Synopsis: A dying wizard passes on his power to the eight child of an eighth son, unaware that the child is, in fact, a girl. Thus, Esk Smith grows up possessing the power of wizard magic--the first female to do so. It falls to Granny Weatherwax to get her to Ankh-Morpork and the Unseen University where she can learn her magic. The only problem is that Unseen University has a strict "No Women" policy.
The third novel in the Discworld series, this is the fourth book by Terry Pratchett I've read. I'd also have to say it was my least favorite. That isn't to say it isn't a good book. It's just a book that's easy to put down and doesn't nip at you to pick it back up. And hey, this is the book where you first meet Granny Weatherwax. She's such a great character.
While the book was amusing, overall, I think I only laughed out loud once. And looking back now, I can't even remember that joke. In fact, I can't really dredge up much about it for this review. I guess that pretty much defines it as mediocre. It was entertaining enough for me to not feel cheated, but it wasn't really that memorable.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Book Review: Angels and Demons by Dan Brown
Synopsis: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is called in to consult on the (apparently ritualistic) murder of a scientist in Switzerland. He then finds himself thrust into the middle of a scheme to steal a half gram of antimatter, kill members of the Catholic College of Cardinals, and vaporize the Vatican.
What can I say about Dan Brown? I'm floored by his popularity. Even before I learned the craft of writing, I wouldn't have liked anything he writes. Yes, they are all high-tension edge-of-your-seat thrillers, but all of the tension in them relies on tricks such as holding back information, unrealistic conflict-for-the-sake-of-conflict, and characters who must have IQs in the low fifties (side note: average IQ is defined as 100).
The best thing I can say (and I don't mean this as an ad hominum attack, it's simply the only way I can explain what works) is that Dan Brown is a man of average intelligence writing puzzle thrillers involving a genius character. The downside is that you can't write a puzzle above your intelligence level, so in order to make the puzzle work, he has to make all of his characters stupid.
For instance: the Italian scientist raised by a Catholic priest who after a short talk about the Catholic church sees her boss on the phone with someone important. Her boss says, "Go to Rome." When asked who was on the phone, her boss--who is going into acute repiratory failure--chokes out "The Swiss--". And she turns to Langdon and says, "What do the Swiss have to do with Rome?" (In case anyone reading this thinks that's a good question: Welcome. Please stay a while and enjoy the fount of knowledge that is the internet. And the Pope, who lives in Rome, is guarded by an elite group of famous--if only for their uniforms--soldiers called the Swiss Guard.) That question is almost as bad as 90% of the people in the book having never heard of the Illuminati, and Langdon being surprised when anyone but him knows about them.
The entire book is filled with plot holes, awkward characterization (you can guess the entire climax of the book just by reading the couple paragraph sidebars that accompany the introduction of each new character and deliniate their esoteric skill sets), stupid puzzles that aren't puzzles, and bad science. I mean, BAD science. There's a point where they're talking about the murdered scientist and how he created matter from nothing (ex nihilo) in violation of the laws of physics. All he needed was a huge supply of energy. That's not creation ex nihilo. That's creation of matter from a huge supply of energy. It doesn't violate any laws--it just runs E=mc^2 backward. An accomplishment in itself, but nothing revelatory. The science goes down hill from there. I won't go into specific detail, you'll have to read it and be angry yourself. Really, Dan Brown needs to do his research better, or at least bounce ideas off someone who knows anything.
And at the end Langdon just stands around while everything resolves itself. Yes, he set the ending into motion, but he didn't even need to be present for the last eighth of the book.
What can I say about Dan Brown? I'm floored by his popularity. Even before I learned the craft of writing, I wouldn't have liked anything he writes. Yes, they are all high-tension edge-of-your-seat thrillers, but all of the tension in them relies on tricks such as holding back information, unrealistic conflict-for-the-sake-of-conflict, and characters who must have IQs in the low fifties (side note: average IQ is defined as 100).
The best thing I can say (and I don't mean this as an ad hominum attack, it's simply the only way I can explain what works) is that Dan Brown is a man of average intelligence writing puzzle thrillers involving a genius character. The downside is that you can't write a puzzle above your intelligence level, so in order to make the puzzle work, he has to make all of his characters stupid.
