Search
Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded
Games
App
It’s not just the funniest game you've ever played… …it’s also the most infamous video game...
Asana Rebel: Yoga and Fitness
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
Asana Rebel is the only Yoga Inspired Fitness app in the world. We are changing the way that women...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Vengeance in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Fans of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 who are waiting patiently for the November release of Call of Duty: Ghosts, can put their skills to the test with the latest map pack DLC. The collection is named Vengeance and it offers four new multiplayer maps as well as a new Zombie campaigns for players aching for more of the wildly popular series.
The set is the third of a planned four map packs and for fans of frantic, run and gun action, this is the collection for you. This is not to say there is not a place for players who wish to snipe or use stealth, but the developers have clearly put the focus on smaller maps which bring the action front and center and force players to get into the action fast.
Like the previous map collections the players are limited to either Mosh pit or Hardcore Moshpit that puts teams of players in a series of online games where the objective is varied. There is the usual mix, Team Deathmatch, Hardpoint, Kill Confirmed, and Demolition modes and the mode as well as your teammates change with each map.
Accessing the new maps is easy as once you start in multiplayer mode, the option to select Vengeance is shown on your menu. Players who have the previous map packs which are not required to play the new ones, will be able to access them in the game mode of their choice now as they would for the maps that came with the initial release of the game.
The first map I played was called Uplink which is an updated version of the Summit map from Black Ops. This time out the snowy eastern Europe locale has been changed to a rainy Asian locale. It took me a few times around and a few deaths before I realized there was something familiar about it. This helped me get adjusted to likely areas for attacks and defense much faster than usual and I soon found myself dishing out the damage instead of being a walking target.
The next map is called “Detour” and this takes places on a bombed out suspension bridge that has cars and trucks as well as blast holes littering the roads. Players can take the side paths and lower areas but can also engage the other team in the clutter up top. Be prepared for plenty of flying grenades as well as mines and other traps in this one. I usually need around five rounds in a map before I am comfy enough to really let loose and this one after some initial frustrations paid off big,
A recent kill streak earned me a sentry gun, which when deployed racked up an impressive number of kills for me thanks to the choke points and strategic placement near an enemy objective.
Up next is “Cove” and while it took me a little bit to differentiate the enemy attire from that of my team, I soon found this to be an early favorite for me. The setting is a tropical island complete with a crashed plane. The plane became a great shield to toss grenades over and I loved walking around the beach in my efforts to flank the other players. For a person who loves a run and gun, devil may care style of play, coming around a rock and finding two or three enemy players facing away from me was a great thrill as was having a cluster of them camped out on a ledge above or in a rocky cave..
There are plenty of cliffs as well as snipers love to setup on the ridges and let loose as do players who have earned a sentry gun or other reward. This became tough when most of the objectives involved either planting or defusing a bomb. Fighting to an objective only to be cut down as you were seconds away from completing a task is a frustration indeed but also part of the fun.
The final map is entitled “Rush” and the title not only describes the fun of playing it but also the best way to play it as it is set in a paint ball venue. There are tons of paint-soaked vehicles, wooden buildings, and venues that anyone who has ever played paintball will be all to familiar with. The real joy comes when you head into the shop and have to battle in the pro shop, indoor arena, and other locales. The colors are vivid and the attacks can come from all angles at any time.
As much as I liked “Cove” “Rush” quickly became my favorite of the maps as I was able to record my best scores of the new maps the first time I played it, and was able to maintain my lucky runs with each subsequent match.
Zombie fans will love “Buried” which like previous Zombie modes allows four players to work with one another as they fight off legions of undead. Like previous modes, players must heal fallen players and purchase weapons and ammo. This can be a challenge as starting off with just a pistol, grenade, and knife, you have to take down more than a few bad guys to earn needed funs for the big guns.
Cash can also be used for health, to restore barricades, as well as unlock new areas of the map.
Set in an underground western town, and I have to admit to really enjoying mowing down legions of undead as I came out of the saloon and enjoying the detail level of the map.
