really integral to the story, make it into the film. .
so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:[b]Ready Player One
i don't know how they're going to make a movie out of this, the rights fees alone would bankrupt a small nation. they'll probably trim it way back, but i'll be interested in seeing just how many of the book references, particularly the ones that are really integral to the story, make it into the film. .
Wouldn't they have had the same issue with the rights for the book?
TheBaxter wrote:i finished reading Oliver Twist.
i read the Dickens out of it.
so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:i finished reading Oliver Twist.
i read the Dickens out of it.
But do you want some more?
TheBaxter wrote:PRINCE LESTAT
aka ANNE RICE GOTTA EAT
aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL STEPHEN KING AND STARTS WRITING ABOUT IPHONES AND SHIT
aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL GEORGE RR MARTIN ON STEROIDS AND PUTS ABOUT A THOUSAND NEW CHARACTERS IN HER BOOKS AND GIVES EACH ONE THEIR OWN CHAPTER
aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL GEORGE LUCAS AND STARTS OVEREXPLAINING VAMPIRES MIDICHLORIAN-STYLE
aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL TOLKIEN AND WRITES A BUNCH OF APPENDICES AND SHIT TO MAKE HER FICTIONAL WORLD SEEM EVEN BIGGER AND MORE COMPLEX
aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL (insert modern-day YA author name here) AND INVENTS HER OWN BRAND OF VAMPIRE 'LINGO' AND OVERUSES IT THROUGH THE ENTIRE BOOK
i was excited when i found out anne rice was writing more Vampire Chronicles books. i went back and re-read the first 5 VC books (the only ones i'd already read, and that i heard this book was a direct sequel to those 5 books specifically). what i learned re-reading those books is that there's just as much moping and self-loathing as i remembered, but not quite as much story as i thought. Interview had the most stuff happening of all those books. i stopped reading after Memnoch cause it seemed like Rice was just going back to old characters and repeating herself. apparently stuff actually does happen in those later books, since the new book refers to characters and events that happened in them, which was a bit confusing. anyways, despite their flaws, i do like those early VC books. sure the mopey vampire is a cliche, but Rice invented the cliche so she gets a pass.
Prince Lestat is really a disappointment. as mentioned, the vampires suddenly figured out how to use technology, and Rice overdoes the tech references. at the same time, unlike King, she doesn't really seem to understand her own references as well so they are more vague and repetitive. she also, as i mentioned, felt the need to create a massive new cast of characters (so massive, there's a 3-page long bio section at the end explaining who each person is) and in true GoT style, titles each chapter after one of these characters (but unlike GRRM, instead of only using 6 or 7 characters with repeated chapters, she gives most of these characters a single chapter and moves on). the most disappointing thing, i think, is the quality of the writing. Rice has always been a flowery writer, too flowery at times probably. but still it always had an elegance to it. not here though. the writing is pedestrian and shaky. Rice seems a bit rusty. it probably doesn't help that she decided to invent a series of terms (summarized in a glossary at the book's beginning) to refer to various aspects of vampire life that i believe (though i can't say for sure, not having read some of the later VC books) are completely new, or that maybe were used once or twice before but here become codified into an entirely new vocabulary. and then she rams those terms down your throat on nearly every page of this book. suddenly a vampire's ability to fly is called the Cloud Gift, and the ability to set someone on fire is the Fire Gift, and the root of vampire power that resides in the oldest vampire is now the Sacred Core (everything is dutifully capitalized in this way). all these things existed in prior books (at least the 5 i read) but not in Capitalized Letter, used-by-every-character form. the idea that the vampires all suddenly decided to use the same lame terms for their powers and such is distracting, and the need to shoehorn those terms into nearly every page of the book results in prose that is clunky and obnoxious.
the story itself is ok. a bit of a retread of Queen of the Damned, and most of the plot points (the identity of the mysterious Voice, the ultimate way in which this character's threat is dealt with) are predictable, but towards the end there are some interesting things going on. it's just it takes too long to get there, with too many new, pointless characters introduced along the way (some of which i'm sure will become more useful in the future books Rice says she has planned), and distracted by too much stupid crap like a vampire doctor who's researching vampire biology. at least by the end of the book, the vampires are not mopey any more though. well, not AS mopey i guess.
Rice says she had so many new ideas she had a hard time deciding what to put in or leave out. it shows. so there's more VC books on the way. i don't know if i'll read them. i can't exactly say i'm thirsting () for more.
TheBaxter wrote:hopefully that last book was her shaking off the cobwebs, and she'll learn from the mistakes in that book, cut back on the vampire lingo and tech talk, and focus on fewer characters.
TheBaxter wrote:thanks for reposting that review of mine. i have the new Anne Rice book waiting for me to pick up at the library, and now i'm a lot less excited to read it. not that i was particularly excited to read it to begin with. i remembered that Prince Lestat was bad and i didn't like it (that's about all i remembered about it), but re-reading my review reminds me of HOW bad it was and WHY i didn't like it. i'll still read the new one, though, cause i'm a sucker. hopefully that last book was her shaking off the cobwebs, and she'll learn from the mistakes in that book, cut back on the vampire lingo and tech talk, and focus on fewer characters.
Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
TheBaxter wrote:Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
bite me.
