What Are You Reading 4
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
So, right now I'm reading "The Black-eyed Blonde" by John Banville, which is a fairly good Philip Marlowe mystery. 
No one can do Philip Marlowe like Raymond Chandler but Banville does a credible job. His Marlowe is older, slower, more flawed and more tolerant than Chandler's. He's also more vulnerable to being seduced, but still a knight in sour armor.
I dislike the call-backs to Chandler books, especially The Long Good-bye. It shows that Banville is a little bit afraid of writing Marlowe without telling us about Terry Lennox and his gimlets, a cocktail he invented in the book: half gin and half lime juice over crushed ice, and nothing else. For anyone who hasn't read The Long Good-bye, this might be necessary. But for anyone who has read it (and let's face it, what kind of Raymond Chandler fan are you if you haven't?), it's irritating.
Haven't finished yet (just about), but I'll give it three-and-a-half stars. It'd be higher if it wasn't for all those call-backs to The Long Good-bye.
No one can do Philip Marlowe like Raymond Chandler but Banville does a credible job. His Marlowe is older, slower, more flawed and more tolerant than Chandler's. He's also more vulnerable to being seduced, but still a knight in sour armor.
I dislike the call-backs to Chandler books, especially The Long Good-bye. It shows that Banville is a little bit afraid of writing Marlowe without telling us about Terry Lennox and his gimlets, a cocktail he invented in the book: half gin and half lime juice over crushed ice, and nothing else. For anyone who hasn't read The Long Good-bye, this might be necessary. But for anyone who has read it (and let's face it, what kind of Raymond Chandler fan are you if you haven't?), it's irritating.
Haven't finished yet (just about), but I'll give it three-and-a-half stars. It'd be higher if it wasn't for all those call-backs to The Long Good-bye.
Likes:
SpideyGirl and Tonyblack
Done with "The Black-eyed Blonde", and my opinion hasn't changed: it's a fairly good Marlowe mystery, but can't compare to Ray Chandler. ;-p
I've just started reading Hercule Poirot's Silent Night, by Sophie Hannah -- an author who was authorised (sorry) by the Christie Estate to write new Poirot novels.
Unfortunately, I can't find much to recommend here. I've gone through the first six chapters, and so far, I am finding this book utterly tedious and baffling. Inspector Catchpool (Hannah's equivalent of Captain Hastings) is a non-entity whose sole duty is to be tortured by his domineering mother -- really, for a Scotland Yard Inspector, he seems positively stupid -- and Poirot does not show either his usual eccentricity or energy.
The pacing is also incredibly slow. One of the characters is about to give Poirot the two 'leads' that he thought of, only to start complaining about how education in this country has gone downhill, and how Inspector Mackle of the local police is following up the wrong suspects, and so on and so forth. It drove me to distraction, and made me want to bang my head on the table and shout "Get on with it!!!" ... and then, just as things started moving, the suspect's wife entered and muttered something about how she's giving up on him and went away, and Poirot abandoned the idea of the "two leads" and went off after her.
If I hadn't paid for this book, I would seriously consider throwing it into the fire. It doesn't seem worth it.
Have you read Sophie Hannah's Poirot books? What did you think?
I've just started reading Hercule Poirot's Silent Night, by Sophie Hannah -- an author who was authorised (sorry) by the Christie Estate to write new Poirot novels.
Unfortunately, I can't find much to recommend here. I've gone through the first six chapters, and so far, I am finding this book utterly tedious and baffling. Inspector Catchpool (Hannah's equivalent of Captain Hastings) is a non-entity whose sole duty is to be tortured by his domineering mother -- really, for a Scotland Yard Inspector, he seems positively stupid -- and Poirot does not show either his usual eccentricity or energy.
The pacing is also incredibly slow. One of the characters is about to give Poirot the two 'leads' that he thought of, only to start complaining about how education in this country has gone downhill, and how Inspector Mackle of the local police is following up the wrong suspects, and so on and so forth. It drove me to distraction, and made me want to bang my head on the table and shout "Get on with it!!!" ... and then, just as things started moving, the suspect's wife entered and muttered something about how she's giving up on him and went away, and Poirot abandoned the idea of the "two leads" and went off after her.