For instance: the Italian scientist raised by a Catholic priest who after a short talk about the Catholic church sees her boss on the phone with someone important. Her boss says, "Go to Rome." When asked who was on the phone, her boss--who is going into acute repiratory failure--chokes out "The Swiss--". And she turns to Langdon and says, "What do the Swiss have to do with Rome?" (In case anyone reading this thinks that's a good question: Welcome. Please stay a while and enjoy the fount of knowledge that is the internet. And the Pope, who lives in Rome, is guarded by an elite group of famous--if only for their uniforms--soldiers called the Swiss Guard.) That question is almost as bad as 90% of the people in the book having never heard of the Illuminati, and Langdon being surprised when anyone but him knows about them.
The entire book is filled with plot holes, awkward characterization (you can guess the entire climax of the book just by reading the couple paragraph sidebars that accompany the introduction of each new character and deliniate their esoteric skill sets), stupid puzzles that aren't puzzles, and bad science. I mean, BAD science. There's a point where they're talking about the murdered scientist and how he created matter from nothing (ex nihilo) in violation of the laws of physics. All he needed was a huge supply of energy. That's not creation ex nihilo. That's creation of matter from a huge supply of energy. It doesn't violate any laws--it just runs E=mc^2 backward. An accomplishment in itself, but nothing revelatory. The science goes down hill from there. I won't go into specific detail, you'll have to read it and be angry yourself. Really, Dan Brown needs to do his research better, or at least bounce ideas off someone who knows anything.
And at the end Langdon just stands around while everything resolves itself. Yes, he set the ending into motion, but he didn't even need to be present for the last eighth of the book.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Book Review: Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
I've been meaning to read Fahrenheit 451 for years, and I finally got around to it this past week. For anyone who doesn't know, the basic plot is Guy Montag, a fireman whose job it is to burn books in his dystopian society. Then he learns that books can contain good things and has to survive his change of mind.
The book is Ray Bradbury's railing against the changing world, and it's loss of the innocence of simple life. In that sense, it is somewhat pedantic.
What struck me most about the book was that it is not, in fact, about censorship. In a small way it is, but the true problem in the world is the lack of interpersonal relationships among the people. The people struck out to prevent anyone from feeling uncomfortable or stupid, and so they outlawed intellectualism. The government didn't foist censorship upon the people. The people asked for censorship because they weren't using their brains and didn't want to feel bad about it.
I can't help but draw connection to our own world. We reward stupidity in our society. Just watch TV for a while or read the news of recent civil lawsuits, and that should be clear enough. And the story has been about for weeks about how no one reads anymore (actually, the majority of people did read 2 or more books last year, but never let statistics get in the way of a good rant).
The point is we get the society we deserve, and unless we work against it, our society will decline like all others in history have. Only we'll have better weapons and technology to make the fall more interesting.
The book is Ray Bradbury's railing against the changing world, and it's loss of the innocence of simple life. In that sense, it is somewhat pedantic.
What struck me most about the book was that it is not, in fact, about censorship. In a small way it is, but the true problem in the world is the lack of interpersonal relationships among the people. The people struck out to prevent anyone from feeling uncomfortable or stupid, and so they outlawed intellectualism. The government didn't foist censorship upon the people. The people asked for censorship because they weren't using their brains and didn't want to feel bad about it.
I can't help but draw connection to our own world. We reward stupidity in our society. Just watch TV for a while or read the news of recent civil lawsuits, and that should be clear enough. And the story has been about for weeks about how no one reads anymore (actually, the majority of people did read 2 or more books last year, but never let statistics get in the way of a good rant).
The point is we get the society we deserve, and unless we work against it, our society will decline like all others in history have. Only we'll have better weapons and technology to make the fall more interesting.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Book Review: The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon
This book straddles three genres: Literary, crime/detective, and alternate-history science fiction. Overtly a hard-nosed detective story, it is set in Sitka, Alaska where, in Chabon's alternate history, the US set up a temporary settlement for European Jews during the early days of World War II. Meyer Landsman, a detective for the Sitka Central police, becomes involved in a case of a gunshot corpse found in the hotel where Landsman, himself, also lives. The case leads to a conspiracy involving covert US government agents and a zealously orthodox sect controlling all of Sitka's organized crime. And the conspiracy has tendrils that reach out to the entire world.