Skilled players can earn the Ray Gun Mark II and really fry the undead to a crisp.
Picky fans will say that Vengeance does not offer as much as some map packs as more than one person I played with lamented the fact that they did not get any new weapons like they did with the first map pack, and how one of the four maps was an older map that was remade.
To me it all comes down to a matter of choice as the maps are available in a set for $14.99 or players can purchase a season pass which will allow them to obtain all four map packs at a discounted price.
If you are a fan of the game and play online on a regular basis then you will want the maps as they do offer something new and are enjoyable to look at and play for gamers but be prepared to take your lumps early as most of the players have already mastered the previous maps and showed no mercy for players who were trying to get their bearings in the new offerings.
In the end, if you’re a hardcore player or simply love the series, then you will enjoy the maps as they offer something new while players wait for the final collection and the November release of Call of Duty: Ghosts:
http://sknr.net/2013/08/06/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-vengeance/
The set is the third of a planned four map packs and for fans of frantic, run and gun action, this is the collection for you. This is not to say there is not a place for players who wish to snipe or use stealth, but the developers have clearly put the focus on smaller maps which bring the action front and center and force players to get into the action fast.
Like the previous map collections the players are limited to either Mosh pit or Hardcore Moshpit that puts teams of players in a series of online games where the objective is varied. There is the usual mix, Team Deathmatch, Hardpoint, Kill Confirmed, and Demolition modes and the mode as well as your teammates change with each map.
Accessing the new maps is easy as once you start in multiplayer mode, the option to select Vengeance is shown on your menu. Players who have the previous map packs which are not required to play the new ones, will be able to access them in the game mode of their choice now as they would for the maps that came with the initial release of the game.
The first map I played was called Uplink which is an updated version of the Summit map from Black Ops. This time out the snowy eastern Europe locale has been changed to a rainy Asian locale. It took me a few times around and a few deaths before I realized there was something familiar about it. This helped me get adjusted to likely areas for attacks and defense much faster than usual and I soon found myself dishing out the damage instead of being a walking target.
The next map is called “Detour” and this takes places on a bombed out suspension bridge that has cars and trucks as well as blast holes littering the roads. Players can take the side paths and lower areas but can also engage the other team in the clutter up top. Be prepared for plenty of flying grenades as well as mines and other traps in this one. I usually need around five rounds in a map before I am comfy enough to really let loose and this one after some initial frustrations paid off big,
A recent kill streak earned me a sentry gun, which when deployed racked up an impressive number of kills for me thanks to the choke points and strategic placement near an enemy objective.
Up next is “Cove” and while it took me a little bit to differentiate the enemy attire from that of my team, I soon found this to be an early favorite for me. The setting is a tropical island complete with a crashed plane. The plane became a great shield to toss grenades over and I loved walking around the beach in my efforts to flank the other players. For a person who loves a run and gun, devil may care style of play, coming around a rock and finding two or three enemy players facing away from me was a great thrill as was having a cluster of them camped out on a ledge above or in a rocky cave..
There are plenty of cliffs as well as snipers love to setup on the ridges and let loose as do players who have earned a sentry gun or other reward. This became tough when most of the objectives involved either planting or defusing a bomb. Fighting to an objective only to be cut down as you were seconds away from completing a task is a frustration indeed but also part of the fun.
The final map is entitled “Rush” and the title not only describes the fun of playing it but also the best way to play it as it is set in a paint ball venue. There are tons of paint-soaked vehicles, wooden buildings, and venues that anyone who has ever played paintball will be all to familiar with. The real joy comes when you head into the shop and have to battle in the pro shop, indoor arena, and other locales. The colors are vivid and the attacks can come from all angles at any time.
As much as I liked “Cove” “Rush” quickly became my favorite of the maps as I was able to record my best scores of the new maps the first time I played it, and was able to maintain my lucky runs with each subsequent match.