If I hadn't paid for this book, I would seriously consider throwing it into the fire. It doesn't seem worth it.
Have you read Sophie Hannah's Poirot books? What did you think?
So, I've decided to ditch my review blog system, possibly for good, for various reasons. So, I'll be commenting on books here. I'll probably be discussing graphic novels and manga more than full-on books for the most part. Then again, I have one hell of a backlog of those...
My latest book is the second graphic novel adaptation of Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. On the one hand, it's not a bad adaptation, and the character designs in many ways are truer to the books. On the other hand, as with Michael Moreci and Stephen Gilpin's adaptation of the first book, the art style is more childish and scribbly, and they leave out a few key plot points, including one vital one during the rescue of Artemis Fowl Senior.
While the previous adaptations by Andrew Donkin and Giovanni Rigano weren't as accurate to the original novels in terms of character portrayal and other appearances (for example, Holly is portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, rather than with the nut brown skin and red hair from the original book, and the LEPRecon uniforms aren't green), I feel that both the artwork and the layout was far better. It felt more mature, and there were even easter eggs for older readers (there's a sequence that's a homage to Watchmen in their adaptation of The Arctic Incident), not to mention it felt more like a real science fantasy world.
Honestly, I blame Disney. They were the ones who bankrolled the second graphic novel adaptations, apparently, and while I have heard bad things about the film, which makes these adaptations look stellar by comparison, well, they should know when not to diddle with stuff too much. In theory. Then again, this IS the same company that keeps remaking its old animated films as live action, and then acting surprised when most of them turn out sh** or mediocre.
My latest book is the second graphic novel adaptation of Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. On the one hand, it's not a bad adaptation, and the character designs in many ways are truer to the books. On the other hand, as with Michael Moreci and Stephen Gilpin's adaptation of the first book, the art style is more childish and scribbly, and they leave out a few key plot points, including one vital one during the rescue of Artemis Fowl Senior.
While the previous adaptations by Andrew Donkin and Giovanni Rigano weren't as accurate to the original novels in terms of character portrayal and other appearances (for example, Holly is portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, rather than with the nut brown skin and red hair from the original book, and the LEPRecon uniforms aren't green), I feel that both the artwork and the layout was far better. It felt more mature, and there were even easter eggs for older readers (there's a sequence that's a homage to Watchmen in their adaptation of The Arctic Incident), not to mention it felt more like a real science fantasy world.
Honestly, I blame Disney. They were the ones who bankrolled the second graphic novel adaptations, apparently, and while I have heard bad things about the film, which makes these adaptations look stellar by comparison, well, they should know when not to diddle with stuff too much. In theory. Then again, this IS the same company that keeps remaking its old animated films as live action, and then acting surprised when most of them turn out sh** or mediocre.
Likes:
Tonyblack
I thought being shit or mediocre was what Disney was all about? *G*
I'm reading Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower, by Andrew Bayliss. It's good fun, just a bit heavy sometimes. You need to be in the proper mood. It's very readable and entertaining. And, obviously, Sparta wasn't at all about chiselled guys in tiny undies and red cloaks yelling "THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTAAAAAA!!!" =P
So what was it all about? Did they really exercise in the nude? And how can anyone glamorise a bunch of brutal meatheads who went around enslaving half the Greek peninsula? Read this and find out!
I'm reading Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower, by Andrew Bayliss. It's good fun, just a bit heavy sometimes. You need to be in the proper mood. It's very readable and entertaining. And, obviously, Sparta wasn't at all about chiselled guys in tiny undies and red cloaks yelling "THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTAAAAAA!!!" =P
So what was it all about? Did they really exercise in the nude? And how can anyone glamorise a bunch of brutal meatheads who went around enslaving half the Greek peninsula? Read this and find out!
