The highly unfortunate circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico have resulted in lots of scientists being interviewed in the news.
side note - the above statement is quite an understatement and as someone who was not only born in south Louisiana but who also loves the beautiful environment and lovely people my heart goes out to everyone affected by the spill. Sometimes the price of modern technology and convenience is very high indeed.
And I just love listening to scientists being interviewed. You see, scientists are people very focused on the accurate representation of facts using appropriate words to convey a meaning. How this often plays out in the news is that you have an interviewer asking what is usually a loaded or slightly inflammatory question, then the scientist has to re-word the question before she's even willing to answer it. It totally cracks me up. A scientist just can't deal with questions that already imply an answer or misspeak the current situation. Good interviewers realize this right away and adjust but the bad ones just go on looking bad.
It's sort of sad that this happens at all as I would think journalists would also be "very focused on the accurate representation of facts using appropriate words to convey a meaning" but that just doesn't seem to be the case nowadays. *sigh*
Friday, May 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
More Fun With Duets
The other day I saw the trailer for a movie that is adapted from an author that makes the bile rise in my throat just thinking of the inevitable trite. Ugh! I was quickly filing it into the back of my brain for immediate disposal but then I heard one of my absolute favorite duets EVER playing! Ack! This wonderful song is so under the radar and that's how it's getting some play time? *sigh*
Anyway, as consolation here's another duet I like:
Anyway, as consolation here's another duet I like:
Monday, May 24, 2010
Stalking the Angel by Robert Crais
Title: Stalking the Angel
Author: Robert Crais
Publisher: Bantam (1989)
Well, it's official. I've hit the end of Crais's Cole/Pike backlist. On the one hand, it's always depressing when you get caught up on a new author and then have to wait around for the next installment (though it does help you feel closer to the author's long-time fans:), but then sometimes you get lucky and the last one you read ends up being one of your favorites so you feel like you went out on a high note. And that's the case for me with Stalking the Angel. I really liked it - despite the fact that I suspect Starkey was its previous owner. There's a distinctive odor wafting from the binding... Anyway...
Elvis Cole, World's Greatest Detective (payment optional), is hired by a real jizzwad named Bradley Warren. Warren was in possession of a rare Japanese book that was stolen from his property. He'd like Cole to find it. Well, actually, he'd probably like to tell Cole to go to hell but his assistant, Jillian Becker, convinces him to hire Cole. Cole begins his search by looking for the type of people that might be potential buyers for this type of loot. The situation becomes complicated when the Warrens, who it turns out are a pack of loonies, receive some threatening phone calls. Joe Pike, I'd as Soon Kill Ya as Look at Ya, is called in to assist on the protection front. Cue action!
My main beef with the book is a flaw I feel most of the early books in the series exhibit: Cole is tough and not to be bullied and the reader Shall Know and Understand This RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Cole is a great character and he's easy to figure out. The action makes the above description nearly impossible to miss so why must I be absolutely bombarded with this info in the first few pages? I'd prefer for these traits to make themselves known over the course of the investigation rather than be beaten over the head with them. My other tidbit of annoyance is the uncreative parents. Daddy Warren is an ambitious asshole who ignores his family, Mommy Warren feels neglected and useless and so acts like a non-neutered puppy anytime new man meat comes into her life. They work within the story but aren't exactly original in their construct.
What I really love about this book is the misperceptions and wrong impressions. I'm not suspicious by nature and I'm downright gullible in fiction. I'm happy to buy right into whatever the protagonist is thinking or doing (provided it's not stupid, I might be happily naive in fiction but I'm usually annoyed by idiocy) and I'll view the the story and characters through that lens. Due to this, if the protag(s) misunderstands something I usually do as well. In Stalking the Angel Cole's understanding of the players involved changes constantly. The best part is that there isn't complete resolution either. When the book is over the truth about everyone's motives isn't laid out. It's left to the reader to decide what was really going on. I like that a lot. My favorite books are the ones I want to re-read immediately so as to determine just what the characters might have been thinking through the book and how that led to the conclusion. Basically, I like an author that gives me some work to do. A story is more fun if my interpretation is required.
I thought the book was pretty dark in tone. You get your Cole jokes and whatnot but, for the most part, a lot of dark themes are explored and that's probably why the resolution is so ambiguous. Unlike the later books in the series the reflection on said themes is external. As in, Cole's not thinking about his own dark tendencies but observing the psychoses of those around him. Cole is deeply empathetic so he's a good character to use for exploring general human actions and motives.
As an aside to the main action Becker's character brings up a really interesting issue. As a boss, Mr. Warren appears to be pretty admirable. Arrogant and demanding, yes, but ostensibly fair. Becker has a high regard for his even-handedness in business matters. The events of the book bring her into the more personal side of Mr. Warren's life and she struggles to reconcile the two personas. This I like. It's an issue I think many people can relate to. I've often met someone in a certain capacity and because of that experience developed an impression and respect for them. Then, for whatever reason, there's a shift and I begin to know this same person in a different capacity and I'm horrified at who they now seem to be. Very interesting stuff and I thought it appropriate that the theme came up in a book rife with confusing first impressions.
So now here I am saying bye, bye to a thoroughly enjoyable backlist and already waiting anxiously for the next installment. If you haven't read this Cole novel yet I think it's a great one to put on the TBR pile! I'm just off to put my copy back by the open window and hope the ciggy smell eventually departs...
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Monday, May 17, 2010
Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield
Gates of Fire recounts the famous Battle of Thermopylae. Thermopylae was the only access point to Greece for the invading Persian army in 480BC. Its geographic location was key: it was a bottleneck for the invading army with a sheer mountain on one side and a cliff on the other. The vastly outnumbered Greek army was led by 300 Spartans and it was their skillful fighting that held the Persians at bay while the Greek army fell back, regrouped and eventually defended their homeland.
The book is told from the perspective of the one Greek survivor of the Battle, a Spartan helot. He is captured after the battle and saved by Xerxes I, leader of the Persian Empire. The survivor recounts the details of Spartan life, battle techniques, and what happened leading up to and during the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans, as you may recall, invented the term ‘hard core.’ You definitely see it in this book. One aspect I found fascinating was the description of wounds and the treatment thereof. At one point someone’s scalp is sliding off! No worries though, he was definitely hard core so he slid it back into place and got on with business.
Another memorable part of the book for me was learning about the helots and how they were used in battle. Sometimes the importance of supply lines and well-kept equipment completely escapes my brain when I'm reading this type of thing and the helots really brought that home for me. And on another note, it reminded me of those poor bastards in the third Matrix movie that had to wheel a buggy of ammo out to the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines (machines to fight machines, ah, irony! btw, do those things have an official name?). However, unlike in the The Matrix Revolutions there actually was a point to having a supply guy on the front lines.*
Gates of Fire is very well-crafted and the story well-told. I was engaged throughout and I also felt like the author did his best to represent a true account of the battle. Yes, it's written in the style of a novel but the author gained my trust in his representation. In fact, it's been a few years since I first read the book but my first thought way back when was, I need to read some more Pressfield immediately. I have no idea why but I still haven't read any of his other books. Any Pressfield fans want to suggest another title for me?
And while we're here, 300 is the name of a graphic novel by Frank Miller (not to be confused with Frank Miller) depicting these events. A movie was also made from the graphic novel. I haven’t read the graphic novel or seen the movie. Should I?
rating: 4 of 5 stars
*Every time I see those ammo toting guys in The Matrix Revolutions I get so irritable. Besides the fact that those stupid buggies would never get anywhere due to spent shells and all the unexplained paraphernalia lying about (they are be-wheeled after all and you would have to lift them over all that shit), this is clearly a time of technical innovation. No one could come up with the very simple idea of conveyor belts underneath the platform where the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines are located? That platform was thick, plenty of room for automated ammo delivery. Did we love that skinny kid so much that he needed a crazy macho moment of getting in the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines after having dying words with the captain? Maybe, but it still could have been better. That plot hole just drives me nuts. When I am freed from the matrix (though in truth why the crap would I want to be? it’s awesome in here and I get to watch movies like The Matrix) and defending Zion from squid machines that function without water, I will use super cool AUTOMATED-gun-shooting-machines
The book is told from the perspective of the one Greek survivor of the Battle, a Spartan helot. He is captured after the battle and saved by Xerxes I, leader of the Persian Empire. The survivor recounts the details of Spartan life, battle techniques, and what happened leading up to and during the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans, as you may recall, invented the term ‘hard core.’ You definitely see it in this book. One aspect I found fascinating was the description of wounds and the treatment thereof. At one point someone’s scalp is sliding off! No worries though, he was definitely hard core so he slid it back into place and got on with business.
Another memorable part of the book for me was learning about the helots and how they were used in battle. Sometimes the importance of supply lines and well-kept equipment completely escapes my brain when I'm reading this type of thing and the helots really brought that home for me. And on another note, it reminded me of those poor bastards in the third Matrix movie that had to wheel a buggy of ammo out to the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines (machines to fight machines, ah, irony! btw, do those things have an official name?). However, unlike in the The Matrix Revolutions there actually was a point to having a supply guy on the front lines.*
Gates of Fire is very well-crafted and the story well-told. I was engaged throughout and I also felt like the author did his best to represent a true account of the battle. Yes, it's written in the style of a novel but the author gained my trust in his representation. In fact, it's been a few years since I first read the book but my first thought way back when was, I need to read some more Pressfield immediately. I have no idea why but I still haven't read any of his other books. Any Pressfield fans want to suggest another title for me?