With engaging prose and vibrant characters, the story maintains interest throughout even when the plot seems to spin somewhat out of Chabon's control. Most of the conspiracy happens off screen (actually a decent way to handle a conspiracy plot, which is becoming increasingly hackneyed--I mean, really, can't we have a story with an act two twist that doesn't involve a vast international conspiracy?), and the original crime is solved almost as an afterthought. But, hey, Landsman protagged throughout, and didn't just sit around during the climax.
The main theme of the book is redemption. And it tells its story well. It's a book about coming to terms with oneself, one's society, and the world. In a way it's almost apocalyptic (the Sitka settlement is in the process of being disbanded), and it speaks to the human need to find something to hold on to, something to save, when the world is dissolving around you. This book has stuck with me more than any other book I've read recently (with the possible exception of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men).
Chabon's world is well-drawn. I found myself, at random times, thinking about events of Chabon's history and their implications as if they actually happened. Someday, I hope to be half, even one tenth, the writer Chabon is.
With engaging prose and vibrant characters, the story maintains interest throughout even when the plot seems to spin somewhat out of Chabon's control. Most of the conspiracy happens off screen (actually a decent way to handle a conspiracy plot, which is becoming increasingly hackneyed--I mean, really, can't we have a story with an act two twist that doesn't involve a vast international conspiracy?), and the original crime is solved almost as an afterthought. But, hey, Landsman protagged throughout, and didn't just sit around during the climax.
The main theme of the book is redemption. And it tells its story well. It's a book about coming to terms with oneself, one's society, and the world. In a way it's almost apocalyptic (the Sitka settlement is in the process of being disbanded), and it speaks to the human need to find something to hold on to, something to save, when the world is dissolving around you. This book has stuck with me more than any other book I've read recently (with the possible exception of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men).
Chabon's world is well-drawn. I found myself, at random times, thinking about events of Chabon's history and their implications as if they actually happened. Someday, I hope to be half, even one tenth, the writer Chabon is.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Book Review: The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman
I came into this book not knowing much about it aside from the hoop-di-doo that surrounded the release of its movie. And so I ran out to get the book so I could judge it for myself.
First a plot review though: Lyra is an obnoxious little girl living on the campus of Jordan College in Oxford. She spends her times playing with her demon Pan and throwing rocks at other children. That and desecrating the tombs beneath the college. When children start disappearing, the people begin passing tales of the gobblers, who steal children for nefarious reasons.
Lyra's best friend is kidnapped and she leaves in the company of Mrs. Coulter. When she leaves the master of the college gives her an alethiometer, a magical device that tells you the correct answer to any question you ask it. She soon realizes that Mrs. Coulter is the head of the gobblers and runs away. She soon finds herself in the middle of the artic taking part in war between armored polar bears and finding out what the gobblers' plan really is.
Upon reading this, I have to say I wasn't very impressed. Neither the world nor the characters really seems to have a past stretching back before page 1. And Lyra travels through the story barely acting, but mostly being acted upon. Things happen to her, she gets upset, and then the things resolve. None of that really lends itself any feeling of tension.
A quick primer in plot... A story starts with the reader completely disoriented and so the first order is to introduce characters, world, and conflict. Hopefully, the author does that in an engaging method that makes you loath to put down the book. Then, the hero's plans to resolve the conflict repeated fail, constantly raising the stakes and tension. Finally, you reach the climax where hero and villain duke it out and only one can emerge victorious. After that comes the denouement where tension drains away and you put down the book feeling like you've actually been through something. Literature classes use a diagram like this to show how such a plot progesses:
The Golden Compass doesn't have a plot diagram like this. It doesn't have rising action, climax, and falling action. Instead, it has a diagram like this (my best estimation):
Yes, there is, in fact, a point in the middle where the tension is lower than it is at the beginning. Really, the entire book felt like it was only Act 1 of a bigger story. Yes, I'm aware it's the first book in a trilogy, but even in trilogies, each book should be able to stand alone as a book in and of itself.
