Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Neil Patrick Harris is delightfully devious. (1 more)
MacFarlane shows he has potential in his on-screen acting debut.
The humor is at times very vulgar and immature. (2 more)
The film is slow-paced and overly long.
"A Dozen Ways to Die in the West" would have been a more appropriate title.
A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs but it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. Still, if you're a fan of MacFarlane's other works, you'll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West.
Following the success of his directorial debut, Ted, Seth MacFarlane steps in front of the movie camera for the first time in his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West. MacFarlane is best known as the creator of the popular animated television series, Family Guy, and he was also the host of the Oscars just two years ago. Now he’s taking the starring role in a film he wrote and directed himself. Here MacFarlane plays a cowardly sheep farmer named Albert who is miserably living in the dangerous Old West. Or rather, the not-so-dangerous Old West. Despite what the title suggests, there’s not a whole lot of dying going on in A Million Ways to Die in the West. You won’t find a whole lot of substance either, but there are a fair amount of laughs if you’re able to tolerate the crude toilet humor and dirty jokes. All in all, MacFarlane does a decent job in this comedy, but his jokes stick too close to his own conventions, and much like life on the frontier, the film can be kind of a drag.
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated On the Rocks in Tabletop Games
Sep 7, 2021
I have to come clean right at the top of this one. I have not really tried a whole lot of different cocktails in my life. I have been mostly a beer kind of guy. Not that I am opposed to cocktails at all – in fact, I have really enjoyed most of the drinks I have tried. That said, I wish I was more hip so I would know all the drink lingo and really know why someone would want their concoction shaken and not stirred. So, I went into this one thinking I would learn the secret finally. But I didn’t. I did have a good time playing it though.
“On the Rocks is a marble drafting, cocktail recipe fulfillment game for 1-4 players. It is NOT a drinking game.” – straight from the game’s BGG page. So what does that mean? Well, this one is a variation of the “I cut, you choose” style game, but HEAVILY themed around bartending and enhanced with additional fun mechanics. The winner is the player who amasses the most amount of money by the end of their shift.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, consult the rulebook, as there are many steps. However, once setup, the game should look similar to the photo below. Choose the starting player and the mixology competition can begin!
On the Rocks is played over several rounds with each player completing specific steps. The first step is optional, and is Tip Cards. Players will accumulate Tip Cards throughout the game, and each one features a special ability that may be used at this time. The next step may also be optional, depending on if the active player had received a Complaint card previously. Complaints must be completed on this step and is pretty much a wrench thrown in the plans by competitors.
Once these (possibly) optional steps have been completed the active player then takes the 2d6 and Rolls them. This number determines how many ingredient marbles are to be pulled from the bag and added into play. For the cost of one ingredient marble, the active player may manipulate the rolled dice by flipping it to its opposite face. Next, the player will Draft the number of marbles from the bag they rolled in the previous step. From these drafted marbles the player will Mix them into the blue Jigger Bowls in the middle of the table one at a time, a la Mancala (oh that’s fun to say: A LA MANCALA!). Then the player will Select & Place a jigger of marbles from the table onto their player board. Placing the corresponding marbles onto the drinks is how recipes can be completed. If any ingredients were selected from the jigger but not placed, the player must then place the ingredients into the Extra Ingredients shot glasses on the top portion of the player board, to Save for later use.
When the ingredient marbles have been placed and saved, the player must then complete the Resolve step. Several ingredient marbles are “Premium” or “Spill” marbles. Premium marbles (golden) allow the player to select ANY two ingredients from the draw bag and the Premium marble is then discarded to the coaster in the middle of the table. The black Spill marble forces the active player to draw a Spill card from the deck and complete its action. It also during the Resolve step that the player may complete a recipe card by discarding the drink’s ingredients to the bag and flipping its recipe card face-down. If the entire order (all of the face-up recipe cards) is completed, the active player’s round ends and they notate this by placing one of the three lemon tokens on their player board. Some round end cleanup is performed, like drawing another set of 3 or 4 drink recipes for an order, and the player’s turn is over.
Once a player has completed their third order of drinks, they must indicate “Last Call” to the other players at the table. This informs the other players that they have one last turn to earn any extra money before the game ends. When the game has been finished, final scoring is performed and the winner is they who earned the most money throughout the night. The other players must immediately fix the winner a drink, or buy the winner a shot. Okay, those aren’t in the rulebook, but merely suggestions for the revised second edition…
Components. For those that follow our reviews, you know I am a sucker for games with great components, and this one definitely delivers for me. The aesthetics and art style are just perfect, the double-layer boards are always lovely, and the rubber jiggers are excellent. I cannot see anything that can be improved in terms of components, and I completely expected that because this was published by Pentree Games and 25th Century Games (one of my favorite publishers in the business). The game looks and feels deluxe, which is VERY satisfying.
I think that the Pittre duo of Michael and Christina really knocked it out of the park with this one. Wait, this is their first game design?? And it’s incredible? Okay okay, I’ll be keeping my eye on you two. On the Rocks is a light game with excellent table presence and some difficult choices presented. Now, the choices may be TOOOOOO difficult for some gamers, especially our AP-prone players. Carefully planning out each ingredient’s distribution into the jigger bowls can send them into a frenzy, so I have advised to choose one or two bowls they wish to buff and concentrate on hitting those with the marbles they want, and just randomly place the other ingredients. I know that is a big ask, but this game is supposed to take 45-90 minutes, not 45-90 hours. My other gripe about the game is the color-dependence of the ingredient marbles. I am sorry to all my colorblind friends out there, but I am unable to see how you might keep a possible 12 different marbles straight in your heads while simultaneously remembering the state of marbles in each jigger bowl. I hope I am completely wrong, as I do not suffer from colorblindness, and please do let me know if this is still playable for those gamers.