And while we're here, 300 is the name of a graphic novel by Frank Miller (not to be confused with Frank Miller) depicting these events. A movie was also made from the graphic novel. I haven’t read the graphic novel or seen the movie. Should I?
rating: 4 of 5 stars
*Every time I see those ammo toting guys in The Matrix Revolutions I get so irritable. Besides the fact that those stupid buggies would never get anywhere due to spent shells and all the unexplained paraphernalia lying about (they are be-wheeled after all and you would have to lift them over all that shit), this is clearly a time of technical innovation. No one could come up with the very simple idea of conveyor belts underneath the platform where the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines are located? That platform was thick, plenty of room for automated ammo delivery. Did we love that skinny kid so much that he needed a crazy macho moment of getting in the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines after having dying words with the captain? Maybe, but it still could have been better. That plot hole just drives me nuts. When I am freed from the matrix (though in truth why the crap would I want to be? it’s awesome in here and I get to watch movies like The Matrix) and defending Zion from squid machines that function without water, I will use super cool AUTOMATED-gun-shooting-machines
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick
Title: The Minority Report and Other Classic Stories
Author: Philip K. Dick
Publisher: Kensington Publishing Corp. (1987)
Note: This short story was originally published in Fantastic Universe, Jan 1956
I think it's been about ten years since I first read The Minority Report and I was happy to re-visit it this week. Why the re-visit you ask? Well, I was hanging out over at Lazy Thoughts From a Boomer and saw that the fantabulously generous Michael, sometimes known as leOpard13, was going to watch the movie. I
Click here for Minority Report Film/Disc Review at Lazy Thoughts From a Boomer.
Feel free to comment there or here or both regarding movie and short story thoughts.
Please note that both posts contain spoilers.
John Anderton is the Commissioner of Police and the creator of Precrime, a 30 year old division of the police force that can predict crimes using precogs and detain the predicted perpetrators before they commit crimes. Anderton is showing the facility to his new assistant and eventual successor, Witwer - to whom he has taken an immediate dislike - when the mutant precogs predict that Anderton will kill a man he doesn't know in less than a week. It's a system he's created and used for 30 years to put predicted criminals away but he's convinced there's a mistake; he suspects a conspiracy within the police force. Witwer and Anderton's wife, a high ranking Precrime executive and police officer, are his immediate suspects. He's got about 24hrs before the Army will notice the prediction (they get all the precog data in a checks and balances type of deal) and he plans to run, as far as an off-world colony if that's what it takes.
So, where to begin? How 'bout with the precogs? They are referred to as "mutant precogs," or babbling idiots, but it's not clear whether the mutation is the result of experimentation or nature. Regardless, the mutants are cultivated for their predictive abilities. They are extremely deformed (large heads, under-developed bodies) and not at all aware of the present. They work in a team of three, each one constantly "gibbering" predictions which are fed into machines that then analyze and integrate the predictions. The predictions, referring to about 1-2 weeks into the future, are then printed on cards and analyzed by Precrime.
Anderton's a hard nut to crack. It's pretty obvious why he would be immediately suspicious of Witwer, Witwer is ambitious and wants Anderton's job, but, holy fuck! This guy turned on his wife so fast I had to read the section over again to make sure I didn't misunderstand. As near as I can tell this is because Witwer admires the wife (in classic scifi style she's attractive and Anderton is obviously much less attractive than his movie counterpart even if you don't think Tom Cruise is all that attractive) and the wife congenially speaks with Witwer and invites her husband's new assistant to have dinner with them. My gosh, woman! The nerve! You are clearly a traitor! What actually is interesting about Anderton and his wife is that they have a serious philosophical disagreement and yet they still remain together at the end. After the way they treated each other at the crisis moment I would never have guessed they would remain together but their disagreement is so divisive that I would think it alone would prevent their staying together. However, their disagreement is what I find most intriguing about the story.
When Anderton still believes there is a conspiracy he wants to check the individual reports of the precogs. Almost every predicted crime has a minority report. Two of the three reports need to match in order to create a card with crime details. The minority report usually differs in time or location so this is ignored in lieu of the synched reports. If Anderton can get to the individual reports he can prove a conspiratorial plant. In checking these it becomes clear that he is not going to commit the crime. He wants to publicize this information as it must mean that innocent people have been detained and thus the system is flawed. His wife believes a few mistakes are worth the greater good of Precrime. Let's just say that the insults and violence traded here are enough to strain the best of relationships but they clearly didn't have that good of a relationship and they disagree on a vital philosophy - how can these two remain together? I'd love to hear some theories on this but for now that's not what I want to focus on. Instead...
Are a few mistakes worth the value of Precrime?
Let's keep in mind that, in this case, "mistake" means the life detainment of innocents. Also, there's not only the lives of innocents to consider in this set-up but the precogs themselves. They are human, after all, but their deformities have rendered them so inhuman to those in the story that they are completely disregarded as having any rights as humans. Let's also keep in mind that there hasn't been a murder in 5 years (and that was due to human error) because of Precrime. Not to mention all the other types of crimes that have been prevented. For me, this is the most interesting thing about the story: is it acceptable to sacrifice a few for the many? If you're thinking that the story might give some sort of answer then I should warn you that it does not. The truth about the reports neatly sidesteps the issue.
Craft-wise the story isn't exactly superior. I've always been more attracted to PKD's ideas than his style. The dialogue is challenging to wade through and there are moments I'm actually offended by some of the stuff he writes. Also, he isn't exactly one of those scifi writers that tries to adhere to believability in his science. I won't even attempt to analyze it because I don't think he ever did. Sometimes logic goes completely out the window, as well. There's a section in The Minority Report that makes a really interesting point as to why precogs can work at all but that really interesting point completely negates the resolution of the story. I wonder if Anderton ever noticed the contradiction in his own system?
So how well did this translate to a movie? Excellently, if I do say so myself (and I do!). Other than using a few of the same names I would say the only way in which the movie is similar is that it also presents the question: Are a few mistakes worth the value of Precrime? And unlike the short, the movie definitely has an answer for this. The religious tones cleverly identified by Michael are a product of the movie makers and have no equivalent in the short story. The short story is really more about one man trying to survive one of the biggest challenges he's ever experienced at his job.
What both do equally well is world building. I believe that each of the worlds exists and that I might live there (well, except for the computer punch cards in the short story:). That is one of my absolute requirements in scifi. I have to believe the human element can exist within the world before I can get on board with the rest of it.
Let me leave you with my favorite quotes:
Short story -
The existence of a majority logically implies a corresponding minority.
Movie -
Everybody runs.
Actually, I think you'll have to run but that's the idea.
Your thoughts?
And be sure to check out the film review - here's the relevant link again.
(Michael, many thanks for suggesting this. Children of Men next? I hope, I hope:)
Click here for an index of the joint post series
Monday, May 10, 2010
Great Interview with N.K. Jemisin!
I recently read and loved (and said a few words about) The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin. If you haven't had a chance to read the book yet you might be interested in this awesome interview with Ms. Jemisin. I thought the questions were particularly good leading to some very thoughtful answers. I especially liked the details regarding literature/genre expectations and how they can change reader response. The interview is chock full of good stuff but I was particularly struck by this passage:
For example, typical epic fantasy features almost exclusively male protagonists, and female characters who are objectified and lack agency (among many other problems). In these fantasies it’s common for the kind of sex that’s part of normal, everyday life—healthy, consensual sex between grownups who know what they want and ask for it, in other words—to take place offscreen or by implication only ("fade to black"). Readers just don’t get to see that much, probably because of that girl cooties phenomenon I mentioned earlier. But sex that’s used as a cheap way to define or create conflict for the male protagonists—e.g., rapes that show just how eeeeeevil a villain is, or motivate the hero to act; women who tempt the hero with their “wiles” as a distraction—gets shown much more often. The result of this pattern is that a lot of epic fantasy readers have gotten used to seeing sex only under totally pathological circumstances. =) So when they see *normal* sex, it seems gratuitous. Often they’ll declare that it “has no purpose”—i.e., it doesn’t fit the pattern of male-fantasy melodrama that they’re used to. At that point it doesn’t matter how well the scene is written, or whether it fits the character, or whatever; they’ll dismiss it as crap regardless.
Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase
Title: Lord of Scoundrels
Author: Loretta Chase
Publisher: Avon (1995)
Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase is set in early 19th Century England (with sojourns to Paris) and follows the indefatigable Jessica Trent as she tries to figure out the incorrigible Lord Dain. Jessica Trent, a genteel, unmarried young lady, goes to Paris to fetch her dim-witted brother before he entirely squanders the small family fortune. While in Paris she encounters Lord Dain, notorious (and rich!) shunner of society and first-class debaucher. Through a series of delightful and sexually charged events, she and Dain marry before they even know if they like each other. We can rest easy in this as it's a romance so we already know their fate but, also, while Chase doesn’t knock the reader over the head, it’s still pretty clear that these two can only be meant for each other because probably no one else could stand to live with them for long. They have very strong personalities.
This book is a lot of fun to read. The dialogue is great and the unexpected responses will make you laugh out loud. Even halfway through the book when I thought I had Jessica figured out she would pop out with something that left me surprised and laughing. Dain is wonderfully delicious but I’m not overly fond of the Bad Boy Because of Bad Past hero so that aspect of his character did nothing for me. I can’t fault Chase for that, though, it’s merely disinclination on my part but she wrote it well so it was easy to get over. What I would have liked more of was Dain’s oft-described but little seen Character of Bad Repute. It may be that the reader of romance knows that the hero is never truly evil so I couldn't accept his bad character or it may have been that Jessica was so flippant about it that that was what impressed me most or perhaps my modern sensibilities aren't fine-tuned enough to historical social scandals... In any case, I like to see a bit more of the bad in the Bad Boy rather than just be told about him. Then again, maybe this is something I'll never see in romance. If the hero was truly, deep-down-inside bad then he probably wouldn't be the hero, would he?
