Search
Betrayal: Developmental, Literary, and Clinical Realms
Book
Betrayal underlies all psychic trauma, whether sexual abuse or profound neglect, violence or...
Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System
Book
In Food Power, Bryan L. McDonald brings together the history of food, agriculture, and foreign...
Ross (3282 KP) rated A Not So Dead Man's Journey in Books
Sep 20, 2019
Needs a good edit/proof-read
The first book in this new author's series immediately throws the reader into an exciting Indiana Jones-style ruined temple where the main character, Alden, is searching for ancient magical texts.
From the end of this scene, however, the tone changes dramatically as Alden returns home to a painfully dull and twee life with his wife and daughter. This section is laboured and very dull, going way beyond setting the scene and embedding the characters.
Alden is then thrown into a new quest as he is kidnapped by pirates and taken far away to take part in a magical ritual. From here, where the story should be hooking you and growing, the pace is all wrong and I felt like I was the one taken prisoner by this book.
Alden goes through something of a transformation (which is not explained in any way, but that is largely fine) and having been away for 10 years he travels home.
A number of things about the story are just absolutely implausible, and inconsistent. Characters who have barely met, let alone like each other are suddenly best friends with so many fond memories. Magical abilities are suddenly revealed which would have been very useful earlier in the story. And the underlying plot needs a lot of work to thrash out the details and character motivations.
The author's narrative tone is quite charming, but a little twee for some of the darker sections of the story, and the character's thoughts are quite irritatingly thrown in and generally add little of substance.
The writing needs a lot of work, there are so many spelling errors and grammar crimes. And the punctuation is all wrong as well, which may sound pedantic but at times it does throw the reader off and make them question what the sentence meant (see "helping your uncle jack off his horse").
I am convinced there is a good story in here somewhere but it needs a really thorough proof-read and substantial editing.
From the end of this scene, however, the tone changes dramatically as Alden returns home to a painfully dull and twee life with his wife and daughter. This section is laboured and very dull, going way beyond setting the scene and embedding the characters.
Alden is then thrown into a new quest as he is kidnapped by pirates and taken far away to take part in a magical ritual. From here, where the story should be hooking you and growing, the pace is all wrong and I felt like I was the one taken prisoner by this book.
Alden goes through something of a transformation (which is not explained in any way, but that is largely fine) and having been away for 10 years he travels home.
A number of things about the story are just absolutely implausible, and inconsistent. Characters who have barely met, let alone like each other are suddenly best friends with so many fond memories. Magical abilities are suddenly revealed which would have been very useful earlier in the story. And the underlying plot needs a lot of work to thrash out the details and character motivations.
The author's narrative tone is quite charming, but a little twee for some of the darker sections of the story, and the character's thoughts are quite irritatingly thrown in and generally add little of substance.
The writing needs a lot of work, there are so many spelling errors and grammar crimes. And the punctuation is all wrong as well, which may sound pedantic but at times it does throw the reader off and make them question what the sentence meant (see "helping your uncle jack off his horse").
I am convinced there is a good story in here somewhere but it needs a really thorough proof-read and substantial editing.
Marie Claire Magazine US
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Subscribe now and get INSTANT access to the latest issue! Oscar-winning actress Emma Stone slips...
OkCupid Dating
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
3.4
Rate It
App
OkCupid is the only FREE dating app that knows you’re more substance than just selfie. That’s...
Job Interview Prep - SimuGator
Business and Reference
App
***NO IN-APP PURCHASES REQUIRED! ALL FEATURES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE APP!*** You've gone...
Execution is the sixth book set in Elizabethan world of Giordano Bruno. I have read the first book in this series, so it was definitely on my radar, but as so often happens with me, I got distracted by other books 🤯
The fact that I haven’t (yet) read books 2-5 has made no difference at all to my great reading enjoyment, so this can be read as a one off (but why would you do that? Books 1 and 6 are fab, so I’ll be reading books 2-5 without a doubt).
Bruno is working undercover for Elizabeth I’s spymaster, Francis Walsingham, and they hope to stop what becomes known as The Babington Plot - a plot to kill Elizabeth I, break Mary Queen of Scots out of prison and put her on England’s throne instead. This is all about Elizabeth’s claim to be queen. Henry VIII has disowned her as illegitimate when Anne was beheaded, and she was a Protestant to boot! Babington and his crew are staunch catholics, and they want a catholic on the throne. Mary fits the bill.
Francis Walsingham is desperate to find an excuse to dispose of Mary, and Babington is providing the goods. There is a secret letter exchange going on between the plotters and that Walsingham knows about, but he needs to catch them in the act - and he needs to ensure that Mary implicates herself completely.
This is all historical fact, as is Bruno’s existence, and I think that’s what puts the icing on the cake for me. I love historical fiction that brings real characters to life on the page. Bruno is a great character - he’s intelligent, funny and emotional. Basically, he’s a great character to build a story around.
So much research must have gone in to this book, and I really appreciate that. The side characters add couloir and substance to the whole story.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising this book, and I’ve now given myself the rather enjoyable task of catching up with Bruno!
The fact that I haven’t (yet) read books 2-5 has made no difference at all to my great reading enjoyment, so this can be read as a one off (but why would you do that? Books 1 and 6 are fab, so I’ll be reading books 2-5 without a doubt).
Bruno is working undercover for Elizabeth I’s spymaster, Francis Walsingham, and they hope to stop what becomes known as The Babington Plot - a plot to kill Elizabeth I, break Mary Queen of Scots out of prison and put her on England’s throne instead. This is all about Elizabeth’s claim to be queen. Henry VIII has disowned her as illegitimate when Anne was beheaded, and she was a Protestant to boot! Babington and his crew are staunch catholics, and they want a catholic on the throne. Mary fits the bill.
Francis Walsingham is desperate to find an excuse to dispose of Mary, and Babington is providing the goods. There is a secret letter exchange going on between the plotters and that Walsingham knows about, but he needs to catch them in the act - and he needs to ensure that Mary implicates herself completely.
This is all historical fact, as is Bruno’s existence, and I think that’s what puts the icing on the cake for me. I love historical fiction that brings real characters to life on the page. Bruno is a great character - he’s intelligent, funny and emotional. Basically, he’s a great character to build a story around.
So much research must have gone in to this book, and I really appreciate that. The side characters add couloir and substance to the whole story.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising this book, and I’ve now given myself the rather enjoyable task of catching up with Bruno!
On Drugs
Book
The "just say no" campaign of the Reagan years and the ensuing anti-drug hysteria effectively...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.