Zombie fans will love “Buried” which like previous Zombie modes allows four players to work with one another as they fight off legions of undead. Like previous modes, players must heal fallen players and purchase weapons and ammo. This can be a challenge as starting off with just a pistol, grenade, and knife, you have to take down more than a few bad guys to earn needed funs for the big guns.
Cash can also be used for health, to restore barricades, as well as unlock new areas of the map.
Set in an underground western town, and I have to admit to really enjoying mowing down legions of undead as I came out of the saloon and enjoying the detail level of the map.
Skilled players can earn the Ray Gun Mark II and really fry the undead to a crisp.
Picky fans will say that Vengeance does not offer as much as some map packs as more than one person I played with lamented the fact that they did not get any new weapons like they did with the first map pack, and how one of the four maps was an older map that was remade.
To me it all comes down to a matter of choice as the maps are available in a set for $14.99 or players can purchase a season pass which will allow them to obtain all four map packs at a discounted price.
If you are a fan of the game and play online on a regular basis then you will want the maps as they do offer something new and are enjoyable to look at and play for gamers but be prepared to take your lumps early as most of the players have already mastered the previous maps and showed no mercy for players who were trying to get their bearings in the new offerings.
In the end, if you’re a hardcore player or simply love the series, then you will enjoy the maps as they offer something new while players wait for the final collection and the November release of Call of Duty: Ghosts:
http://sknr.net/2013/08/06/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-vengeance/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017
Four Lads Who Shook The World
Last night the Ron Howard directed Beatles documentary, Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years, premiered in London. As much as I would have loved to attend the premier, I have just started a new year at university and couldn’t afford to go both financially and educationally. Therefore I had to settle for going to see it in my local cinema, but it was still an awesome experience. From six o’clock, the cinema streamed the premier in London, hosted by John Bishop and Edith Bowman and featuring interviews from Ron Howard, Paul and Ringo. Then the cinema auctioned off a poster for the film for charity, (which went for £100 if you are curious,) then finally the film started.
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Jane Steele in Books
May 24, 2017
Classic Retelling
This eBook was provided by the author in exchange for an honest review
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated The Glitch in Books
May 31, 2018
Not worth the hype
So, when I first heard about The Glitch, I was all like - Wow. What cool idea for a story! This is going to be awesome. I need to get my hands on this one! And then I read it, and I was all like - WTF did I just read? Did someone slip me drugs? Did I miss something?
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Spellhacker in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Review going live on the blog at midnight EST because UBB doesn't want to get along with block editor.
<b><i>The author/publisher provided a free copy of the book for review purposes - thank you! Receiving a review copy does not guarantee a positive review and therefore do not affect the opinion or content of the review.</i></b>
I love heists in books. We've got a group of people (each who are talented AF), something goes wrong (oop--) and then they're scrambling to fix things. Sometimes there's a character or two (or more) pining for another character and we just want to smush/protect them.
And it's definitely the case with <em>Spellhacker</em> by M.K. England, which follows Diz and her friends (Ania, Jaesin and Remi) as they take on one last job that ends up backfiring horribly in their faces. It's never happened in the two years they've been running their side business. There's magic (known as maz) and seriously cool technology involved, and that's usually a good recipe for me to enjoy the book. <s>Provided that something explodes, of course, but don't tell anyone.</s>
Which I did... for the most part. <em>Spellhacker</em> is a bit difficult for me to rate since a couple of issues throughout ruined some of my enjoyment.
<h2><strong>Two Things in <em>Spellhacker</em> I have issues with:</strong></h2>
(There were more, but they're minor.)
<h3><strong>The magic system</strong></h3>
I probably wouldn't have noticed it if Kal from Reader Voracious never mentioned it, but the moment she asked, I kept noticing... and not just the name. I keep thinking formaz is pronounced like "form ass." (Maybe that's just my sense of humor trying to get through the parts of the book I struggled with.)