Characterization was almost universally well-done. My point of contention was with lack of motive outside of the main characters. I felt that only two of the supporting characters were actually assigned motive. However, others of the supporting cast were a bit empty for me, entertaining but empty. I actually became really aggravated with the dim-witted brother character. That poor sop took so much crap. I realize he was a dim-wit but after a while I was like, let up, Chase, and give this guy a chance or quit putting him in scenes. It was becoming painful to watch him in action. Luckily he does completely drop out of the story right around the time you really don’t want to see any more of him.
My teensy complaints aside, I give this book a hearty recommendation. It's funny with snappy dialogue and a thoughtful plot. Jessica and Dain are loads of fun to watch interact! The pacing is excellent making it a definite page-turner. I actually think this is Chase's best book but maybe someone out there thinks she's got one that's even better. If so, please, do share!
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
What sgwordy has learned from Robert Crais
(in the matter of Cole/Pike)
Conflict resolution is more fun in a shoot out (justice will probably be meted out therein)
Pinocchio clocks will attract attention but are not necessarily conversation pieces
Cops are violent, territorial, and often employ juvenile humor
Cops are smart, loyal, dedicated, and don't make much money
Crimes are rarely controlled by the plebes. They will commit them but almost always for someone in power. All the better if that someone in power is tied to a gov't agency or institution that us regular folk would like to have trust in.
Mr. Pike sure does love that jeep.
We should all be so lucky to have a friendship in our lives like that of Cole and Pike
Mr. Cole is a cutey patutey smarty pants but he can still get caught out in a cul-de-sac by amateurish tactics
That Cole.
Even though Pike participates in Conspicuous Dress (the likes of which could compete with Assassin's Creed) he can still melt into the scenery at will and never be seen (spooky)
Cole keeps a clean house and cooks some scrumptious meals (Seriously. I'd room with him in second!)
The human body can tolerate an amazing amount of gunshot wounds (though it's best for these to be spread out over time rather than experienced all at once)
The Elvis Cole Detective Agency (we can do anything (probably for free)) is as likely to receive payment as not
Cole sees B&E as a way of life but is seriously creeped out if someone B&Es his house
Pike's eyes make women shift in their seats. I have much curiosity about these eyes.
Crais fans, what have I missed? What would you add?
Regarding Starkey: I think she'd actually be a good partner for Cole because he needs someone that understands a high stress, high violence life. As a cop, she can handle that. She certainly likes him and I think he likes her, too (poss need more Lucy resolution? I might have missed a book where that gets resolved). BUT the constant descriptions of her smoking make it very hard for me to imagine her around anyone too long. My aversion to ciggy smoke is high (like higher than Pike's high) so it might be that, but I swear Crais has depicted her as a chimney with the constant stench of cigs around her. Just reading some of her scenes makes the back of my mouth taste funny. Clearly I can't handle this -- can Cole?
Favorite lines:
Can you spell 'worry?'
We're squaring off against five LAPD officers, and all we're getting paid is forty bucks?
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin
Title: The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms
Author: N.K. Jemisin
Publisher: Orbit (2010)
Note: I just read this book over the weekend and have already loaned it out because I loved it so much I couldn't keep it to myself. As such, this is all from memory so if my spellings, etc are not correct please forgive me.
In The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms Yeine, leader of the Darre in the North, has been called to the city of Sky where the ruling family (of the hundred thousand kingdoms) lives. Her grandfather is king but her mother was disowned for marrying Yeine's father. For reasons that escape Yeine, the king has called her back and named her as a third heir. Now she must learn the ins and outs of palace politics if she wants to survive long enough to assume the throne over her cousins. To complicate her already difficult situation, the gods that are enslaved by the ruling family have their own political agenda for Yeine.
Holy shitballs there was so much about this book that I loved! So let me start with all that I loved and then tell you about the few quibbles I had. Firstly, I have always loved themes that involve mixed family backgrounds and seeing your family through other people's eyes. Yeine's mother was the sole, beloved heir of the Arameri family in Sky. Her father was a leader of the Darre, considered a barbaric people for several interesting reasons that I won't spoil here. The story is that they met and fell instantly in love. Yeine's mother left Sky and joined Yeine's father in Darre. Now that Yeine has been called back to the palace she must try to reconcile her Arameri background (which she is none too impressed with) with the Darre she considers herself. On top of this, she has a very specific idea of who her mother was and now she must deal with hearing things about her mother that do not track with her memories. This entire set-up works so well because the novel often explores identity, truth, self-determination, and courage. Trying to reconcile disparate family backgrounds and others' views of her mom in the midst of palace intrigue make for a nice backdrop to exploring what I listed above.
I also loved the writing style. It's in first person (it's starting to feel like that's all I've been reading lately) but it's very clearly being told as a story and there are times when our narrator is having conversations with an unknown person (poss persons?). This perspective and these conversations lend a nice mystery to what is going on. The narrator knows everything that's coming (remember, it's a story) but the style used by Jemisin keeps the suspense palpable (oooh, fancy word!) for almost the entire book. The style really worked for me but, what's more, Jemisin is a fantastic writer. Even if the style doesn't speak to everyone like it did me her talent as a writer will be enjoyable anyway. Also, her characterization is lovely. With only one exception her characters are interesting and subtle. Jemisin doesn't insist that we know everything about her characters the minute we meet them but lets us get to know them over the course of the book.
The overall story is solid but nothing that's going to blow you away. The ending is pretty predictable because, in the end, it's a very familiar narrative. But Jemisin's talent lies in her excellent use of characters within that narrative and her ability to keep a reader entirely engaged in how things are going to unfold. It's interesting to me that I come away feeling that she plots really well even if I predicted the end. Does that make sense? Journey's the thing, ya know? Also, the gods were fucking awesome! Again, Jemisin used some very classical themes with her gods (they are emotional, fond of or disgusted by humans, seductive) but their being controlled by the Arameri family makes for some sweet conflict. I don't want to spoil anything so that's all I'll say. Trust me, it's good stuff!
Ok, I could go on and on about everything I loved but I'd have to start giving things away in the story and I don't want to do that. So a couple things I didn't like: the baddest of the baddies was the least interesting character. While definitely a badass, she was boring. She was just evil. There was nothing more to her. It's mentioned a couple times that she's crazy. She certainly seemed crazy but that's kind of boring. I like my main baddies to do something more than just be evil for the plot's sake. Also, as with many stories of this length, there's a bit of drag about 3/4 of the way through. Well before this point the ending is pretty obvious (again, let me say that didn't bother me because getting there was totally rad) so if the book had been about ~50 pages shorter it would have been even tighter with that suspense being pretty much non-stop.
This book is the first of a trilogy and I think the second comes out this Fall. I can't wait! I'll be going out and getting it on release day. I love discovering a new author but it's always hard when it's a debut author, I just don't want to wait for the next book!
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Friday, April 30, 2010
Fearless Jones by Walter Mosley
Title: Fearless Jones
Author: Walter Mosley
Publisher: Little, Brown and Company (2001)
I have to say right off that this book made me cry so my objectivity might be emotionally compromised. You might not think of a 'whodunit' book as a tear jerker but I'll explain. (This actually might be more of a 'whatthehelzgoingon' than a 'whodunit.' It's a fine line, anyway.) Right, some details. As Fearless Jones opens, Paris Minton is minding his own business - literally, he's reading in the bookshop he owns - when an attractive woman he doesn't know comes in asking about a neighborhood reverend. Shortly after she arrives a man enters the bookstore looking for her. He doesn't appreciate Paris' unhelpful answers and beats him pretty badly. This ignites a shitstorm of unpleasantness for Paris and he decides he needs the help of his friend Fearless Jones to figure out what's going on. As these two black men in 1950s Los Angeles try to figure out what's going on, and avoid further suspicion from the cops, the reader is taken along on a nicely paced ride.
I really liked the writing style and especially the dialogue. There's a real natural quality to it that makes it feel a lot like you're experiencing an actual conversation. Obviously dialogue is never a pure portrayal of live conversation (and let's, like, thank our, yeah, you know, lucky stars for, um, that) but it can often have a representative feel to it. Not so in this case and it's a definite strong point.
Characterization is well done, too. Both the mains and the supporting get more than just casual depictions giving the story a lot of depth. I'm only gonna focus on Paris and Fearless though because I really liked their dynamic. They also made me laugh a lot, too. Chuckles aside, Paris is a bit of an anti-hero. He feels inadequate most of the time and not up to the hero antics of his friend Fearless. On the other hand, you learn that Fearless is the kind of guy that trouble finds and Paris is often there to get him out of a jam. Paris indulges a bit in an inferiority complex and is relentless in his hero worship of Fearless. At first I thought the theme a bit overdone but as the story unfolds the characters weigh in on the idea and, though it's not explicit, I think Paris might change his mind from when we first meet him in the story. The theme is not a new one but I enjoyed going through it with Paris. Here's a little example of Paris' point of view (quote condensed from p. 110 of hardback):
"Somebody going to investigate the death?" I asked.
"Everybody around here got a real job, Mr. Minton. Real jobs and apartments and mouths to feed. [Victim] was just a year outta prison, an ex-con with a bullet in his chest, found after an anonymous call."
