Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Last Dickens in Books
Nov 18, 2019
I will hold my hand up to two things at the start of this review. Firstly I am drawn to fiction based on other fiction, and secondly I'm not a big Dickens fan. For various reasons I just don't find him an interesting read.
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
Big Data MBA: Driving Business Strategies with Data Science
Book
Integrate big data into business to drive competitive advantage and sustainable success Big Data MBA...
Willpower For Dummies
Book
Develop rock-solid willpower with evidence-based techniques Willpower For Dummies shows you how to...
Building Brains: An Introduction to Neural Development
David J. Price, Andrew P. Jarman, John O. Mason and Peter C. Kind
Book
Building Brains describes the main elements of current understanding of the mechanisms that create...
Real World Windows 10 Development: 2015
Edward Moemeka and Elizabeth Moemeka
Book
Emphasizing XAML and C#, this book provides readers with all the tools, ideas, and inspiration to...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Had they not attempt to make a movie based off a beloved children’s book
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
Invasion 14: A Novel
Book
Based on personal experience, survivor testimony, and documentary research, Invasion 14 portrays the...
K: A History of Baseball in Ten Pitches
Book
From the New York Times baseball columnist, an enchanting, enthralling history of the national...
Comix Zone Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Enter the Comix Zone, in SEGA's classic arcade-style beat 'em up, now available on mobile for the...
Emma Montague is an Englishwoman living in the U.S. She left behind her parents as soon as she could: feeling trapped by her mother's snobbery and outgoing personality, so different from Emma's quiet and introverted self. But life in the high-powered banking world in New York City isn't exactly for Emma either. She finds everyone so false: women who only care about clothes and finding a man, too many nights at bars, and pressure to use dating apps. Her one long-term relationship winds up nowhere, and so Emma finds herself on the move again: this time to the beach town of Westport, CT. She takes a break from banking and finds herself renting a house in this seaside town. Emma quickly finds herself falling for landlord, Dominic, a bartender in Westport. A father to six-year-old Jesse, Dominic seems to be the opposite of Emma in every way. Emma isn't sure that the two could ever really be together, but she can't seem to stop her heart from falling for Dominic. Are they meant to be?
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.