These gripes aside, everything else about the game is fabulous. I love being able to manipulate my dice rolls (yes, with a cost) to have ultimate control of the number of marbles pulled from the bag. That bag, however, takes control away immediately unless I draft a bunch of clear (wild) or golden marbles to affect my final placements. I also adore struggling to choose which recipes to concentrate on first, and weighing the possibilities of completing the higher value recipes, or blitzing the smaller ones first.
Oh, and the Spills cards? They can be real pains in the booty. These effectively give the active player the ability to completely botch another players’ plans by discarding their ingredient marbles from their player board. Not enough player interaction? How about negative Tip cards, which are earned by completing a recipe, that impede a competitor’s progress by making them complete the Tip card before being able to move on with their plans, or by limiting their marble selection to two instead of the entire bowl? Yeah, this has player interaction for sure.
Again, I like a good drink now and then, just as much as the next person. However, I have never been a bartender, and I do not plan on ever becoming one. I could not ever imagine having to compete with other bartenders for tip money either, especially if it is as brutally cutthroat as On the Rocks portrays it to be. I will, however, play a game where all that “fun” is diluted to dice, cards, and marbles. I was looking through my collection recently and noticed have embarrassingly few games with an adult beverage theme. If you are like me and require more games depicting fun with alcohol, then I strongly urge you to check out On the Rocks. I feel like I can finally graduate from Fuzzy Navels and Stone Sours just by playing this game and really upping my liquor acumen. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. It seems readily available for consumption, but please do not try to go drink for drink with this game. It’s not designed to be a drinking game… or is it?
“On the Rocks is a marble drafting, cocktail recipe fulfillment game for 1-4 players. It is NOT a drinking game.” – straight from the game’s BGG page. So what does that mean? Well, this one is a variation of the “I cut, you choose” style game, but HEAVILY themed around bartending and enhanced with additional fun mechanics. The winner is the player who amasses the most amount of money by the end of their shift.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, consult the rulebook, as there are many steps. However, once setup, the game should look similar to the photo below. Choose the starting player and the mixology competition can begin!
On the Rocks is played over several rounds with each player completing specific steps. The first step is optional, and is Tip Cards. Players will accumulate Tip Cards throughout the game, and each one features a special ability that may be used at this time. The next step may also be optional, depending on if the active player had received a Complaint card previously. Complaints must be completed on this step and is pretty much a wrench thrown in the plans by competitors.
Once these (possibly) optional steps have been completed the active player then takes the 2d6 and Rolls them. This number determines how many ingredient marbles are to be pulled from the bag and added into play. For the cost of one ingredient marble, the active player may manipulate the rolled dice by flipping it to its opposite face. Next, the player will Draft the number of marbles from the bag they rolled in the previous step. From these drafted marbles the player will Mix them into the blue Jigger Bowls in the middle of the table one at a time, a la Mancala (oh that’s fun to say: A LA MANCALA!). Then the player will Select & Place a jigger of marbles from the table onto their player board. Placing the corresponding marbles onto the drinks is how recipes can be completed. If any ingredients were selected from the jigger but not placed, the player must then place the ingredients into the Extra Ingredients shot glasses on the top portion of the player board, to Save for later use.
When the ingredient marbles have been placed and saved, the player must then complete the Resolve step. Several ingredient marbles are “Premium” or “Spill” marbles. Premium marbles (golden) allow the player to select ANY two ingredients from the draw bag and the Premium marble is then discarded to the coaster in the middle of the table. The black Spill marble forces the active player to draw a Spill card from the deck and complete its action. It also during the Resolve step that the player may complete a recipe card by discarding the drink’s ingredients to the bag and flipping its recipe card face-down. If the entire order (all of the face-up recipe cards) is completed, the active player’s round ends and they notate this by placing one of the three lemon tokens on their player board. Some round end cleanup is performed, like drawing another set of 3 or 4 drink recipes for an order, and the player’s turn is over.
Once a player has completed their third order of drinks, they must indicate “Last Call” to the other players at the table. This informs the other players that they have one last turn to earn any extra money before the game ends. When the game has been finished, final scoring is performed and the winner is they who earned the most money throughout the night. The other players must immediately fix the winner a drink, or buy the winner a shot. Okay, those aren’t in the rulebook, but merely suggestions for the revised second edition…
Components. For those that follow our reviews, you know I am a sucker for games with great components, and this one definitely delivers for me. The aesthetics and art style are just perfect, the double-layer boards are always lovely, and the rubber jiggers are excellent. I cannot see anything that can be improved in terms of components, and I completely expected that because this was published by Pentree Games and 25th Century Games (one of my favorite publishers in the business). The game looks and feels deluxe, which is VERY satisfying.
I think that the Pittre duo of Michael and Christina really knocked it out of the park with this one. Wait, this is their first game design?? And it’s incredible? Okay okay, I’ll be keeping my eye on you two. On the Rocks is a light game with excellent table presence and some difficult choices presented. Now, the choices may be TOOOOOO difficult for some gamers, especially our AP-prone players. Carefully planning out each ingredient’s distribution into the jigger bowls can send them into a frenzy, so I have advised to choose one or two bowls they wish to buff and concentrate on hitting those with the marbles they want, and just randomly place the other ingredients. I know that is a big ask, but this game is supposed to take 45-90 minutes, not 45-90 hours. My other gripe about the game is the color-dependence of the ingredient marbles. I am sorry to all my colorblind friends out there, but I am unable to see how you might keep a possible 12 different marbles straight in your heads while simultaneously remembering the state of marbles in each jigger bowl. I hope I am completely wrong, as I do not suffer from colorblindness, and please do let me know if this is still playable for those gamers.
These gripes aside, everything else about the game is fabulous. I love being able to manipulate my dice rolls (yes, with a cost) to have ultimate control of the number of marbles pulled from the bag. That bag, however, takes control away immediately unless I draft a bunch of clear (wild) or golden marbles to affect my final placements. I also adore struggling to choose which recipes to concentrate on first, and weighing the possibilities of completing the higher value recipes, or blitzing the smaller ones first.
Oh, and the Spills cards? They can be real pains in the booty. These effectively give the active player the ability to completely botch another players’ plans by discarding their ingredient marbles from their player board. Not enough player interaction? How about negative Tip cards, which are earned by completing a recipe, that impede a competitor’s progress by making them complete the Tip card before being able to move on with their plans, or by limiting their marble selection to two instead of the entire bowl? Yeah, this has player interaction for sure.
Again, I like a good drink now and then, just as much as the next person. However, I have never been a bartender, and I do not plan on ever becoming one. I could not ever imagine having to compete with other bartenders for tip money either, especially if it is as brutally cutthroat as On the Rocks portrays it to be. I will, however, play a game where all that “fun” is diluted to dice, cards, and marbles. I was looking through my collection recently and noticed have embarrassingly few games with an adult beverage theme. If you are like me and require more games depicting fun with alcohol, then I strongly urge you to check out On the Rocks. I feel like I can finally graduate from Fuzzy Navels and Stone Sours just by playing this game and really upping my liquor acumen. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. It seems readily available for consumption, but please do not try to go drink for drink with this game. It’s not designed to be a drinking game… or is it?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Small Islands in Tabletop Games
Oct 13, 2021
I have often wished to have been born in a different era of time. For me, I would have loved to have seen the birth of jazz in the US early 20th century. Or to witness the Renaissance first-hand. Another wish of mine was always to somehow discover something amazing. Like an island, or an unknown mountain range, or a new species of animal. That is so exciting to me, and I would have really loved to have just been around during these times. So along comes Small Islands, and my dreams have been woven into a board game about discovering new islands. That means the game is good, right?
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Space Opera in Books
Jan 25, 2020 (Updated Jan 25, 2020)
Fun writing (2 more)
Creative
Witty
Overwritten (3 more)
Lacking plot
Disjointed and distracted
Boring
Technicolor Encyclopedia entry
Space Opera seems to be a book, that based on other reviews, you either love or hate. The love reviewers can't seem to tell me why they love it, most attempting to replicate the style of the author and relying on a menagerie of adjectives to express themselves. "A glitter punk, Eurovision romp!" "Technicolor whirlwind!" but not actually saying WHY they liked it, or just saying "well you didn't get the humor". The ones who disliked it are pretty clear, and as I struggled with this book I found I agreed with their complaints. However, I have to thank the sheer number of DNFs from the disliked group for causing me to, ironically, finish it. I hate DNFing books, to begin with, but when I saw just how many bad reviews didn't make it through, it felt as bad as the good reviews not actually reviewing anything. So I powered through, and honestly, it was worth finishing. The author really got back on track and it was a great ending.
Valente has in fact given us a Eurovision, glitter punk, electric baby with Douglas Adams, her writing fantastical and humorous, her characters vapid but in a washed-out musician kind of way. She really thought about this book, creating droves of aliens and probably destroying a number of thesauri to bring them to life. We follow Decibel Jones of the "oh you haven't heard of it, well we used to be a thing" Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. A washed-up, no longer active glitter punk band who is an amalgam of every band you probably are thinking of when trying to grasp what that description means.
The book opens with a wonderfully witty description of how there is in fact other life out there in the universe, life is easy to come by, they've just been off doing a galactic war and while they were gone we kind of popped up. Life is stupid. This part is the best part of the book. The humor is on point, the prose magnificant. She is spot on and very pointed in her argument for why war happens. It's people vs meat, and how does one determine something isn't meat, but in fact sentient? Well, no one really figured that out, hence the galactic war, but NOW post-war they think they've figured it out. Intergalactic Music competition. Makes sense, only something sentient could create music right?
Well, this year is a special year because Earth is invited, we've been deemed "may be sentient", but questionable enough that they'd rather not let us just hang out and become annoying someday. So we have to present a band and performance for consideration. We just have to not place last. If we don't place last, we're part of the club and we'll be a-ok. If we place last, we'll be destroyed, because they already think we're annoying and that will mean we're meat. People vs meat remember?
So, one day everyone on the planet earth, everyone, awake or sleeping is visited by the blue birdlike projection of our assigned guides, the Esca, and alien species that are new to the whole being accepted as a sentient thing, and will guide us through the competition. Which it is now telling us about, Suprise! They've chosen a list of musicians they think will do well, however it's outdated and only one band is really able to do it, the has-beens, who are they, Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. Time was rough on our glam-punk friends as it tends to be on musicians, they lost the third member about a decade ago, the two remaining no longer talk. Decibel is a trainwreck, and Oort St Ultraviolet is now just a dad who very much wants to be a regular dude. But now they're being whisked off into space to sing for the world's salvation.
Sounds pretty fun right? This plus Douglas Adams type prose and humor? A real knock out. Unfortunately, that story I just described takes up... maybe a quarter of the book, MAYBE. You can pull the main story out and put it into a book that might be too small to be a novella. Because of this, the backstory, development, and exploration of these characters are slim to nothing. There is some mind you, but very little. It isn't until the 180pg mark or so that Valente actually decides to focus on the plot, giving very little time to do the entire Grand Prix, the actual competition takes up a page. A 288-page book about a singing competition and only 1-2 pages is actually the singing competition. Tack on another 10 maybe for the weird cocktail death party right before, that didn't have enough attempted death to make any real point of it, plus maybe another 5-10 scattered throughout the book on the back story and leading up to the story, and we've got MAYBE 25 pages of the actual plot. My math is wrong, I know, but it sure FEELS like this.
So, in a 288-page book, with 25 pages being the actual story, what are the other 263 pages? It was the author being somewhat... I don't mean to sound mean, but full of herself? She tried WAY too hard on this style she was going for. It felt like an "oh, you liked that opening chapter, didn't you? You totally read it out loud to your boyfriend, well here let me give it to you again, and again, and ... again". This book suffers from a severe case of needing to be edited. Of someone saying "that's enough now dear, but what about the story". Every few pages of the backstory of the plot we got were met with full chapters, sometimes multiple of Valente describing yet another alien species she's created, in yet another chain of witty simile and metaphor. To the point where sometimes I no longer knew what was happening, they were all interchangeable, which alien are we talking about now? It went on and on and on, and I never knew how such humorous writing could be just so soul suckingly boring. When she ran out of aliens it was describing previous grand prix's and how the aliens sang. In the exact same, formulaic, witty simile, witty simile, witty simile. Don't get me wrong, there were some absolute gems in here. Some that made me laugh out loud. But it's all about the ratio. I would trade in a heartbeat the ratio in this book. 263 pages of plot, and 25 pages of aliens described in witty simile. It took everything in my power after the third alien chapter to not skim. But she fit so much into a sentence that I was scared somewhere hiding would be a plot point (spoiler alert, there wasn't, skim away).
Then around the 180 page mark, a flip was switched, it was almost as if she went "crap, a story!" the adjective use was slimmed down dramatically and we actually got more than one chapter in a row with a plot point. But at this point, it was too late, the end of the book was hurdling at us and very little had happened and the book pretty much fizzled out with an "oh yeah, the Grand Prix happened". Mind you, the finale was very heartwarming and I liked it a lot. I just wish I hadn't had to read a full chapter about hairbrush interspecies sex to get there, and instead had more of it. But ironically, the hairbrush sex had more plot advancement that the majority of the book.
The ending did, however, for one moment, make me forget that I had just read an encyclopedia of descriptors and was happy for a few minutes. So good on her for that. That proves to me that she can write more than glittery descriptions, which then made me sad I didn't have more of that writing. With just a spattering of the gold of her opening chapters. I am glad I finished the book, the story, what little there was, was worth the read. However, I have no desire to read any other of Valente's writing now, and if there was a sequel, I just don't think I have it in me to read another 263 pages of description. Cool idea, good ability, just terribly executed. She could easily have released a separate book, expanding on a handful of species she established in the book, like an alien compendium, and I would have read it, and laughed, and been okay because I went into it expecting it. But I went into this wanting a story, not a neon throwup encyclopedia of just how "oh so creative" Valente is. That came off harsh, I know, but they blew past the fine line of interesting and well into the self-serving, look what I can do, territory. What suffered for it wasn't just a large number of DNFs, and my sanity for a few days, but an actually interesting, fun, Eurovision, glitter punk, heartwarming story about loss, life, how stupid it is, how beautiful it is, and why we should fight for it. It's in there, hiding beneath the layers and layers of word vomit. I want that story. Please release a second edition that is just that, the opening, and say... 3-5 of your favorite aliens Valente, I promise I'll give it another try if you do.
Valente has in fact given us a Eurovision, glitter punk, electric baby with Douglas Adams, her writing fantastical and humorous, her characters vapid but in a washed-out musician kind of way. She really thought about this book, creating droves of aliens and probably destroying a number of thesauri to bring them to life. We follow Decibel Jones of the "oh you haven't heard of it, well we used to be a thing" Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. A washed-up, no longer active glitter punk band who is an amalgam of every band you probably are thinking of when trying to grasp what that description means.
The book opens with a wonderfully witty description of how there is in fact other life out there in the universe, life is easy to come by, they've just been off doing a galactic war and while they were gone we kind of popped up. Life is stupid. This part is the best part of the book. The humor is on point, the prose magnificant. She is spot on and very pointed in her argument for why war happens. It's people vs meat, and how does one determine something isn't meat, but in fact sentient? Well, no one really figured that out, hence the galactic war, but NOW post-war they think they've figured it out. Intergalactic Music competition. Makes sense, only something sentient could create music right?
Well, this year is a special year because Earth is invited, we've been deemed "may be sentient", but questionable enough that they'd rather not let us just hang out and become annoying someday. So we have to present a band and performance for consideration. We just have to not place last. If we don't place last, we're part of the club and we'll be a-ok. If we place last, we'll be destroyed, because they already think we're annoying and that will mean we're meat. People vs meat remember?
So, one day everyone on the planet earth, everyone, awake or sleeping is visited by the blue birdlike projection of our assigned guides, the Esca, and alien species that are new to the whole being accepted as a sentient thing, and will guide us through the competition. Which it is now telling us about, Suprise! They've chosen a list of musicians they think will do well, however it's outdated and only one band is really able to do it, the has-beens, who are they, Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. Time was rough on our glam-punk friends as it tends to be on musicians, they lost the third member about a decade ago, the two remaining no longer talk. Decibel is a trainwreck, and Oort St Ultraviolet is now just a dad who very much wants to be a regular dude. But now they're being whisked off into space to sing for the world's salvation.
Sounds pretty fun right? This plus Douglas Adams type prose and humor? A real knock out. Unfortunately, that story I just described takes up... maybe a quarter of the book, MAYBE. You can pull the main story out and put it into a book that might be too small to be a novella. Because of this, the backstory, development, and exploration of these characters are slim to nothing. There is some mind you, but very little. It isn't until the 180pg mark or so that Valente actually decides to focus on the plot, giving very little time to do the entire Grand Prix, the actual competition takes up a page. A 288-page book about a singing competition and only 1-2 pages is actually the singing competition. Tack on another 10 maybe for the weird cocktail death party right before, that didn't have enough attempted death to make any real point of it, plus maybe another 5-10 scattered throughout the book on the back story and leading up to the story, and we've got MAYBE 25 pages of the actual plot. My math is wrong, I know, but it sure FEELS like this.
So, in a 288-page book, with 25 pages being the actual story, what are the other 263 pages? It was the author being somewhat... I don't mean to sound mean, but full of herself? She tried WAY too hard on this style she was going for. It felt like an "oh, you liked that opening chapter, didn't you? You totally read it out loud to your boyfriend, well here let me give it to you again, and again, and ... again". This book suffers from a severe case of needing to be edited. Of someone saying "that's enough now dear, but what about the story". Every few pages of the backstory of the plot we got were met with full chapters, sometimes multiple of Valente describing yet another alien species she's created, in yet another chain of witty simile and metaphor. To the point where sometimes I no longer knew what was happening, they were all interchangeable, which alien are we talking about now? It went on and on and on, and I never knew how such humorous writing could be just so soul suckingly boring. When she ran out of aliens it was describing previous grand prix's and how the aliens sang. In the exact same, formulaic, witty simile, witty simile, witty simile. Don't get me wrong, there were some absolute gems in here. Some that made me laugh out loud. But it's all about the ratio. I would trade in a heartbeat the ratio in this book. 263 pages of plot, and 25 pages of aliens described in witty simile. It took everything in my power after the third alien chapter to not skim. But she fit so much into a sentence that I was scared somewhere hiding would be a plot point (spoiler alert, there wasn't, skim away).
Then around the 180 page mark, a flip was switched, it was almost as if she went "crap, a story!" the adjective use was slimmed down dramatically and we actually got more than one chapter in a row with a plot point. But at this point, it was too late, the end of the book was hurdling at us and very little had happened and the book pretty much fizzled out with an "oh yeah, the Grand Prix happened". Mind you, the finale was very heartwarming and I liked it a lot. I just wish I hadn't had to read a full chapter about hairbrush interspecies sex to get there, and instead had more of it. But ironically, the hairbrush sex had more plot advancement that the majority of the book.
The ending did, however, for one moment, make me forget that I had just read an encyclopedia of descriptors and was happy for a few minutes. So good on her for that. That proves to me that she can write more than glittery descriptions, which then made me sad I didn't have more of that writing. With just a spattering of the gold of her opening chapters. I am glad I finished the book, the story, what little there was, was worth the read. However, I have no desire to read any other of Valente's writing now, and if there was a sequel, I just don't think I have it in me to read another 263 pages of description. Cool idea, good ability, just terribly executed. She could easily have released a separate book, expanding on a handful of species she established in the book, like an alien compendium, and I would have read it, and laughed, and been okay because I went into it expecting it. But I went into this wanting a story, not a neon throwup encyclopedia of just how "oh so creative" Valente is. That came off harsh, I know, but they blew past the fine line of interesting and well into the self-serving, look what I can do, territory. What suffered for it wasn't just a large number of DNFs, and my sanity for a few days, but an actually interesting, fun, Eurovision, glitter punk, heartwarming story about loss, life, how stupid it is, how beautiful it is, and why we should fight for it. It's in there, hiding beneath the layers and layers of word vomit. I want that story. Please release a second edition that is just that, the opening, and say... 3-5 of your favorite aliens Valente, I promise I'll give it another try if you do.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Damn. by Kendrick Lamar in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Kendrick Lamar is an iconic hip-hop artist outta Compton, California. Not too long ago, he released his fourth studio album, entitled, “DAMN.”.
1) Kendrick Lamar – “BLOOD.”
Lamar tackles the issue of life and death. He poses several questions over a melodic instrumental produced by Lamar, Bēkon, and Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith. One of them being, “Are we gonna live or die?” Lamar tells a brilliant story about him walking down a block, and he sees a blind lady in search of something she had lost. He goes over to help, and then he asks, “Hello, ma’am, can I be of any assistance? It seems to me that you have lost something. I would like to help you find it.” She replied, “Oh yes, you have lost something. You’ve lost your life.” And then we hear a gunshot. Lamar is shot. Did he lose his life? The dire ending answers the probing question posed in the beginning—we gonna die.
2) Kendrick Lamar – “DNA.”
Lamar explains why his DNA differs from a sucker’s DNA. His deoxyribonucleic acid consists of going through the school of hard knocks. He endured a rugged street life, prisons, money, drugs, alcohol, sex, murder, mayhem, loyalty, royalty, joy, etc. This is because his DNA comprises of things shared collectively by African-Americans who have been through the struggle. Lyrically, Lamar leaves earth, while rapping over an explosive track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It. From beginning to end, he doesn’t take a bar off and shows why conscience rap has resurrected into the new norm.
3) Kendrick Lamar – “YAH.”
Lamar let it be known that he’s diagnosed with real ni^^a conditions, and keeps it a hunnit by calling out Geraldo Rivera because of criticism Lamar received from a FOX NEWS segment. The kid Capri intro adds a classic east coast authenticity over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi. Preconceived lies told by White slave masters to African slaves are melting like hot butter in the sun. Lamar, a descendant of those slaves, has awakened and knows himself.
4) Kendrick Lamar – “ELEMENT.”
Lamar, who Capri calls the ‘New Kung Fu Kenny’, continues his Shaolin-rap assault over a Wu-Tang-like track produced by Bēkon, Tae Beast, James Blake, Sounwave, and Ricci Riera. Lamar is simply on another level than his peers. He’s been through more sh*t than them, and he’s ready to put the Bible down and go eye for an eye for this sh*t. When he said, “I been stomped out in front of my mama / my daddy commissary made it to commas / B*tch, all my grandmas dead / So, ain’t nobody prayin’ for me, I’m on your head.”
5) Kendrick Lamar – “FEEL.”
Lamar beautifully expresses how he feels on a dope Sounwave-produced track, where Lamar raps, “I feel like the whole world want me to pray for ’em / But who the f*ck prayin’ for me?” Lamar feels that nobody ain’t prayin’ for him, and this void has him with a chip on his shoulders, looking at life from a dark, and troubled point of view. He feels pain and doesn’t see hope. Did the incident with the blind lady cause him to feel this way? Why does he feel this way? Kendrick raps, “I feel like it ain’t no tomorrow f*ck the world / The world is endin’, I’m done pretendin’… I feel like this gotta be the feelin’ what ‘Pac was…”
But Lamar knows ill-thinking is bad for his health, and he acknowledges the source of his negative thinking, “The feelin’ is toxic, I feel like I’m boxin’ demons / Monsters, false prophets schemin’,” and the list goes on and on. If no one is, just know that we are praying for you Kendrick, YAH-willing.
6) Kendrick Lamar – “LOYALTY” (FEAT. RIHANNA.)
Lamar and Rihanna explore one of the key elements in Lamar’s DNA, loyalty; and they pose a simple question—who are you loyal to? Is it your family? Friends? Or yourself? Maybe it’s money, weed, or alcoholic? Where does it begin and where does it end? Lamar and Rihanna do a wonderful job over a beautify track produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Terrace Martin, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi.
7) Kendrick Lamar – “PRIDE.”
The Steve Lacy’s intro, “Love’s gonna get you killed, but pride’s gonna be the death of you and me,” fits perfect in the scheme of things. Lamar, a spiritual intellectual, understands Proverbs 16: 18, which states, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” So, Lamar uses those reference points to further expound his faith. In the beginning, Lamar’s love for the blind lady got him shot. And now, will his pride, the great satisfaction he feels when he reviews all that he has achieved, will that be the death of him? Over a smooth/laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, and Steve Lacy, Lamar states that he can’t fake being humble, just because people are insecure.
He answers the question of pride
Lamar raps, “Sick venom in men and women overcome with pride. A perfect world is never perfect, only filled with lies. Promises are broken and more resentment come alive. Race barriers make inferior of you and I. See, in a perfect world, I’ll choose faith over riches. I’ll choose work over b*tches, I’ll make schools out of prison. I’ll take all the religions and put ‘em all in one service. Just to tell ’em we ain’t sh*t, but He’s been perfect.”
If Lamar maintains his Israelite faith over riches, and keep that equation as the top priority, he won’t be a victim of pride. But the question is—can Lamar remain humble amidst all the madness?
8) Kendrick Lamar – “HUMBLE.”
Lamar shows that being humble is easier said than done. Over a bouncy-head-nodding track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It, Lamar speaks his mind and gives zero f*cks on what people think about him. He’s braggadocios, confident, and asserts himself as the king of rap music. He sends a cryptic message to his competition, “Watch my soul speak, you let the meds talk. If I kill a ni^^a, it won’t be the alcohol. I’m the realest ni^^a after all, b*tch, be humble.”
9) Kendrick Lamar – “LUST.”
Lamar tackles the issue of lust, one of the main causes that fuel what we do. He begins by creating a scene, where lust has him trying to stick the tip of his phallus inside a woman’s vagina. She agrees, causing blood to run through his favorite vein. His logic, it doesn’t matter what you do—just make it count.
So, over a chilled- track produced by BADBADNOTGOOD, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi, Lamar raps, “Hop in the shower, put on your makeup, lace your weave up. Touch on yourself, call up your ni^^a, tell him he ain’t sh*t. Credit card scam, get you a Visa, make him pay your rent. Hop on the ‘Gram, flex on the b*tches that be hatin’ on you. Pop you a pill, call up your b*tches, have ‘em waitin’ on you. Go to the club, have you some fun, make that ass bounce. It’s whatever, just make it count.”
10) Kendrick Lamar – “LOVE.” (FEAT. ZACARI.)
Lamar turns the lights down over a contemporary R&B love song, produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Greg Kurstin, Sounwave, and Teddy Walton. The theme of love and lust continues, but this time, into a more unchartered direction. Zacari’s melodic cadence compliments Kung Fu Kenny’s intimate love-lyrics to the love of his life, probably his fiancé Whitney Alford, Lamar’s high school sweetheart.
11) Kendrick Lamar – “XXX.” (FEAT. U2.)
Lamar gets political over an NWA-type track produced By Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, DJ Dahi, Sounwave, and Mike WiLL Made-It. The theme is America and the plight and strife of young African-American males trying to make ends meet. Lamar talks about a man who calls him, needing prayer and advice because his son had been murdered. He wants to know what to do and seeks advice from Lamar because he’s anointed.
But Lamar doesn’t sugarcoat his advice. He tells the man straight up, “If somebody kills my son, that means somebody’s gettin’ killed.” Then, Lamar goes on to tell the man how he would go about doing the killing. America is an eye-for-an-eye nation, and forgiveness is hardly practiced.
12) Kendrick Lamar – “FEAR.”
Lamar deeps dig into his soul to confront his fears. He does so over a conversation track produced by The Alchemist. Lamar uses Deuteronomy 28:28 to make sense of his damnation, where the title track derived from. “The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart…,” states the biblical commandment. Lamar reasons that YAH cursed the Israelites (so-called Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American Indians) because of their iniquity. So, that explains their conditions in the wilderness of North America.
Pride
So, Lamar’s fear of lose it all like the biblical character forced him or scared him to not spend a dime. Not because he is cheap, but because he didn’t want to spend money because he feared running out of money, and going back to Section 8. Lamar raps, “30 shows a month and I still won’t buy me no Lexus.” Not a lot of people can say this.
13) Kendrick Lamar – “GOD.”
Lamar talks about the success that he doesn’t want to lose. He compares it to what it was like when he didn’t have fame and fortune. Even though he chooses faith over riches, he’s still feeling good laughing to the bank like aha. Over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Cardo, Sounwave, Ricci Riera, and DJ Dahi, Lamar tells listeners, “Don’t judge me,” because this is what God feels like. Matthew 7:1 states,
14) Kendrick Lamar – “DUCKWORTH.”
Lamar uses his last name, Duckworth, as a song to explain the relationship between his father, Ducky, and Anthony Tiffith, CEO of Top Dawg Entertainment. Lamar explained if Tiffith had killed Ducky, then he would be serving life, and Lamar would’ve grown up without a father. And there would have been no Top Dawg Entertainment, and probably no Kendrick Lamar.
1) Kendrick Lamar – “BLOOD.”
Lamar tackles the issue of life and death. He poses several questions over a melodic instrumental produced by Lamar, Bēkon, and Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith. One of them being, “Are we gonna live or die?” Lamar tells a brilliant story about him walking down a block, and he sees a blind lady in search of something she had lost. He goes over to help, and then he asks, “Hello, ma’am, can I be of any assistance? It seems to me that you have lost something. I would like to help you find it.” She replied, “Oh yes, you have lost something. You’ve lost your life.” And then we hear a gunshot. Lamar is shot. Did he lose his life? The dire ending answers the probing question posed in the beginning—we gonna die.
2) Kendrick Lamar – “DNA.”
Lamar explains why his DNA differs from a sucker’s DNA. His deoxyribonucleic acid consists of going through the school of hard knocks. He endured a rugged street life, prisons, money, drugs, alcohol, sex, murder, mayhem, loyalty, royalty, joy, etc. This is because his DNA comprises of things shared collectively by African-Americans who have been through the struggle. Lyrically, Lamar leaves earth, while rapping over an explosive track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It. From beginning to end, he doesn’t take a bar off and shows why conscience rap has resurrected into the new norm.
3) Kendrick Lamar – “YAH.”
Lamar let it be known that he’s diagnosed with real ni^^a conditions, and keeps it a hunnit by calling out Geraldo Rivera because of criticism Lamar received from a FOX NEWS segment. The kid Capri intro adds a classic east coast authenticity over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi. Preconceived lies told by White slave masters to African slaves are melting like hot butter in the sun. Lamar, a descendant of those slaves, has awakened and knows himself.
4) Kendrick Lamar – “ELEMENT.”
Lamar, who Capri calls the ‘New Kung Fu Kenny’, continues his Shaolin-rap assault over a Wu-Tang-like track produced by Bēkon, Tae Beast, James Blake, Sounwave, and Ricci Riera. Lamar is simply on another level than his peers. He’s been through more sh*t than them, and he’s ready to put the Bible down and go eye for an eye for this sh*t. When he said, “I been stomped out in front of my mama / my daddy commissary made it to commas / B*tch, all my grandmas dead / So, ain’t nobody prayin’ for me, I’m on your head.”
5) Kendrick Lamar – “FEEL.”
Lamar beautifully expresses how he feels on a dope Sounwave-produced track, where Lamar raps, “I feel like the whole world want me to pray for ’em / But who the f*ck prayin’ for me?” Lamar feels that nobody ain’t prayin’ for him, and this void has him with a chip on his shoulders, looking at life from a dark, and troubled point of view. He feels pain and doesn’t see hope. Did the incident with the blind lady cause him to feel this way? Why does he feel this way? Kendrick raps, “I feel like it ain’t no tomorrow f*ck the world / The world is endin’, I’m done pretendin’… I feel like this gotta be the feelin’ what ‘Pac was…”
But Lamar knows ill-thinking is bad for his health, and he acknowledges the source of his negative thinking, “The feelin’ is toxic, I feel like I’m boxin’ demons / Monsters, false prophets schemin’,” and the list goes on and on. If no one is, just know that we are praying for you Kendrick, YAH-willing.
6) Kendrick Lamar – “LOYALTY” (FEAT. RIHANNA.)
Lamar and Rihanna explore one of the key elements in Lamar’s DNA, loyalty; and they pose a simple question—who are you loyal to? Is it your family? Friends? Or yourself? Maybe it’s money, weed, or alcoholic? Where does it begin and where does it end? Lamar and Rihanna do a wonderful job over a beautify track produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Terrace Martin, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi.
7) Kendrick Lamar – “PRIDE.”