Fearless didn't have a job or an apartment or kids to feed. She wasn't talking about him though.
And that's the thing, no one ever is. Paris takes almost everything that can be construed as a criticism on himself. He doesn't resent Fearless and he's pretty funny so these usually had me laughing. The main difference between the friends is that Paris looks at every situation and thinks about survival and Fearless looks at every situation and thinks about the outcome he prefers. He's pretty badass. Well, hella badass and my favorite example of his very obvious badassness was this:
Fearless stood up.
"You don't wanna know what I can do." The 'motherfucker' wasn't said, but everyone in that room heard it.
The two friends have several funny exchanges and Fearless is one of those characters that uses the obvious answer to great effect:
"So he didn't say nuthin'?" I asked.
"How he gonna say somethin' if he's dead, Paris?"
Mosley is one of those talented writers that can describe emotion really well. I kept thinking of Stephen King, actually, who I do not really read as I'm not a big fan (I hear a few other people like him though;), because I've always been really impressed with how accessible King makes emotion. Mosley's got that, too, and he uses it both ways. He conveys extreme emotions just as well as the more superficial emotions that are with us as we make our way through our days (you know, those of us that lead mundane lives reading books).
So here we are at the end of what I have to say and I still haven't brought up that crying bit. It's a bit spoilerish of Paris' back story so I'm going to include it below. However, this reminds me of one last thing that I'll say. Paris' character development and back story are really well done. First person narratives don't always lend themselves easily to this but the type of character Paris is works really well with how his back story is told.
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Spoilers and crying below:
Paris is a book lover and has worked very hard to be able to spend each and every day doing what he loves: reading books. When his bookstore burns down at the beginning of the story I was pretty shaken up but when he describes his first trip to a library I was in tears. He was thirteen and with some guesstimating that puts him in early 1930s Louisiana. The white librarian sees him reading outside and then brings him into the library for the sole purpose of telling him it's not for him because he is black. It's hard to comprehend the kind of vile person that deliberately breaks a heart.
The Challenges of Crisis Aid
sgwordy's resident humanitarian is back from the field and brought this article to my attention. It highlights a book by Linda Polman regarding the ineffectiveness of aid organizations and posits that they contribute to prolonging war conflicts. The article correctly identifies the book as a polemic but doesn't do much to point out the one-sided nature of the book's arguments (to review: polemic:).
Like many books of its kind it points out some very real problems but then acts like these problems are the norm (rather than the exception) and that the parties involved are unaware and uninterested in solving these problems. That is patently false in many cases and certainly in this one regarding aid organizations. The problem of effective delivery of aid, and prevention of that aid being abused, is a very real problem that aid agencies work hard to resolve in each and every crisis. But remember, it's a crisis! Each situation is different and there are no hard and fast rules. The point is to reach victims and agencies do everything they can to appropriately react to a crisis and coordinate their efforts with local organizations to reach victims.
The book makes no distinction between development aid (which receives the bulk of donor funds if I remember correctly) and humanitarian/crisis aid. It also states outright that ngo's crisis hop for personal gains completely disregarding the years that many organizations spend in locales. These years often precede a media-hyped crisis and continue after the media have moved on. It's been pointed out that much of Polman's field experience has been with media-hyped crises so she may have limited experience in the more on-going projects.
It's one of those books that focuses only on extreme cases that do not reflect the the day-to-day activities of aid organizations. Worse, it's pointing fingers but giving no real solutions. The only solution given is that if you think aid is being abused by those with the power to do it then you [aid agency] should leave. Oh that's productive! Aid agencies want to reach victims. It is their first, last, and only goal. They will seek out every alternative to leaving in their goal of helping victims of all crises (not just political crises). If an agency finds that they can not effectively reach victims then they do leave but to use that as a first response is not an option. Or if it is, then maybe aid agencies are a thing of the past. Why show up at all if you're not willing to face the hard realities of a crisis situation? These are not easy problems.
I think what I found most offensive was her lumping of all aid workers into a category of selfish individuals enjoying the high-life whilst surrounded by low-wage/poverty conditions. What bullshit! My blood is boiling just thinking about this so I better stop while I'm still coherent.
It's a shame the book is so fatalistic and unproductive because it does make several good points. One in particular is that agencies ought to practice more critical oversight of themselves and each other. Even better if this can be done in the public eye. The good news is that agencies are doing this. The process has begun and, hopefully, will continue and help to improve effectiveness.
Two parting thoughts:
1) While I remain convinced of the good that aid agencies are capable of doing it's vital that you know and trust agencies to whom you choose to donate. Do your homework! Don't forget that dollar votes are the most important so make sure your dollar is going to someone you trust and support.
2) I'm interested in the topic of humanitarian relief and try to remained informed but I am ultimately an outsider. I welcome any views, especially insider views, that can shed more light on any issues I bring up as my goal is accurate information always!
Like many books of its kind it points out some very real problems but then acts like these problems are the norm (rather than the exception) and that the parties involved are unaware and uninterested in solving these problems. That is patently false in many cases and certainly in this one regarding aid organizations. The problem of effective delivery of aid, and prevention of that aid being abused, is a very real problem that aid agencies work hard to resolve in each and every crisis. But remember, it's a crisis! Each situation is different and there are no hard and fast rules. The point is to reach victims and agencies do everything they can to appropriately react to a crisis and coordinate their efforts with local organizations to reach victims.
The book makes no distinction between development aid (which receives the bulk of donor funds if I remember correctly) and humanitarian/crisis aid. It also states outright that ngo's crisis hop for personal gains completely disregarding the years that many organizations spend in locales. These years often precede a media-hyped crisis and continue after the media have moved on. It's been pointed out that much of Polman's field experience has been with media-hyped crises so she may have limited experience in the more on-going projects.
It's one of those books that focuses only on extreme cases that do not reflect the the day-to-day activities of aid organizations. Worse, it's pointing fingers but giving no real solutions. The only solution given is that if you think aid is being abused by those with the power to do it then you [aid agency] should leave. Oh that's productive! Aid agencies want to reach victims. It is their first, last, and only goal. They will seek out every alternative to leaving in their goal of helping victims of all crises (not just political crises). If an agency finds that they can not effectively reach victims then they do leave but to use that as a first response is not an option. Or if it is, then maybe aid agencies are a thing of the past. Why show up at all if you're not willing to face the hard realities of a crisis situation? These are not easy problems.
I think what I found most offensive was her lumping of all aid workers into a category of selfish individuals enjoying the high-life whilst surrounded by low-wage/poverty conditions. What bullshit! My blood is boiling just thinking about this so I better stop while I'm still coherent.
It's a shame the book is so fatalistic and unproductive because it does make several good points. One in particular is that agencies ought to practice more critical oversight of themselves and each other. Even better if this can be done in the public eye. The good news is that agencies are doing this. The process has begun and, hopefully, will continue and help to improve effectiveness.
Two parting thoughts:
1) While I remain convinced of the good that aid agencies are capable of doing it's vital that you know and trust agencies to whom you choose to donate. Do your homework! Don't forget that dollar votes are the most important so make sure your dollar is going to someone you trust and support.
2) I'm interested in the topic of humanitarian relief and try to remained informed but I am ultimately an outsider. I welcome any views, especially insider views, that can shed more light on any issues I bring up as my goal is accurate information always!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Megan Whalen Turner: Fantastic Writer, Awesome Human
I had the very great pleasure of attending two of Turner's author events in the bay area this week. It was so much fun to listen to her speak and to say hello. I also had a fabulous time meeting with other Sounisians! We had some great discussions! I really could go on and on with this topic but that's what I have Sounis* for. Huzzah!
If you haven't read Megan Whalen Turner yet then you really must go straight out and buy her books. The latest is A Conspiracy of Kings but I recommend starting at the beginning. It's one of those series where the unexpected happens a lot so if you can avoid reading the back covers I would; it'll keep the beginning a surprise. Here's a link listing the order and talking a bit about how the order might change your experience with the books.
*Sounis is a Live Journal community for fans of the series. It's a great place to go for discussion but many spoilers for the early books are included in posts so I would suggest visiting only after reading the books. Here's the link if interested.
If you haven't read Megan Whalen Turner yet then you really must go straight out and buy her books. The latest is A Conspiracy of Kings but I recommend starting at the beginning. It's one of those series where the unexpected happens a lot so if you can avoid reading the back covers I would; it'll keep the beginning a surprise. Here's a link listing the order and talking a bit about how the order might change your experience with the books.
*Sounis is a Live Journal community for fans of the series. It's a great place to go for discussion but many spoilers for the early books are included in posts so I would suggest visiting only after reading the books. Here's the link if interested.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Looking for Rachel Wallace by Robert B. Parker
Title: Looking for Rachel Wallace
Author: Robert B. Parker
Publisher: Dell (1980)
I mentioned the inevitability before so now it's time to share my post-reading thoughts. The cover tells me this is a Spenser novel but it's the first one I've read, first Parker I've read, actually. A little visit to the author's website gave me the impression that he had (and probably still has even after his death) quite the fan base. Any Parker fans out there want to tell me which title I should go for next? Start with Spenser from the beginning? Anyway, on to this title...
Rachel Wallace is many things I am not. This is completely irrelevant but it amuses me to say it. Rachel Wallace (and yes, she is referred to by her full name quite often) is an outspoken feminist and lesbian with a new book about to be published. The book makes certain accusations and names names. She's not very popular with certain crowds to begin with and the content of her upcoming release has resulted in death threats. Her publisher hires Spenser to protect her. Her code of behavior is distinctly different from his resulting in several very interesting conversations and a falling out that sets the scene in Looking for Rachel Wallace.