Peven wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
bite me.
yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever because he responds with "bite me" when he can't think of anything clever to say.....ha.......ha..................ha
TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
bite me.
yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever because he responds with "bite me" when he can't think of anything clever to say.....ha.......ha..................ha
fine. don't expect me to ever go to bat for you.
get it? because vampires turn into bats? amirite?
TheBaxter wrote:Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
bite me.
TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Wolfpack wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Peven wrote:yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever for using the british slang "bloody" literally.....ha........ha.........................ha
you're sharp.
you know, because, fangs? they're sharp too? get it? huh?
Your pun is a little long in the tooth.
bite me.
yeah, you're THAT American guy who thinks he's SO clever because he responds with "bite me" when he can't think of anything clever to say.....ha.......ha..................ha
fine. don't expect me to ever go to bat for you.
get it? because vampires turn into bats? amirite?
so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:thanks for reposting that review of mine. i have the new Anne Rice book waiting for me to pick up at the library, and now i'm a lot less excited to read it. not that i was particularly excited to read it to begin with. i remembered that Prince Lestat was bad and i didn't like it (that's about all i remembered about it), but re-reading my review reminds me of HOW bad it was and WHY i didn't like it. i'll still read the new one, though, cause i'm a sucker. hopefully that last book was her shaking off the cobwebs, and she'll learn from the mistakes in that book, cut back on the vampire lingo and tech talk, and focus on fewer characters.
I read the spoiler-filled review of her new book, and I await your review with bated breath...
so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:thanks for reposting that review of mine. i have the new Anne Rice book waiting for me to pick up at the library, and now i'm a lot less excited to read it. not that i was particularly excited to read it to begin with. i remembered that Prince Lestat was bad and i didn't like it (that's about all i remembered about it), but re-reading my review reminds me of HOW bad it was and WHY i didn't like it. i'll still read the new one, though, cause i'm a sucker. hopefully that last book was her shaking off the cobwebs, and she'll learn from the mistakes in that book, cut back on the vampire lingo and tech talk, and focus on fewer characters.
I read the spoiler-filled review of her new book, and I await your review with bated breath...
TheBaxter wrote:so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:thanks for reposting that review of mine. i have the new Anne Rice book waiting for me to pick up at the library, and now i'm a lot less excited to read it. not that i was particularly excited to read it to begin with. i remembered that Prince Lestat was bad and i didn't like it (that's about all i remembered about it), but re-reading my review reminds me of HOW bad it was and WHY i didn't like it. i'll still read the new one, though, cause i'm a sucker. hopefully that last book was her shaking off the cobwebs, and she'll learn from the mistakes in that book, cut back on the vampire lingo and tech talk, and focus on fewer characters.
I read the spoiler-filled review of her new book, and I await your review with bated breath...
ok, here we go...
so like i already mentioned, this book improves on a lot of the things i found so annoying about the previous book. the overuse of "vampire slang," the overcrowded cast of new and minor characters, the technobabble, and the just plain bad writing, are all for the most part substantially reduced here. the book is more focused, better-written, and less full of itself.
the story the book tells, probably, is not as good as the previous book, though it's certainly.... original.
i guess you'd call the vampire chronicles books "gothic horror"... this book is pretty much straight-up sci-fi. vampire sci-fi. maybe that film Lifeforce comes to mind (a film based on a book called The Space Vampires which might be a spiritual descendent of this book... that might be spoilery, but not quite, the vampires here aren't actually space vampires... well, not precisely...)
i mean, i like sci-fi. and i like vampires. i'm not really sure i like to see them mixed together. and probably not to see the sci-fi stuff suddenly injected in a 40-year-old vampire series that hasn't previously dealt with sci-fi subjects. feels a bit forced. i could see where this was going, and i knew i probably wasn't going to like it, but i made the decision to just go along with it and hope for the best and not try to prejudge it until the book was finished. so now that i've finished the book, i think i can say that i really don't particularly care for taking these books in this direction.
if there's one particular criticism i had of the last book, that was even worse here, it would be this one: aka ANNE RICE GOES ALL GEORGE LUCAS AND STARTS OVEREXPLAINING VAMPIRES MIDICHLORIAN-STYLE
Prince Lestat got into that scientific over-explaining of vampirism that i didn't care for (the Strain book series had some of the same problems, but not nearly to this extent) but it was nothing compared to what goes on in PLatRoA. i mean, we LITERALLY get vampire midichlorians here (except Rice calls it luracastria). this is not a good thing. it might seem odd that someone like me who is so pro-science and anti-religion is so turned off by a book series that goes from a religion-based view of vampires to a purely scientific explanation, but you know what? the Bible is damn good fiction. i get enough science in the real world, when i read a book, i want to escape into worlds where not everything is explained, where there are mysteries and where magical stuff can happen that doesn't have a scientific reason behind it. though i do have to admit a certain satisfaction at seeing Anne Rice (a woman who started off as a small-c catholic, then became a big-C CATHOLIC who even wrote an entire series of books about Jesus, before she rebounded all the way back to pure atheism) casually throw in some major digs at christianity here and there, in particular her suggestion that Jesus was nothing more than an alien-built synthetic lifeform sent to earth specifically to start a religion based on making humans worship suffering so that they could then feed off of that suffering. i can only imagine how much crazier this book would have been if Rice had ever been a Scientologist.
so final verdict... i enjoyed the book more than the last one. it's better written and i enjoyed it more while reading it, but i think the direction this series has gone in might be going down a path i can't or don't want to follow.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests