Archive for the ‘Book reviews’ Category
Just reviewed Ryk Spoor’s “Grand Central Arena” for SBR
Folks, here’s the link:
Now, for a bit about GRAND CENTRAL ARENA — it’s a fun book that hearkens back to the early days of space opera. Good science, as far as I can tell — serviceable, at any rate. Excellent characterization. Enjoyable plot.
In other words, “Good guys, bad guys, and aliens, oh my!” So what’s not to like?
Go read my review, then go grab the book.
Just reviewed George R.R. Martin’s “Game of Thrones” for SBR
Folks, reviewing a book that’s over 800 pages long is daunting, but I managed it tonight with my review of George R.R. Martin’s A GAME OF THRONES, which is here:
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/george-r-r-martins-a-game-of-thrones-a-winning-hand/
Note my title. I can’t resist puns, and as Ned Stark is the Hand of the King — and I feel his character is a winner regardless of how his own personal circumstances play out — well . . . you see the result.
If you’ve somehow missed this book in the past and you love epic fantasy or even if you don’t but love stories that are based on medieval feudalism and nation-states, you’ll enjoy A GAME OF THRONES. So go read my review, then hasten to the bookstore or online emporium and grab this book forthwith. (It’s just that good.)
******* UPON FURTHER REVIEW **************
I figured I’d add a few more notes here that I unfortunately had to leave out of my giant-sized review. First, I know full well that the world the cycle of A Song of Ice and Fire resides on has really long summers (several years in duration) and extremely long winters (decades-long, at worst), but wasn’t able to say so. Please know that I do understand this.
Second, some of the characters in any of Martin’s novels are designed to make you hate them. It’s to his credit that these characters are so vile that you actively root for them to get killed off (Viserys is one of those, and there’s more to come in the upcoming novels).
Third and last — Tyrion is by far my most favorite character in the entire cycle, and the guy playing him in the HBO series, Peter Dinklage, got a deserved Emmy nomination.
Just Reviewed Susan Donovan’s romance “Not that Kind of Girl” at SBR
Folks, here’s the link to my new review:
As always, I had more thoughts than I could cram into any one review — some being irrelevant from a reviewing standpoint — so I’m going to elaborate on them here.
I really liked Susan Donovan’s writing style; it’s perky, blunt, and gets the job done without interfering with the narrative, which is a lot harder to do than it sounds. I also liked her take on the whole soulmate concept, with a matchmaker with a gift (that may be Divinely inspired) to bring two people together who normally wouldn’t give each other a second glance; this being the third in a series and me not having read the other two didn’t stop me from understanding what was going on at all.
All that being said, the way the two at the heart of this story, Roxie and Eli, make love just made me feel sad. Or want to throw things. (Or maybe both.) Because here you have two people who fall in love quickly and are right for one another, but the guy has to always prove he’s dominant at all times, never letting his guard down at all, never being playful, never enjoying the moment for what it is. And that does not ring true to me. Not at all.
Look. I’ve made no secret of it that I found my soulmate in my late husband Michael. The two of us, on the surface, would’ve been much like Roxie and Eli in that Roxie’s passions are all on the surface (me) and Eli’s calm, cool, collected and seems to hold all of himself in reserve unless it’s needed (Michael). Granted, this is at best a rough approximation — I’m leaving out Michael’s delightfully rude sense of humor here, or the fact that I’ve taught a lot of young kids music lessons so if I hadn’t learned a bit of patience now and again I’d have done them no good whatsoever — but I can see enough parallels here to want to discuss why the way these two in NOT THAT KIND OF GIRL don’t behave right in bed.
Simply put, I don’t think a guy who’s always that calm and controlled externally is going to be that way in bed. So I don’t see why someone would insist on behaving the “alpha male” at all times — there’s no need for that between two lovers who wear no masks and understand each other intimately in all senses — nor do I see how a love affair can proceed without some humor in the bedroom, especially as there’s plenty of humorous moments going on outside of it to make me believe the couple at hand does understand when something is funny. (And trust me; down deep, where it matters, the way we make love as human beings has to be about the most inefficient process there is. We may as well make fun of it, and ourselves, as we abandon ourselves to it. Otherwise, why bother with it at all?)
So Ms. Donovan did her job — the couple is realistic enough that I wanted to scream at Eli to knock it the Hell off, thank you — but the way that all happened just did not sit well. I realize some people have relationships like this — psychosexual behavior being what it is, some people must need that, right? — but Eli the dog whisperer had none of the other markers for this personality type. And Roxie — well, I can see why she’d want to get “permission” to be abandoned in bed (this is fairly common), but why would she put up with a guy who’s so damned humorless in the bedroom when she obviously has enough smarts to make a living at her man-hating Web site “I-Vomit-On-All-Men?”