Likes:
=Tamar
Just read Tim Booth's You Went to Emergency for What?, the sequel to You Called an Ambulance for What? In many ways, it's better than its predecessor, in that there's more comedy, but just be warned, there's some serious sh** in it, and if you're squeamish about medical procedures or injuries, this book ain't for you. Of course, there's plenty to laugh at, like the furry getting too much into character in a fox suit and firmly requesting a litter tray for his urine sample, or the chapter about the dementia patient who is into literally running around, painting everything in sight with...well, let's just say he supplies his own paint, to be delicate. The chapter title is called The Da Vinci Code Brown, if you need a bigger hint...
Yeah, I will admit, the Spartans were overglamourised. They had some positives, in that they were progressive (for ancient Greeks) where women's rights were concerned, their pithy comebacks, and their military ability. On the other hand, we have primitive eugenics performed in a callous way, as well as their habit of not only enslaving people, but actually culling the Helot slaves every so often to teach them who was boss. I mean, I enjoyed 300 (both the film and the comic) despite myself, but I'm aware of some of their nastier side...
I'm reading Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower, by Andrew Bayliss. It's good fun, just a bit heavy sometimes. You need to be in the proper mood. It's very readable and entertaining. And, obviously, Sparta wasn't at all about chiselled guys in tiny undies and red cloaks yelling "THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTAAAAAA!!!" =P
So what was it all about? Did they really exercise in the nude? And how can anyone glamorise a bunch of brutal meatheads who went around enslaving half the Greek peninsula? Read this and find out!
So what was it all about? Did they really exercise in the nude? And how can anyone glamorise a bunch of brutal meatheads who went around enslaving half the Greek peninsula? Read this and find out!
Sounds like something I might enjoy, seeing as I've been working in healthcare for nearly 20 years.
Alas, all the libraries in my area don't have it. Ah, well. There's always YouTube.
=P
Fun fact for a Spartanophiles: Adolf Hitler deeply admired ancient Sparta, praising it as history's first and purest racial state. He lauded the Spartans for their strict military discipline, eugenics practices, and the subjugation of a large enslaved population.
Nazi race theorists claimed the Spartans were descendants of Nordic-Aryan conquerors. =P Less ridiculously, Hitler praised Spartan eugenics, specifically their practice of exposing weak infants to protect the strength of the state. He admired how individual citizens completely sacrificed personal life for the military goals of the collective state.
In his unpublished 1928 sequel (Zweites Buch), Hitler noted that a tiny group of Spartans controlled hundreds of thousands of helots purely through racial superiority, viewing this dynamic as a blueprint for empire. (This shows that he was a poor student of history as well as a paranoid megalomaniac, since the Spartan 'empire' never reached beyond the Peloponnese, with the exception of about 10-12 years when they controlled - more or less - most of modern-day Greece).
In an eerie but appropriate parallel, the downfall of the Spartan 'empire' was as swift and total as the Hitlerian empire was. Less happily, Hitler's empire was much more lethal -- and there are, even now, some people (white supremacists, online extremists, and Neo-Nazi groups) who want to resurrect Hitler's Nazi empire and his hateful and harmful ideas.
Happily for the human race (if not so for specific victims of these complete and utter nutbars), these ideas have failed to grow. Thank all the gods and not-gods.
Alas, all the libraries in my area don't have it. Ah, well. There's always YouTube.
=P
Fun fact for a Spartanophiles: Adolf Hitler deeply admired ancient Sparta, praising it as history's first and purest racial state. He lauded the Spartans for their strict military discipline, eugenics practices, and the subjugation of a large enslaved population.
Nazi race theorists claimed the Spartans were descendants of Nordic-Aryan conquerors. =P Less ridiculously, Hitler praised Spartan eugenics, specifically their practice of exposing weak infants to protect the strength of the state. He admired how individual citizens completely sacrificed personal life for the military goals of the collective state.
In his unpublished 1928 sequel (Zweites Buch), Hitler noted that a tiny group of Spartans controlled hundreds of thousands of helots purely through racial superiority, viewing this dynamic as a blueprint for empire. (This shows that he was a poor student of history as well as a paranoid megalomaniac, since the Spartan 'empire' never reached beyond the Peloponnese, with the exception of about 10-12 years when they controlled - more or less - most of modern-day Greece).