The book is not long with very nice pacing so I got through it really quickly. The writing is good, the dialogue a lot of fun, and the story satisfying. I liked it well enough that I'll seek out some other Spenser novels but it didn't necessarily blow me away or anything. Just a nice, solid read. Two things really stuck with me: the dynamic between Spenser and Rachel Wallace and that I wish I was more familiar with this genre of books. I'll start with the first.
I can't know this for sure since it's the only Spenser novel I've read but Rachel Wallace felt very much like a foil for Spenser. Maybe Spenser gets one of these in every book but she was practically everything he was not so the reader is presented with the perfect set-up for getting to know a lot about Spenser (and his lovely girlfriend actually). Do we get this in every book or was it time for some character advancement? Normally I wouldn't think about this very much but since Looking for Rachel Wallace is about the 7th book in the series and the differences were almost comically large the deliberate foil idea stuck with me. Of course, Spenser's got a pretty good sense of humor and Rachel Wallace absolutely none so a lot of the time I think Spenser's just fucking with her. What makes their differences most interesting is what they do have in common. They are both intelligent, caring, fair-minded, and very sure of how they have chosen to live their lives. It's the intersection of their life choices that makes for the cool conversations between them.
On to the second. This is the third private eye/mystery author I've read lately (and I think the last time I attempted the genre was in the 90s) and they all feel a lot alike. That's not to say I'm not enjoying them I just didn't expect that they would all be so alike. I checked the copyrights and most of what I have read was published in the 80s so it might be that there was a particular style that was super successful in the 80s and it happens to be what I've picked up. The next author in my getting-know-the-genre project is Walter Mosley. The book I'm starting with was published in 2001 but it's set in the 50s. Like the others I've read it's in the first person POV. I rather like to think the ones I've read are in the "first person glib" (this Rachel Wallace has a sense of humor:) because the narrators have all had the same attitude even. They all seem slightly more progressive than those around them, tough but prone to sadness, cynical because of what they see but still pretty keen on humanity, never lacking for chances to score but very sensitive with their partners (this goes for both male and female protags so don't go thinking this is one of those male-only tropes), pretty set in their code of ethics but philosophical enough to entertain other ideas... So help me out here, mystery readers, is this the way it goes? Are they all in first person POV? Have I described the archetype or simply a style-type? Will I be running into some other types or shall I learn to love and embrace this one because any other type is rare? Also, I think I like a good shoot-out as much as the next American but is justice only ever meted out with death in these books? There are some antagonists who I think would have been much more miserable in jail and yet they all die. No hassle or expense with court in these books; much easier to just kill the baddies and complain a bit about the paperwork.
Getting back to Spenser, he very much aligned with the archetype I described above. Course, not being familiar with his series or the genre in general maybe he was the beginning of this. Maybe he was a step forward in the evolution of the archetype. I really don't know. I liked him just fine and won't mind reading some more books with him but I wonder how deeply I'll be able to get into the genre if I always run into the same protags.
rating: 3 of 5 stars
I still have a list of suggestions I'm working through for the genre but if any mystery readers want to add to that list I would really appreciate it. I'd especially love some books that turn all my first impressions/stereotypes right on their heads!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Levels of Death for Fictional Characters, Part II
So sgwordy entered the lair of Achievement Whoring and asked the good Dr to share his Levels of Death theory. Enjoy!
(NOTE: It's probably obvious for a topic like this but beware spoilers.)
Dr Musacha says...
If you missed Part I click here.
Level 2 – They killed X??? YOU BASTARDS!
Now it’s on. A level 2 death involves a character who has been with us throughout most of the story. They’re a major part of the narrative, with well-established backstory, personality, and motivations. Essentially, we’re talking about anyone that you might refer to as “one of the main characters” WITHOUT being the main hero/heroine/villain.
The impact of a level 2 death cannot be overstated. This is a character that we’ve grown to care about, identify with, and root for (wow, that was a lot of dangling prepositions). Assuming that the writer has done his/her job properly, we are NOT going to like seeing this person die. But see it we will, because level 2 deaths (unlike 3 and 4) pretty much never happen offscreen. After all, the author is sacrificing an important character and obviously wants to reap the full emotional impact of that decision.
The following may seem counterintuitive, but bear with me: Level 2 deaths are the most critical ones to do correctly. Period. Now, you might be wondering how that’s possible since we have another level to go. I’ll get there in a second, but understand that level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy. But level 2? They can make all the difference between pushing your narrative to a whole new level and completely derailing it, losing your audience forever.
The key point to understand is that your level 2 death may well mean killing the audience’s favorite character. Think about it: if you ask someone who their favorite Star Wars character is, how many say Luke? Sure, you need a compelling hero and villain, but people tend to gravitate to the side characters (at least the ones that are decently developed). So when you off that person, it better be in a way that respects the bond that’s formed between said character and the audience. NOTE: This is doubly true for characters in a series, because we’ve had all the more time to get attached.
An example from my own experience: I enjoyed most of Dancing with Wolves. It was an interesting story (if a bit slow) and shot with a nice eye for the surrounding environment. Then some jackass army officers take turns firing at Two-Socks, the wolf that keeps Dunbar company, killing the poor animal because it doesn’t know to run away. Now, I get what the writer was going for here…he wants us to understand that the army officers are the bad guys so we’ll be happy when the Sioux kill them later. Well you know what guy? I already figured that out. There was no damn reason to show Two Socks being unceremoniously murdered. If you were looking for an emotional reaction, then you got one. I loathe your crappy movie with every fiber of my being. Was that what you wanted?
Level 2 deaths are pretty common with villains. It’s usually the right hand man, who ironically is often tougher/more evil than the main bad guy. Also note that level 2 deaths often happen late in the story, because they serve as the inspiration that the hero/heroine needs to vanquish his or her foes and achieve victory in their fallen comrade’s memory.
Other examples:
Mick/Apollo – Rocky III/IV
Dumbledore – Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Obi-wan Kenobi – Star Wars
Count Rugen (the man with six fingers) – Princess Bride
Level 1 – And then there were two
Okay, it doesn’t HAVE to be two. There are instances where there’s more than one main protagonist (though rarely is there more than one main villain). Still, we’re definitely looking at the cream of the crop here.
Level 1 deaths happen almost exclusively at the climax of the story, largely because anyone suffering a level 1 death was so key to the plot that it can hardly go on without them. Imagine if Darth Vader died in Return of the Jedi, but then there was another 45 minutes of faffing about on Endor fighting generic stormtroopers. Anticlimactic, no?
Compared to level 2, level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy to write. Most people expect the main villain to buy the farm at the end, so it will hardly come as a shock. And as for the hero, the idea of the tragic protagonist who sacrifices himself at the end of the story is so old that a guy named William Shakespeare had mastered it back when humans were still trying to invent fire (NOTE: this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of sgwordy, her parent company, or historical accuracy in any way).
There are too many examples to count, but here are a few:
Butch and Sundance – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Maximus – Gladiator
Hillary – Beaches
Captain John Miller – Saving Private Ryan
William Wallace – Braveheart (this is historical I suppose, but still)
The Predator – Predator
Thelma and Louise – I’m hoping you can guess
So there you have it. sgwordy…do YOU have a favorite example of one of the Levels of Death?
Why yes, I do! I'm actually going to include something for each level:
Level 4 - All to whom Terry Pratchett made this most hilarious dedication and this poor bastard who did not want it.
Level 3 - I'm gonna cheat a little on this one because I'm choosing a character in my own work in progress. Two reasons: the first - it was this character's death (and your reading of it) that first brought the Levels of Death theory to my attention and the second - because he truly died as he lived, serving the plot.
Level 2 - Since this is the trickiest of all I'm going to give an example of it done badly and an example of it done well. The done badly example was the offing of The Syndicate in The X-Files. I'm a believer (Mulder would be so proud:) that there was no way to do this well and that it being done at all was a mistake. The done well example is Amylin (played by Paul Reubens) in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
side note: What I find interesting about level 2 is that the character's relationship with the audience is more important than the character's relationship to the heroine/hero when it comes to a death that will not alienate the audience.
Level 1 - Elphaba in Wicked by Gregory Maguire. Holy damn that was some kind of memorable.
Anyone else have some particularly good or bad examples of the levels?
(NOTE: It's probably obvious for a topic like this but beware spoilers.)
Dr Musacha says...
If you missed Part I click here.
Level 2 – They killed X??? YOU BASTARDS!
Now it’s on. A level 2 death involves a character who has been with us throughout most of the story. They’re a major part of the narrative, with well-established backstory, personality, and motivations. Essentially, we’re talking about anyone that you might refer to as “one of the main characters” WITHOUT being the main hero/heroine/villain.
The impact of a level 2 death cannot be overstated. This is a character that we’ve grown to care about, identify with, and root for (wow, that was a lot of dangling prepositions). Assuming that the writer has done his/her job properly, we are NOT going to like seeing this person die. But see it we will, because level 2 deaths (unlike 3 and 4) pretty much never happen offscreen. After all, the author is sacrificing an important character and obviously wants to reap the full emotional impact of that decision.
The following may seem counterintuitive, but bear with me: Level 2 deaths are the most critical ones to do correctly. Period. Now, you might be wondering how that’s possible since we have another level to go. I’ll get there in a second, but understand that level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy. But level 2? They can make all the difference between pushing your narrative to a whole new level and completely derailing it, losing your audience forever.