So there you have it; a pleasant, funny beach read that has this one sour note in it. As a musician, I guess I can’t help it that this one sour note keeps drowning out the rest of the harmony and the melody, and as a writer/editor, I wonder why it is that someone didn’t ask Ms. Donovan to please put something in there that showed that to Eli, this was all a game, not to be taken seriously, rather than the dead serious “I am Mr. Macho Man at all times” Caveman nonsense.
Just Reviewed Mario Livio’s “Is God a Mathematician?” for SBR
Folks, my headline for my review at Shiny Book Review tonight is simple:
That refers to Livio’s main argument, which is about whether or not math was designed by humans in order to reflect what humans see — a modern thought, that — or the view of the “Platonists” (mathematicians since Plato who agree with Plato’s point of view) that math was always present in the universe, but human beings may not have had the skill-set in order to be able to understand what they saw around them. This “nature or nurture” type of argument is intriguing enough by itself, but in order to make it, Livio also had to sketch out a history of math and mathematicians or it wouldn’t have made any sense to a non-mathematician like myself.
That Livio did a phenomenal job in explaining what this philosophical argument is all about is intriguing enough, but the historical overview adds depth and breadth to it all, making the point that philosophy doesn’t have to be “dry as dust” stuff as it refers to things we all take for granted every day. In that sense, Livio’s book reminds me of THE TAO OF PHYSICS in that there’s a great deal more to life than what’s been observed and measured up to now — but isn’t it interesting what’s around us that we can observe and measure?
Anyway, go read my review, then grab this book! It’s something that will help you whether or not you’re a SF&F author; it’s something that will interest you if you’ve ever given thought as to how these mathematicians have managed to improve the world (and what we know of it) through the millenia of recorded history.
Tonight’s SBR book review — for Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”
Folks, I read about “Outliers” in, of all places, a baseball blog. José Bautista of the Toronto Blue Jays developed into a home run hitter late, and credited reading “Outliers” as being helpful to him, so of course I had to give it a try also.
Here’s the link to my review:
I’ll have more to say about “Outliers” tomorrow, but for now, just know that this is a book you definitely should go out of your way to read.
Just reviewed Tim Harford’s “Adapt” for SBR
Folks, I just wrote a review for economist Tim Harford’s ADAPT: WHY SUCCESS ALWAYS STARTS WITH FAILURE for Shiny Book Review. Here’s the link:
Now, as to why you should drop everything and read this book? It’s a witty, interesting look at how big companies and organizations, like the United States Army, Whole Foods Market, and TransOcean either succeed, or fail, depending on how well they adapt to changing circumstances. In addition, Harford points out that there’s great value in iconoclasm (he spends time discussing mouse geneticist Mario Capecchi, who’s “adapted” over time by refusing to adapt — an unusual strategy, but the right one for him), and an even greater value in speaking your mind because the right commander (like David Petreus or HR McMaster) or captain of industry (think Whole Foods here) does not want “yes-men” and indeed, cannot use them — instead, they want a clear-eyed sturdy rationalist to check them on occasion and help refine their thinking most of the rest of the time. (I’d venture a guess that scientist Capecchi is likely to value clear-headed rational thinking, for that matter; indeed, in his line of work, a “yes-man” would be entirely useless.)
So, please, do go read ADAPT. Then keep it on your shelf for ease of consultation, while appreciating it more over time for its witty language and wry irony.
Just reviewed Marvelle’s frustrating “The Perfect Scandal” for SBR
Folks, I’ve rarely read a more uneven book than THE PERFECT SCANDAL by Delilah Marvelle; Marvelle’s a pro, someone with many books to her credit (over ten, assuredly), and this romance has some strengths to it. But it’s marred by a huge weakness, which you’ll see once you wander on over and read my review, which is located at:
Have at!
Just reviewed “Unnatural Issue” for SBR — and a few thoughts
Folks, I just reviewed Mercedes Lackey’s “Unnatural Issue” for Shiny Book Review and I hope you’ll enjoy it. Before I forget, let me give you the link to this review:
Now, as for everything else . . . it’s June 24, 2011. That means it’s been nine years since my husband Michael and I married, which is a wonderful thing — but it’s been seven years that I’ve now observed my wedding anniversary alone due to his untimely passing, which is awful. The dual nature of this day makes it a difficult one to get through, yet somehow I’ve made it to this point and I’m glad.
Remembering my husband Michael, his bright mind, his kind heart, his lively wit, his incredibly sensitive and spiritual soul, is a joy no matter what day it is. I’ve never met anyone else like Michael, not in all my life, and I doubt I ever will again. Truly, Michael was a Renaissance Man in every single possible respect and I’m grateful we were able to meet and then, later, to marry. Because being with him for even a short time was worth it.
All that said, reading “Unnatural Issue” was difficult because it was about a widower who takes his grief way too far. Because he has magical talent, he’s able to raise the dead if he wants and since he misses his wife so much, he’s resolved to do just that — more than that, he’s willing to end his daughter’s life in order to do this, because his daughter means nothing (his wife died giving birth to her) and his wife meant everything.