The Steve Lacy’s intro, “Love’s gonna get you killed, but pride’s gonna be the death of you and me,” fits perfect in the scheme of things. Lamar, a spiritual intellectual, understands Proverbs 16: 18, which states, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” So, Lamar uses those reference points to further expound his faith. In the beginning, Lamar’s love for the blind lady got him shot. And now, will his pride, the great satisfaction he feels when he reviews all that he has achieved, will that be the death of him? Over a smooth/laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, and Steve Lacy, Lamar states that he can’t fake being humble, just because people are insecure.
He answers the question of pride
Lamar raps, “Sick venom in men and women overcome with pride. A perfect world is never perfect, only filled with lies. Promises are broken and more resentment come alive. Race barriers make inferior of you and I. See, in a perfect world, I’ll choose faith over riches. I’ll choose work over b*tches, I’ll make schools out of prison. I’ll take all the religions and put ‘em all in one service. Just to tell ’em we ain’t sh*t, but He’s been perfect.”
If Lamar maintains his Israelite faith over riches, and keep that equation as the top priority, he won’t be a victim of pride. But the question is—can Lamar remain humble amidst all the madness?
8) Kendrick Lamar – “HUMBLE.”
Lamar shows that being humble is easier said than done. Over a bouncy-head-nodding track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It, Lamar speaks his mind and gives zero f*cks on what people think about him. He’s braggadocios, confident, and asserts himself as the king of rap music. He sends a cryptic message to his competition, “Watch my soul speak, you let the meds talk. If I kill a ni^^a, it won’t be the alcohol. I’m the realest ni^^a after all, b*tch, be humble.”
9) Kendrick Lamar – “LUST.”
Lamar tackles the issue of lust, one of the main causes that fuel what we do. He begins by creating a scene, where lust has him trying to stick the tip of his phallus inside a woman’s vagina. She agrees, causing blood to run through his favorite vein. His logic, it doesn’t matter what you do—just make it count.
So, over a chilled- track produced by BADBADNOTGOOD, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi, Lamar raps, “Hop in the shower, put on your makeup, lace your weave up. Touch on yourself, call up your ni^^a, tell him he ain’t sh*t. Credit card scam, get you a Visa, make him pay your rent. Hop on the ‘Gram, flex on the b*tches that be hatin’ on you. Pop you a pill, call up your b*tches, have ‘em waitin’ on you. Go to the club, have you some fun, make that ass bounce. It’s whatever, just make it count.”
10) Kendrick Lamar – “LOVE.” (FEAT. ZACARI.)
Lamar turns the lights down over a contemporary R&B love song, produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Greg Kurstin, Sounwave, and Teddy Walton. The theme of love and lust continues, but this time, into a more unchartered direction. Zacari’s melodic cadence compliments Kung Fu Kenny’s intimate love-lyrics to the love of his life, probably his fiancé Whitney Alford, Lamar’s high school sweetheart.
11) Kendrick Lamar – “XXX.” (FEAT. U2.)
Lamar gets political over an NWA-type track produced By Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, DJ Dahi, Sounwave, and Mike WiLL Made-It. The theme is America and the plight and strife of young African-American males trying to make ends meet. Lamar talks about a man who calls him, needing prayer and advice because his son had been murdered. He wants to know what to do and seeks advice from Lamar because he’s anointed.
But Lamar doesn’t sugarcoat his advice. He tells the man straight up, “If somebody kills my son, that means somebody’s gettin’ killed.” Then, Lamar goes on to tell the man how he would go about doing the killing. America is an eye-for-an-eye nation, and forgiveness is hardly practiced.
12) Kendrick Lamar – “FEAR.”
Lamar deeps dig into his soul to confront his fears. He does so over a conversation track produced by The Alchemist. Lamar uses Deuteronomy 28:28 to make sense of his damnation, where the title track derived from. “The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart…,” states the biblical commandment. Lamar reasons that YAH cursed the Israelites (so-called Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American Indians) because of their iniquity. So, that explains their conditions in the wilderness of North America.
Pride
So, Lamar’s fear of lose it all like the biblical character forced him or scared him to not spend a dime. Not because he is cheap, but because he didn’t want to spend money because he feared running out of money, and going back to Section 8. Lamar raps, “30 shows a month and I still won’t buy me no Lexus.” Not a lot of people can say this.
13) Kendrick Lamar – “GOD.”
Lamar talks about the success that he doesn’t want to lose. He compares it to what it was like when he didn’t have fame and fortune. Even though he chooses faith over riches, he’s still feeling good laughing to the bank like aha. Over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Cardo, Sounwave, Ricci Riera, and DJ Dahi, Lamar tells listeners, “Don’t judge me,” because this is what God feels like. Matthew 7:1 states,
14) Kendrick Lamar – “DUCKWORTH.”
Lamar uses his last name, Duckworth, as a song to explain the relationship between his father, Ducky, and Anthony Tiffith, CEO of Top Dawg Entertainment. Lamar explained if Tiffith had killed Ducky, then he would be serving life, and Lamar would’ve grown up without a father. And there would have been no Top Dawg Entertainment, and probably no Kendrick Lamar.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Carniepunk in Books
Mar 1, 2018
As soon as I read about this collection on Kevin Hearne's Facebook, I knew I would be buying it. I don't care for carnivals at all, and every story will be related to one in some way - but there was just no way I was going to miss an Atticus and Oberon story! I even pre-ordered the book on Amazon, the first time I've ever done that. It was SO hard not to skip right ahead and read Hearne's contribution the moment the book was in my hot little hands, but I managed some discipline.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.