The key point to understand is that your level 2 death may well mean killing the audience’s favorite character. Think about it: if you ask someone who their favorite Star Wars character is, how many say Luke? Sure, you need a compelling hero and villain, but people tend to gravitate to the side characters (at least the ones that are decently developed). So when you off that person, it better be in a way that respects the bond that’s formed between said character and the audience. NOTE: This is doubly true for characters in a series, because we’ve had all the more time to get attached.
An example from my own experience: I enjoyed most of Dancing with Wolves. It was an interesting story (if a bit slow) and shot with a nice eye for the surrounding environment. Then some jackass army officers take turns firing at Two-Socks, the wolf that keeps Dunbar company, killing the poor animal because it doesn’t know to run away. Now, I get what the writer was going for here…he wants us to understand that the army officers are the bad guys so we’ll be happy when the Sioux kill them later. Well you know what guy? I already figured that out. There was no damn reason to show Two Socks being unceremoniously murdered. If you were looking for an emotional reaction, then you got one. I loathe your crappy movie with every fiber of my being. Was that what you wanted?
Level 2 deaths are pretty common with villains. It’s usually the right hand man, who ironically is often tougher/more evil than the main bad guy. Also note that level 2 deaths often happen late in the story, because they serve as the inspiration that the hero/heroine needs to vanquish his or her foes and achieve victory in their fallen comrade’s memory.
Other examples:
Mick/Apollo – Rocky III/IV
Dumbledore – Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Obi-wan Kenobi – Star Wars
Count Rugen (the man with six fingers) – Princess Bride
Level 1 – And then there were two
Okay, it doesn’t HAVE to be two. There are instances where there’s more than one main protagonist (though rarely is there more than one main villain). Still, we’re definitely looking at the cream of the crop here.
Level 1 deaths happen almost exclusively at the climax of the story, largely because anyone suffering a level 1 death was so key to the plot that it can hardly go on without them. Imagine if Darth Vader died in Return of the Jedi, but then there was another 45 minutes of faffing about on Endor fighting generic stormtroopers. Anticlimactic, no?
Compared to level 2, level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy to write. Most people expect the main villain to buy the farm at the end, so it will hardly come as a shock. And as for the hero, the idea of the tragic protagonist who sacrifices himself at the end of the story is so old that a guy named William Shakespeare had mastered it back when humans were still trying to invent fire (NOTE: this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of sgwordy, her parent company, or historical accuracy in any way).
There are too many examples to count, but here are a few:
Butch and Sundance – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Maximus – Gladiator
Hillary – Beaches
Captain John Miller – Saving Private Ryan
William Wallace – Braveheart (this is historical I suppose, but still)
The Predator – Predator
Thelma and Louise – I’m hoping you can guess
So there you have it. sgwordy…do YOU have a favorite example of one of the Levels of Death?
Why yes, I do! I'm actually going to include something for each level:
Level 4 - All to whom Terry Pratchett made this most hilarious dedication and this poor bastard who did not want it.
Level 3 - I'm gonna cheat a little on this one because I'm choosing a character in my own work in progress. Two reasons: the first - it was this character's death (and your reading of it) that first brought the Levels of Death theory to my attention and the second - because he truly died as he lived, serving the plot.
Level 2 - Since this is the trickiest of all I'm going to give an example of it done badly and an example of it done well. The done badly example was the offing of The Syndicate in The X-Files. I'm a believer (Mulder would be so proud:) that there was no way to do this well and that it being done at all was a mistake. The done well example is Amylin (played by Paul Reubens) in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
side note: What I find interesting about level 2 is that the character's relationship with the audience is more important than the character's relationship to the heroine/hero when it comes to a death that will not alienate the audience.
Level 1 - Elphaba in Wicked by Gregory Maguire. Holy damn that was some kind of memorable.
Anyone else have some particularly good or bad examples of the levels?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dante's Inferno (2010) Final Thoughts
Title: Dante's Inferno
Publisher: EA/Visceral Games (2010)
When I posted about Dante's Inferno before the game was at about the half. Now that it's complete, here are some final thoughts. Lucky for me I agree with pretty much everything in this review so there's no need to hash it out here. But there are a couple things I'd add...
The game is too short. These Xbox games cost 60 bucks (60 bucks!!!) and the game was about 10 hours. That is a major party foul. As in, unfuckingacceptable! 10 hours? Are you kidding me? I would be more pissed at EA but I sort of have to respect the way they suckered 60 bucks out of me for these piddling 10 hours.
And the story, talk about starting high and ending low. You've got 9 levels of hell to go through before Dante's fight with the Baddest Baddie of them all (to review: Satan) so you've got 9 levels over which the story needs to be spread. Talk about blowing your wad. I think it was at about level 5 that they started mailing it in story wise. And it's a real shame too because the story started out so well. So in this far-from-reflective-of-the-poem story, Dante has returned from a Crusade to find his love, Beatrice, murdered. Not only is she murdered but her soul is taken to hell. This is somewhat confusing for Dante because she has done nothing to deserve to go to hell. Dante goes after her, cue awesome gaming fun.
As Dante goes searching for answers and trying to rescue Beatrice the gamer learns about why Dante has so much guilt and why Beatrice's soul was taken. (The back story is all done in a different artistic style and is super awesome.) You start learning all kinds of stuff about Dante's Crusade, how he behaved, what was going on with his family, what he did to Beatrice, etc - and it's done really well. It's really engaging. You're immediately drawn into the story and the mystery of what really happened. But then it just peters out.
There's this great set-up and then it stops almost completely. The cut scenes become really short, the character back stories become unconvincing, and I wouldn't say more than two of the resolutions for the story were all that satisfying. It was really a bummer after such a great set-up.
So in the end I'd say the game is only average. It started out great but ended with a let down. Mr. Knight was all coy with us but the end said To Be Continued so I assume we'll get to go to Purgatory next. I hope they decide to stick with a story that actually spans the entire game for the next one.
rating: 3 of 5 stars
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Levels of Death for Fictional Characters, Part I
So sgwordy entered the lair of Achievement Whoring and asked the good Dr to share his Levels of Death theory. Enjoy!
Dr Musacha says...
In real life, death is inevitable. But in fiction, death is the result of a conscious decision made by the author (unless of course it’s based on historical events…that trip to Ford’s Theater is probably not going to end well for Lincoln). And while you may think that character deaths are thrown into stories at the random whim of the writer, the vast majority of deaths fall into one of four escalating categories that I refer to as “Levels of Death”. Each level (and thus each death) has a distinct purpose for a story, and I firmly believe that the misapplication of this system can ruin an otherwise great story.
To illustrate the concept, I’m going to review each level starting at the bottom (Level 4) and culminating at the top (Level 1). For further clarification, I’ll give examples of each level based on the medium of movies (though this concept works for books, video games, and so on). Note that spoilers abound (we’re talking about characters dying here!) though I’ve tried to restrict my examples to well known movies that should come as little surprise. Still if you’re the type of person who’s been holding out on this whole “Star Wars” thing and you have a good feeling about how things turn out for this Darth Vader guy (whoops!) then maybe stop now.
Level 4 – The Red Shirt Guy
If you know anything about Star Trek, then you’re already nodding your head. When Kirk, Spock, Sulu, and some generic guy in a red shirt beam down to the alien planet where another ship’s crew disappeared without a trace, guess who isn’t coming back? Let’s just say they’re paying Shatner a lot of money to captain the Enterprise, not to die before the second commercial.
Wondering if you’re seeing a level 4 death? First, ask yourself if you know the character’s name. Or if he/she even has a name. How about defining characteristics…does he have a back story, a defined personality, an established connection to other characters? If not, you’re definitely in level 4 territory. Even more telling, how do the other characters react when “red shirt” dies? Is it like a dark cloud hanging over the rest of the film/episode/book? Or do they pretty much proceed like nothing happened, as if they were expecting it from the start?
And that’s the thing: they DO expect it. The reason they aren’t getting all emotional is because the writer didn’t care about “red shirt” guy and he didn’t expect you to either. His death is akin to a little science experiment, like tossing a gerbil to a python and taking notes on how the snake dispatches it. It’s the writer’s way of telling you “Kirk and Spock will be facing a tentacle monster this week, and this is how it kills people. Keep watching to see how they defeat it!”
As for villains (because hey, they’re characters too!), a Level 4 death is less of an option and more of a career choice for the vast majority of henchmen. The second you slap on that generic outfit and join the legion of baddies, know that your Level 4 death will come swiftly, surely, and with no fanfare whatsoever from the protagonist. You might as well be a traffic cone with a machine gun taped to it, pal.
Other examples:
Fat guy from New York that gets squashed by a meteor – Armageddon
Guard who gets his heart pulled out of his chest – Indiana Jones: Temple of Doom
Late night swimmer – Jaws
Practically every person killed by Stallone/Schwarzenegger/etc. in action movies
Level 3 – I died as I lived…serving the plot
Congratulations, you’ve been promoted to level 3. You’ve got a name (probably first AND last), some lines, and a personality that can likely be summarized in five or fewer words. You might even be played by a recognizable character actor (Hey, I saw that guy on Seinfeld once…). Here’s the bad news though: you can still die. Oh, you might be thinking “I’m not one of these generic types so I’ll be okay.” No such luck though, because the reality is that the story can still easily proceed without you.