In an eerie but appropriate parallel, the downfall of the Spartan 'empire' was as swift and total as the Hitlerian empire was. Less happily, Hitler's empire was much more lethal -- and there are, even now, some people (white supremacists, online extremists, and Neo-Nazi groups) who want to resurrect Hitler's Nazi empire and his hateful and harmful ideas.
Happily for the human race (if not so for specific victims of these complete and utter nutbars), these ideas have failed to grow. Thank all the gods and not-gods.
Try QBD if you can, it's where I got my copy of the second book. And the second one, now that I've skimmed back over the first, is definitely the better of the two. They're both good books with a necessary message about our healthcare system, but the second book has more of a balance of comedy, pathos, tragedy, and commentary on the healthcare system...
Not really that surprising. Also, I assume that book was a sequel to Mein Kampf? Yeesh...
Also, Sparta lasted longer. Centuries at least. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, to say the least.
Fun fact that may have been in your book: You know Ephialtes, the Greek traitor who helped the Persians win at Thermopylae? His name has since become a name for 'nightmare' in Greek...
Fun fact for a Spartanophiles: Adolf Hitler deeply admired ancient Sparta, praising it as history's first and purest racial state. He lauded the Spartans for their strict military discipline, eugenics practices, and the subjugation of a large enslaved population.
Nazi race theorists claimed the Spartans were descendants of Nordic-Aryan conquerors. =P Less ridiculously, Hitler praised Spartan eugenics, specifically their practice of exposing weak infants to protect the strength of the state. He admired how individual citizens completely sacrificed personal life for the military goals of the collective state.
In his unpublished 1928 sequel (Zweites Buch), Hitler noted that a tiny group of Spartans controlled hundreds of thousands of helots purely through racial superiority, viewing this dynamic as a blueprint for empire. (This shows that he was a poor student of history as well as a paranoid megalomaniac, since the Spartan 'empire' never reached beyond the Peloponnese, with the exception of about 10-12 years when they controlled - more or less - most of modern-day Greece).
In an eerie but appropriate parallel, the downfall of the Spartan 'empire' was as swift and total as the Hitlerian empire was. Less happily, Hitler's empire was much more lethal -- and there are, even now, some people (white supremacists, online extremists, and Neo-Nazi groups) who want to resurrect Hitler's Nazi empire and his hateful and harmful ideas.
Happily for the human race (if not so for specific victims of these complete and utter nutbars), these ideas have failed to grow. Thank all the gods and not-gods.
Nazi race theorists claimed the Spartans were descendants of Nordic-Aryan conquerors. =P Less ridiculously, Hitler praised Spartan eugenics, specifically their practice of exposing weak infants to protect the strength of the state. He admired how individual citizens completely sacrificed personal life for the military goals of the collective state.
In his unpublished 1928 sequel (Zweites Buch), Hitler noted that a tiny group of Spartans controlled hundreds of thousands of helots purely through racial superiority, viewing this dynamic as a blueprint for empire. (This shows that he was a poor student of history as well as a paranoid megalomaniac, since the Spartan 'empire' never reached beyond the Peloponnese, with the exception of about 10-12 years when they controlled - more or less - most of modern-day Greece).
In an eerie but appropriate parallel, the downfall of the Spartan 'empire' was as swift and total as the Hitlerian empire was. Less happily, Hitler's empire was much more lethal -- and there are, even now, some people (white supremacists, online extremists, and Neo-Nazi groups) who want to resurrect Hitler's Nazi empire and his hateful and harmful ideas.
Happily for the human race (if not so for specific victims of these complete and utter nutbars), these ideas have failed to grow. Thank all the gods and not-gods.
Also, Sparta lasted longer. Centuries at least. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, to say the least.
Fun fact that may have been in your book: You know Ephialtes, the Greek traitor who helped the Persians win at Thermopylae? His name has since become a name for 'nightmare' in Greek...
Yes, Zweites Buch was an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf. (As if the first one wasn't bad enough - not only full of racist ideas but also turgid, unreadable dross).
It's true that Sparta as a city-state lasted longer (from the 10th century to 146 BC, when it fell under Roman control). But as a Greek hegemon, it lasted only about 30 years - from Lysander's conquest of Athens (404 BC) to their defeat by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC).