Now, let's talk about the ending. I hate endings where there is absolutely no victory for the protagonist (not to say I don't do sad endings. They can be cool, but even then it's nice to have at least some feeling of victory at the end). I also hate endings where the hero does nothing but watch the climax. This does both. Yes, Lyra watches the entire climax without really acting as she loses.
As for the anti-religious aspects that were big in the news. There's not that much until you get to the very end. Then it gets really preachy about how organized religion (its world's Catholic Church) is evil. And wow does he lay it on. I seriously can't see how anyone could take it seriously. The Magisterium is such a straw man for Pullman to beat on, it's really ridiculous.
My other major issue was that the only way I had any tension was by assuming the heroes were all stupid. The alethiometer can tell you anything, and yet the heroes are constantly caught by surprise because they only use it when the plot needs them to go in some new direction. They spend the rest of the time wondering what will happen next, but never consult it. If people actually used it properly, they'd conquer the entire universe without any real opposition.
That said, I want a demon.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Book Review: The Light Fantastic by Terry Pratchett
When a new star appears in the Discworld heavens and quickly grows to dwarf the sun, that, needless to say, causes some concern. Civilization begins to collapse as people fall into basically two camps: those who go nuts and want to kill anything that might be magic to appease the star, and those who just want to get a good view of the end of the world.
The wizards know the only way to save the world is to read the Creator's eight spells. Unfortunately, one of those spells resides in Rincewind's brain. So the manhunt is on.
The second book in the Discworld series, and the second to follow Rincewind the (failed) wizard, the Light Fantastic is a better and more funny book than its predecessor. I think the major difference was in the fact that this one had a true plot (with rising action, climax, denouement, and all).
Included in the story are Cohen the Barbarian, the 87-year-old former greatest hero in the world. Twoflower the tourist and his Luggage are also around. Overall, a delightful read.
The wizards know the only way to save the world is to read the Creator's eight spells. Unfortunately, one of those spells resides in Rincewind's brain. So the manhunt is on.
The second book in the Discworld series, and the second to follow Rincewind the (failed) wizard, the Light Fantastic is a better and more funny book than its predecessor. I think the major difference was in the fact that this one had a true plot (with rising action, climax, denouement, and all).
Included in the story are Cohen the Barbarian, the 87-year-old former greatest hero in the world. Twoflower the tourist and his Luggage are also around. Overall, a delightful read.
Book Review: False Memory by Dean Koontz
A man and his wife find themselves in the middle of a web of brain-washing, mind control, and repressed memory. The first half of this book is Koontz at his best. The suspense builds until you see no way the heroes can escape and you wonder who will be the twisted villain's next victim. But then things change.
By the midpoint of the book, the primary leverage the villain has on the heroes is loosened, and what remains is only social discomfort related to defeating him. Still, there is risk based on the continued threat he poses to others and that carried me through until the ending. There is a rule in fiction (I believe it was Ursula Le Guin who coined it, but don't quote me): "The protagonist must protag." The villain is defeated with the heroes not even in the same room with him.
The main conflict remaining at that point was how to stop him without ending up in prison, and then someone else does it for him. A tidy way to resolve that conflict, but I felt cheated.
On a related note: Have you ever noticed that every psychiatrist who ever shows up in a Koontz novel (even in narrated backstory) is evil? At some point in the future, I have to put together my top ten Koontz motifs.
By the midpoint of the book, the primary leverage the villain has on the heroes is loosened, and what remains is only social discomfort related to defeating him. Still, there is risk based on the continued threat he poses to others and that carried me through until the ending. There is a rule in fiction (I believe it was Ursula Le Guin who coined it, but don't quote me): "The protagonist must protag." The villain is defeated with the heroes not even in the same room with him.
The main conflict remaining at that point was how to stop him without ending up in prison, and then someone else does it for him. A tidy way to resolve that conflict, but I felt cheated.
On a related note: Have you ever noticed that every psychiatrist who ever shows up in a Koontz novel (even in narrated backstory) is evil? At some point in the future, I have to put together my top ten Koontz motifs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