A level 3 death differs from level 4 in several key ways. First, the character that dies is far more distinct. More importantly, the main characters acknowledge a level 3 death as momentous and important. They are often stricken with shock or grief that such an event could transpire. What a level 3 death does is announce to the audience “Shit just got real here…this is a story where people CAN DIE”. Nobody thinks that the monster that offed red-shirt is going to get Kirk. But if a level 3 character death occurs, suddenly things get murkier. The anguish that the characters are showing is partly driven by the realization that “Death is in play and I could be next…”
Level 3 deaths also often serve to “thin the ranks”. As in, the author needed a group of people at the start of the story for the purposes of dialogue/plot exposition/etc., but now things are a little crowded. A nice level 3 death or two can whittle down the group while creating an emotional impact for the survivors and the audience. These usually happen in the middle of a story, since we need time to know the character but not so much that we get attached.
Level 3 death is pretty rare for a villain, as it involves a person who’s slightly higher up than a henchman but still not important enough to survive to the climax of the film. Generally the proper order is to kill all the generic guys, then the sub-boss types, and finally the main baddie. Still, it does happen. I’m reminded of the classic quote from Commando:
Other examples:
Harry Ellis, who pretends to be Bruce Willis’ friend and gets shot – Die Hard
May the hooker – Dark City
Helen, the nice old lady who gets blown out of the bus – Speed
William Laughlin, a member of the resistance – Running Man
Levels 1 and 2 are here.
Dr Musacha says...
In real life, death is inevitable. But in fiction, death is the result of a conscious decision made by the author (unless of course it’s based on historical events…that trip to Ford’s Theater is probably not going to end well for Lincoln). And while you may think that character deaths are thrown into stories at the random whim of the writer, the vast majority of deaths fall into one of four escalating categories that I refer to as “Levels of Death”. Each level (and thus each death) has a distinct purpose for a story, and I firmly believe that the misapplication of this system can ruin an otherwise great story.
To illustrate the concept, I’m going to review each level starting at the bottom (Level 4) and culminating at the top (Level 1). For further clarification, I’ll give examples of each level based on the medium of movies (though this concept works for books, video games, and so on). Note that spoilers abound (we’re talking about characters dying here!) though I’ve tried to restrict my examples to well known movies that should come as little surprise. Still if you’re the type of person who’s been holding out on this whole “Star Wars” thing and you have a good feeling about how things turn out for this Darth Vader guy (whoops!) then maybe stop now.
Level 4 – The Red Shirt Guy
If you know anything about Star Trek, then you’re already nodding your head. When Kirk, Spock, Sulu, and some generic guy in a red shirt beam down to the alien planet where another ship’s crew disappeared without a trace, guess who isn’t coming back? Let’s just say they’re paying Shatner a lot of money to captain the Enterprise, not to die before the second commercial.
Wondering if you’re seeing a level 4 death? First, ask yourself if you know the character’s name. Or if he/she even has a name. How about defining characteristics…does he have a back story, a defined personality, an established connection to other characters? If not, you’re definitely in level 4 territory. Even more telling, how do the other characters react when “red shirt” dies? Is it like a dark cloud hanging over the rest of the film/episode/book? Or do they pretty much proceed like nothing happened, as if they were expecting it from the start?
And that’s the thing: they DO expect it. The reason they aren’t getting all emotional is because the writer didn’t care about “red shirt” guy and he didn’t expect you to either. His death is akin to a little science experiment, like tossing a gerbil to a python and taking notes on how the snake dispatches it. It’s the writer’s way of telling you “Kirk and Spock will be facing a tentacle monster this week, and this is how it kills people. Keep watching to see how they defeat it!”
As for villains (because hey, they’re characters too!), a Level 4 death is less of an option and more of a career choice for the vast majority of henchmen. The second you slap on that generic outfit and join the legion of baddies, know that your Level 4 death will come swiftly, surely, and with no fanfare whatsoever from the protagonist. You might as well be a traffic cone with a machine gun taped to it, pal.
Other examples:
Fat guy from New York that gets squashed by a meteor – Armageddon
Guard who gets his heart pulled out of his chest – Indiana Jones: Temple of Doom
Late night swimmer – Jaws
Practically every person killed by Stallone/Schwarzenegger/etc. in action movies
Level 3 – I died as I lived…serving the plot
Congratulations, you’ve been promoted to level 3. You’ve got a name (probably first AND last), some lines, and a personality that can likely be summarized in five or fewer words. You might even be played by a recognizable character actor (Hey, I saw that guy on Seinfeld once…). Here’s the bad news though: you can still die. Oh, you might be thinking “I’m not one of these generic types so I’ll be okay.” No such luck though, because the reality is that the story can still easily proceed without you.
A level 3 death differs from level 4 in several key ways. First, the character that dies is far more distinct. More importantly, the main characters acknowledge a level 3 death as momentous and important. They are often stricken with shock or grief that such an event could transpire. What a level 3 death does is announce to the audience “Shit just got real here…this is a story where people CAN DIE”. Nobody thinks that the monster that offed red-shirt is going to get Kirk. But if a level 3 character death occurs, suddenly things get murkier. The anguish that the characters are showing is partly driven by the realization that “Death is in play and I could be next…”
Level 3 deaths also often serve to “thin the ranks”. As in, the author needed a group of people at the start of the story for the purposes of dialogue/plot exposition/etc., but now things are a little crowded. A nice level 3 death or two can whittle down the group while creating an emotional impact for the survivors and the audience. These usually happen in the middle of a story, since we need time to know the character but not so much that we get attached.
Level 3 death is pretty rare for a villain, as it involves a person who’s slightly higher up than a henchman but still not important enough to survive to the climax of the film. Generally the proper order is to kill all the generic guys, then the sub-boss types, and finally the main baddie. Still, it does happen. I’m reminded of the classic quote from Commando:
Arnold: Remember Sully, when I promised I’d kill you last?
Sully: That’s right, you did!
Arnold: I lied.
Other examples:
Harry Ellis, who pretends to be Bruce Willis’ friend and gets shot – Die Hard
May the hooker – Dark City
Helen, the nice old lady who gets blown out of the bus – Speed
William Laughlin, a member of the resistance – Running Man
Levels 1 and 2 are here.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Book Blurbs
Has anyone else read a book blurb after having finished the book and thought, "Did we read the same book?"
Cloud Mountain by Aimee Liu
Title: Cloud Mountain
Author: Aimee Liu
Publisher: Warner Books (1997)
Cloud Mountain is the story of an American woman and a Chinese man who fall in love in California in the early 20th Century. At this time in the United States marriage between them is illegal almost everywhere and the prejudice against interracial couples high. Despite societal and family obstacles, Hope Newfield and Liang Po-yu (Paul Leon) pursue their love and marry in a little Wyoming town where interracial marriage is legal. They make their home in Berkeley for 5 years before moving to China.
The story told in Cloud Mountain was inspired by the author’s grandparents. Aimee Liu, while never knowing her grandparents, used her family’s history, writings, and stories to follow the chronology of the marriage of her grandparents. It is an incredible story and the daring of these two young people should not be underestimated. As modern readers we are lucky to live in a time where the world has become smaller and minds are continuing to open to diversity. But during the time described in Cloud Mountain the idea of marrying outside your race or ethnic background, much less your citizenship and moving around the world, was extremely rare.
This book is very good but it had a slow start for me. The slow start was my fault and not the author's. The opening chapters started off very much like a romance novel. I’m certainly not one to turn up my nose at a romance but it caught me off guard. There was the heroine with a lost love, a current love she wasn’t really interested in, and then the hero enters and zing! there is an instant connection. My mind was ready for a sweeping portrayal of the turbulent racial situation in America and the politics of China but instead there was a boy and girl and they fell in love. After finishing the book I felt like a right dolt (<-- do people still say this?) for my blunder with the beginning. As I described above, Hope and Po-yu were subjected to many obstacles to their being together. The challenges presented by their heritage and cultural backgrounds continue through much of their relationship. In that sense, it would almost have to be a love as instant and over-powering as theirs to have brought them together, and kept them together, through the tumultuous years of their marriage.
Po-yu is highly educated and from a rich family. He is dedicated to ending imperialism in China and his involvement in politics has him in exile from China. Ostensibly, he is in Berkeley to study (he meets Hope because she is an English language tutor) but, more importantly, he works on a Chinese newspaper to inform US residents of Chinese politics and raise money for the revolution against the Manchu Imperialists. After he and Hope have been married 5 years, the Manchus are overthrown and Po-yu can return to China. Hope and their daughter soon follow and for the next 21 years it is where they make their home.
The style that Liu chose for this story is very well done. There is a mix of narrative, diary entries by Hope, and letters between family and friends. The choice to include the diary entries and letters brought much to the novel. The increased intimacy and perspective gave the story a richness that it would not otherwise have had. Also, I was especially impressed with Liu’s ability to show the trappings of culture and how they can divide even those who are actively committed to each other. Hope and Po-yu were clearly very much in love and extremely progressive, yet despite this their cultural socialization often came between them. Liu’s balance of love, individuality, and the wisdom that comes with experience was well-maintained throughout the story making her characters wonderfully layered and accessible.
I think Chinese history is pretty fascinating in general but the 20th Century is especially intriguing to me. The historical backdrop to Hope and Po-yu's relationship is just as interesting as the characters. They are in China as Imperialism is ended but the new republic is shaky (this is the most ridiculously inadequate description of the various political factions involved so do yourself a favor and go learn about the details - it's fascinating stuff) making for a politically unstable government. The entire Century is worth learning about but this snapshot of years is just as interesting as any other and makes for a rich background.