These dates are a little misleading, though. Sparta didn't immediately become a superpower after defeating Athens, and its decline began long before the Theban defeat. Sparta was never a big place, population-wise (around 8,000 to 10,000 at their 5th-century BCE peak, but barely 1,000 by the 4th century BCE), so they relied on the non-citizen perioikoi for doing the light infantry (peltast - bowmen, slingers etc.) duty, and on the helots for doing all the dirty work.
The size of Sparta's army increased during the Peloponnesian War, but only because its allies were willing to follow. Once it became obvious that Spartan hegemony meant Spartan tyranny, these allies rebelled. At first, Sparta managed to put down the rebellions, but within 20 years or so, Sparta's shrinking population and incessant wars meant they could no longer field large armies.
So: is it a good thing that the Sparta superpower didn't last longer? Probably not. When Athens briefly ruled Greece, it behaved like an arrogant tyrant. Sparta promised to liberate Greece, but it turned into an equally arrogant tyrant. This continued until Alexander (briefly) united Greece, but after his death, his empire was torn apart by his successors - and they continued to squabble, until the Romans finally brought a kind-of peace to Greece. Was that a good thing? Or is that debatable too?
Yep, the book mentions that too.
It's true that Sparta as a city-state lasted longer (from the 10th century to 146 BC, when it fell under Roman control). But as a Greek hegemon, it lasted only about 30 years - from Lysander's conquest of Athens (404 BC) to their defeat by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC).
These dates are a little misleading, though. Sparta didn't immediately become a superpower after defeating Athens, and its decline began long before the Theban defeat. Sparta was never a big place, population-wise (around 8,000 to 10,000 at their 5th-century BCE peak, but barely 1,000 by the 4th century BCE), so they relied on the non-citizen perioikoi for doing the light infantry (peltast - bowmen, slingers etc.) duty, and on the helots for doing all the dirty work.
The size of Sparta's army increased during the Peloponnesian War, but only because its allies were willing to follow. Once it became obvious that Spartan hegemony meant Spartan tyranny, these allies rebelled. At first, Sparta managed to put down the rebellions, but within 20 years or so, Sparta's shrinking population and incessant wars meant they could no longer field large armies.
So: is it a good thing that the Sparta superpower didn't last longer? Probably not. When Athens briefly ruled Greece, it behaved like an arrogant tyrant. Sparta promised to liberate Greece, but it turned into an equally arrogant tyrant. This continued until Alexander (briefly) united Greece, but after his death, his empire was torn apart by his successors - and they continued to squabble, until the Romans finally brought a kind-of peace to Greece. Was that a good thing? Or is that debatable too?
Yep, the book mentions that too.
Well, if you're interested in another good history book with a dark edge, Daniel P Mannix's Those About to Die (later republished as The Way of the Gladiator) is a great one. True, the writing style is a touch dated, with a few offensive terms used (the book was originally written in 1958, when it was considered PC to use a certain term for Africans or those descended from them), and the acts depicted are often violent, disgusting, or both. And it is somewhat sensationalised. But it's well-researched and a real insight into the world of the various arena spectacles put on by the Romans, and helped inspire not only the Ridley Scott film Gladiator, but also a TV show called Those About to Die.
I managed to get Those About to Die as an ebook through Apple's ebook service, but I was lucky enough to find a secondhand copy of The Way of the Gladiator through World of Books later, and I prefer hard copies where possible. It was also nostalgic, as I used to borrow a copy of The Way of the Gladiator from my local library all the time before it was taken off the shelves, and I couldn't find another one until now...
Oh, and keep in mind, the only differences between these two are the titles and the cover artwork...
I managed to get Those About to Die as an ebook through Apple's ebook service, but I was lucky enough to find a secondhand copy of The Way of the Gladiator through World of Books later, and I prefer hard copies where possible. It was also nostalgic, as I used to borrow a copy of The Way of the Gladiator from my local library all the time before it was taken off the shelves, and I couldn't find another one until now...
Oh, and keep in mind, the only differences between these two are the titles and the cover artwork...