Mercedes Lackey is a pro, and she knew what she was doing in setting up the story this way. She wanted to show that grief can sometimes be a horrible thing. Richard Whitestone (the father in this tale) has forgotten his wife’s bright spirit and only wants her back because he sees her as a possession, or maybe a bit more accurately, a part of himself that’s missing. And while that’s true that in marriage “two become one,” it’s wrong to bring back someone who has died, especially in the way Richard Whitestone tries to do it.
I believe, very strongly, that Michael’s spirit is alive. And I am glad of that, because I would not be able to handle believing that everything he ever was has gone out of this universe — it would be anathema to me that any Deity figure I would care to follow would do this, and even if we don’t have a Deity to have to deal with, I refuse to believe that someone as extraordinarily good and special as Michael could arise due to a cosmic accident.
I see love as something that is eternal. And I look forward, someday, to rejoining him in eternity. But I cannot and will not hasten that day, as I know Michael will always be there and I’m certain would want me to get whatever good I can out of this life. And there’s still our stories to write and edit and do my best to publish, and editing to do for other people . . . and to play on occasion when my hands will let me.
Anyway, I will continue to do my best to see Michael for what he was and what I believe he still is — a force for good, whether in this world or the next. And a profoundly creative and spiritual individual, besides, someone I was proud to call “husband.”
Writing and Editing — some Helpful Books
Folks, over time I’ve probably read just about every book on writing and editing there has ever been — or at least it seems that way.
Now, you might be asking yourself why I’ve done this. Simple. I enjoy picking the brains of other writers and editors, and the easiest way to do this is by reading about their particular processes as written down in various books. Some are dry as dust, yes — but the best ones make you laugh, and think, and you’ll come back again and again to ’em in order to find some pearl of wisdom that you’d perhaps overlooked before.
The first, and best, of the three books I recommend is Carolyn See’s MAKING A LITERARY LIFE. Ms. See has fun with her subject; she uses witty commentary and true-to-life examples, but what I’ve gotten out of her book most is the value of being polite. (This is something my late husband Michael would’ve appreciated, I think. He felt people often were impolite for no reason whatsoever and had no patience with it. I have to agree that most of the time, I share his oft-expressed viewpoint.) Because being polite is the way to build literary friendships — expressing your appreciation now and again doesn’t hurt, either. (Ms. See believes you should write what she calls “charming notes” to other writers and editors because life is too short not to express praise when warranted. Though she also believes you should write these notes when you’ve received rejection letters, as a way to turn a negative into a positive — those types of notes are, “I’ve received your rejection and I will be sending you back something else in X time,” which also is a way to keep yourself on track and focused on the long-term goal.)
The second book is Anne Lamont’s BIRD BY BIRD. The title comes from something Ms. Lamont’s father once told her brother after he’d procrastinated about an assignment (this one on birds); it’s a way of saying, “Take things one at a time,” no matter how many things there might be in an assignment (or in this case, a book). Ms. Lamont’s wisdom, similar to Ms. See’s, has a great deal to do with real-life examples. Ms. Lamont admits her first drafts are very far short of perfection (she calls them a synonym for “crappy” that I won’t use here at my family-friendly site) and says the only thing good about them is that you’ve gotten something on the page — anything at all — and that a first draft is not supposed to be perfect so we writers shouldn’t beat ourselves up about that.
This is a very interesting attitude, because we all seem to have the tendency to say, “Oh, no! This is terrible! Why do I write, anyway, if all I can do is this trash?” But as Ms. Lamont says (and Ms. See does, too), the purpose of the first draft isn’t to be perfect — it’s to get it out there, so you can start working on what it will eventually be — good prose, a compelling story, you name it — and get on with the job.
Finally, there’s Sol Stein’s STEIN ON WRITING, which actually is more helpful as an editing primer because Stein explains what he does when he edits. The reason he does this is to help writers catch their own mistakes before they ever get to the editor, but I know that it’s very difficult if I’m in “editing mode” to shift out of that and just write because they’re markedly different things (writing a first draft is messy, as both Ms. Lamont and Ms. See pointed out). And if I think too much about editing while I’m writing, I don’t get much done because I think it’s “all crap, so why bother?” and that’s not good. (Instead, it’s counterproductive to say the least.)
So, read these three books, and see what you can get out of them — and don’t say I’ve never done anything for you.
Just reviewed Pam Uphoff’s “Lawyers of Mars” for SBR
Folks, you really should take a look at Pam Uphoff’s new novella LAWYERS OF MARS, which is available at Naked Reader Press, if you enjoy original, quirky stuff. Better yet, if you enjoy original, quirky satire/action-adventure, you will love Uphoff’s new novella just as much as I do.
Check out my review at:
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/pam-uphoffs-lawyers-of-mars-fun-fast-satire/
Mind, I keep wanting to call it “Lawyers from Mars,” which is flat wrong, but that isn’t Pam Uphoff’s fault in the slightest. (It’s funny how the mind wants to keep calling something the wrong thing, though.)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 