The following point of discussion is spoilerish so highlight if interested: There’s a time in their marriage when Hope is depressed and estranged from Po-yu. In this period she has a lot of interaction with their friend Mann and feels attracted to him and the life he leads. After she has come to realize that she does not have true feelings for Mann and remains dedicated to Po-yu, she makes a very interesting observation that Mann is the kind of man that can’t survive without a wife and that Po-yu might be someone that should never have married. At the same time she observes how shallow Mann’s feelings are for others versus the depth of feeling Po-yu is capable of. Po-yu is extremely dedicated to his political cause and is often negligent of his family. However, his deep love for Hope is never in any doubt. It's interesting to think about what it takes to love so deeply and what it means to fulfill the obligations of that love. Po-yu is clearly capable of deep and abiding love but he has that same intense love for his country and his country’s future. Is it right for someone like this to have a family? Where is the line between your obligations to your family and to your individual passions? Is there a line? In our more modern times where each partner is more likely to have the opportunities for an independent life and income is this less of an issue? I found myself coming back to this over and over even though I don't think there's any one answer.
I highly recommend this book. The story is compelling, the writing excellent and the end will make you think about what it means to love and how individuals express that love. Though not a short book it never feels long and I think almost anyone will find the experience enriching and satisfying. To learn more about the amazing couple that inspired this story click here.
rating: 5 of 5 stars
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Murderous Procession by Ariana Franklin, or Thoughts on Series Books
Title: A Murderous Procession
Author: Ariana Franklin
Publisher: Putnam (2010)
A Murderous Procession is the latest Mistress of the Art of Death book. Mistress is one of my favorite books. I loved it the first time I read it and I've continued to re-read it and lurv on it some more. My love for that first book is probably the only reason that I'm still reading the series. I was chatting with someone the other day about how I'm not very good at keeping up with series books. It's not that I don't like series, per se, it's just that I usually lose interest. I wasn't able to quite put my finger on why that is so I tried to pay attention while reading this book so I could finally decide what it is about series that doesn't keep me interested. But first, a little about the book...
Adelia Aguilar is back and under Henry II's orders once again. She is to escort his daughter to Sicily for the princess's wedding as her doctor. As usual, she's disguised as a doctor's assistant as the world at large is none to friendly to a female doctor. The ever-faithful Mansur (her long-time protector) acts as the doctor. Her lover Rowley is part of the escort, as well, though with him being a bishop and all they've got to keep their relationship secret. Sort of. Her profession and her relationship with Rowley are starting to feel like Superman's secret identity. Seriously, how many people can you let in on a secret before it isn't really a secret anymore? Ah well, I digress. As with any story involving a forensic specialist/private eye/amateur sleuth ancillary characters begin to die. Time for some mystery solving!
Does my synopsis seem snippy and disinterested? Yeah, I know, it is - but that's how I start to feel when reading a series. So why is this? I used to think it was because the formula annoyed me but, besides the fact that pretty much every book follows some type of formula, I enjoy hard-core formula books. Same plot over and over? No problem! Same tropes over and over? No problem. Write it well and give me some characters I can enjoy and I'll probably keep coming back. So what's the big deal about a series then? Turns out that, for me, it all comes down to the characters.
I was paying close attention during A Murderous Procession and trying to pinpoint why it (and the other sequels) was so unsatisfying. I compared it to another series I've been reading lately, the Elvis Cole books by Robert Crais (thanks to Singular Points for the Crais tip), because I've had no trouble gobbling those books up like funnel cakes at the fair. And that's when the whole character business hit me. It's everything to do with the character arcs. In Mistress there are very good and very interesting character arcs for pretty much everyone. I was invested in them and I wanted to know where I was going to go with the characters (the story's bang up too, btw). But the subsequent books have either completely dropped character arcs or simply rerun previous arcs. I started thinking of all the series I've petered out on and that was pretty much what lost me. I guess I'm just not all that interested in watching the same character arc repeatedly because it doesn't feel like growth. I want to see new discoveries for old characters if they're going to be there.
I tend to also like series that focus on a new character in the same fictional setting as a previous book. The pitfall for these is that then you've got those authors that have to do the laundry list of "where are they now." I am definitely interested in where my old friends are but if it doesn't work naturally in a story then I'm not interested in what feels like an ESPN ticker update. I'm also convinced that new readers to a series don't need this either. All the back story should work naturally with the current story. If it doesn't then it's probably not needed at all. Most times you don't need all that back story to understand the current book so why produce what feels like a little time-out in the current story for the ticker?
So why are these Crais books working for me? Because Cole's character is pretty well-established at the beginning and the fun is watching him interact with the funky cast of characters around him. I'm not overly worried about his growth as a character because it's not the central theme of the books. From one book to the next I might learn something more about him but it's natural to the story and not a re-run of something I saw him go through as a character two books ago. Several books into the series there's a big jump in the depth of characterization but, again, it's natural to the stories and not repetitive.
So, so, so, there it is. Apparently I need no character arc or a never-ending character arc. What I really can't stand is the same lessons over and over. The whole time I'm thinking, we've already been through this, why are you doing it again? Do you not remember two years ago when you went through all these same issues?
And that brings me back to A Murderous Procession. I think it's my least favorite so far of all the Mistress books. We've once again got to have some sort of snippy thing happen between Adelia and Rowley at the beginning to create some tension, then they can work it out and get back to the hoppin' horny good-luvin'/mystery solving business at hand. They'll get separated for some reason, Adelia will find herself in grave danger, etc etc. I wouldn't mind all this so much if the characters were giving me a reason to stick with them. When everything's a repeat I'd rather just go find some new characters to befriend.
Side note to the publisher: this is a BAD copy edit job. Try harder next time. Bad copy editing is like the actors in a play making eye contact, it ruins the "fourth wall."
rating: 2 of 5 stars
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Star Ratings
Any time I do a review I include a star rating. I usually put these at the end as I feel star ratings aren't all that informative but I like to use them and I always have specific reasons for how many stars I've assigned. Here's an explanation of the method behind my star madness.
Short version:
5 stars - excellent
4 stars - above average
3 stars - average
2 stars - below average
1 star - better used as toilet paper/coaster
DNF - Did Not Finish
Long version:
5 stars - The book/movie/video game is a perfect example of the art. The craft is excellent, the subject matter engaging, the characters realistic and sympathetic. Overall, a joy to experience.
4 stars - The b/m/vg is definitely solid. There are a few flaws but nothing that would severely undermine the work as a whole. It'll appeal to more than just its target audience.
3 stars - The b/m/vg is alright but probably not something I'll go out of my way to remember or even recommend. I'm just as likely to enjoy something I give 3 stars as not. It's probably the most uninformative rating I give but it basically means that if you like this kind of thing you'll like it, if not then probably not.
2 stars - The b/m/vg is so flawed that it's not enjoyable. Thoughts that start popping into my head with a 2 star rating are unrealistic characters, boring, plot holes/devices, characters are caricature-like or walking stereotypes, etc.
1 star - The b/m/vg is so bad that it's offensive.
DNF - Most common reasons I don't finish a b/m/vg: it's so bad it's offensive, the writing is poor, the story doesn't interest me, the characters don't interest me, it's boring.
I've never posted a DNF review because I never do them. If I can't be bothered to finish the b/m/vg then I certainly can't be bothered to sit down and compose a few words on it. It's very rare that I write/post 1/2 star reviews because most often the b/m/vg would end up getting a DNF. If I'm not liking something I tend to stop doing it. Also, if I dislike something I'm generally not that interested in sitting down and reliving it by writing something up. I have been known to take requests on these, though. :)
So what you'll get here are mostly 3/4/5 star reviews. And even though I said the 3 star rating is the least informative, if I review it that means I liked it for what it was and if you like the genre/story/character types then you will probably like it, too. The 4/5 star ratings mean that I think it's worthwhile for anyone to at least give it a try even if it's not something you would normally reach for during your free time.
Short version:
5 stars - excellent
4 stars - above average
3 stars - average
2 stars - below average
1 star - better used as toilet paper/coaster
DNF - Did Not Finish
Long version:
5 stars - The book/movie/video game is a perfect example of the art. The craft is excellent, the subject matter engaging, the characters realistic and sympathetic. Overall, a joy to experience.
4 stars - The b/m/vg is definitely solid. There are a few flaws but nothing that would severely undermine the work as a whole. It'll appeal to more than just its target audience.
3 stars - The b/m/vg is alright but probably not something I'll go out of my way to remember or even recommend. I'm just as likely to enjoy something I give 3 stars as not. It's probably the most uninformative rating I give but it basically means that if you like this kind of thing you'll like it, if not then probably not.
2 stars - The b/m/vg is so flawed that it's not enjoyable. Thoughts that start popping into my head with a 2 star rating are unrealistic characters, boring, plot holes/devices, characters are caricature-like or walking stereotypes, etc.
1 star - The b/m/vg is so bad that it's offensive.
DNF - Most common reasons I don't finish a b/m/vg: it's so bad it's offensive, the writing is poor, the story doesn't interest me, the characters don't interest me, it's boring.
I've never posted a DNF review because I never do them. If I can't be bothered to finish the b/m/vg then I certainly can't be bothered to sit down and compose a few words on it. It's very rare that I write/post 1/2 star reviews because most often the b/m/vg would end up getting a DNF. If I'm not liking something I tend to stop doing it. Also, if I dislike something I'm generally not that interested in sitting down and reliving it by writing something up. I have been known to take requests on these, though. :)
So what you'll get here are mostly 3/4/5 star reviews. And even though I said the 3 star rating is the least informative, if I review it that means I liked it for what it was and if you like the genre/story/character types then you will probably like it, too. The 4/5 star ratings mean that I think it's worthwhile for anyone to at least give it a try even if it's not something you would normally reach for during your free time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)