But what I got really confused about were the differences between techwitch and spellweaver (kind of got an idea, still confused) and just how it worked... which I kept thinking of <a href="https://rwby.fandom.com/wiki/Dust">how dust works in RWBY</a>. It's most likely a very inaccurate depiction, though.
<h3><strong>The miscommunication</strong></h3>
I noticed this faintly at the beginning few chapters and didn't let it bother me <em>too</em> much. In fact, it pretty much slipped my mind until Kal brought it up. At times, it did get pretty damn irritating and I just wanted to shove Diz in front of a certain character like the many chances she had throughout the book. <em>And there are a lot of chances</em>.
<h2>Two <strong>Things I definitely didn't have an issue in <em>Spellhacker</em>:</strong></h2>
Or maybe just minor issues and they turned out to be good things in the end (after I thought about it).
<h3><strong>Diz's narration</strong></h3>
Diz is one of those characters I found absolutely annoying at first but slowly grew on me over the book. She's bitter and salty and full of sass; she's pretty much 95% angst teenager who wants things to go her way. She also sucks at communication big time; every time she <em>wants</em> to say something, she chooses not to. Even if she's called out by her friends, it takes a while before she actually comes out with it.
I hardcore relate.
<b><i>The author/publisher provided a free copy of the book for review purposes - thank you! Receiving a review copy does not guarantee a positive review and therefore do not affect the opinion or content of the review.</i></b>
I love heists in books. We've got a group of people (each who are talented AF), something goes wrong (oop--) and then they're scrambling to fix things. Sometimes there's a character or two (or more) pining for another character and we just want to smush/protect them.
And it's definitely the case with <em>Spellhacker</em> by M.K. England, which follows Diz and her friends (Ania, Jaesin and Remi) as they take on one last job that ends up backfiring horribly in their faces. It's never happened in the two years they've been running their side business. There's magic (known as maz) and seriously cool technology involved, and that's usually a good recipe for me to enjoy the book. <s>Provided that something explodes, of course, but don't tell anyone.</s>
Which I did... for the most part. <em>Spellhacker</em> is a bit difficult for me to rate since a couple of issues throughout ruined some of my enjoyment.
<h2><strong>Two Things in <em>Spellhacker</em> I have issues with:</strong></h2>
(There were more, but they're minor.)
<h3><strong>The magic system</strong></h3>
I probably wouldn't have noticed it if Kal from Reader Voracious never mentioned it, but the moment she asked, I kept noticing... and not just the name. I keep thinking formaz is pronounced like "form ass." (Maybe that's just my sense of humor trying to get through the parts of the book I struggled with.)
But what I got really confused about were the differences between techwitch and spellweaver (kind of got an idea, still confused) and just how it worked... which I kept thinking of <a href="https://rwby.fandom.com/wiki/Dust">how dust works in RWBY</a>. It's most likely a very inaccurate depiction, though.
<h3><strong>The miscommunication</strong></h3>
I noticed this faintly at the beginning few chapters and didn't let it bother me <em>too</em> much. In fact, it pretty much slipped my mind until Kal brought it up. At times, it did get pretty damn irritating and I just wanted to shove Diz in front of a certain character like the many chances she had throughout the book. <em>And there are a lot of chances</em>.
<h2>Two <strong>Things I definitely didn't have an issue in <em>Spellhacker</em>:</strong></h2>
Or maybe just minor issues and they turned out to be good things in the end (after I thought about it).
<h3><strong>Diz's narration</strong></h3>
Diz is one of those characters I found absolutely annoying at first but slowly grew on me over the book. She's bitter and salty and full of sass; she's pretty much 95% angst teenager who wants things to go her way. She also sucks at communication big time; every time she <em>wants</em> to say something, she chooses not to. Even if she's called out by her friends, it takes a while before she actually comes out with it.
I hardcore relate.
REACTION.CAM: Vlog Video Maker
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
• "I really love this app. It makes me feel like I'm a pro YouTuber." - sammymenz • "Amazing...
Smash Up - The Card Game
Games and Entertainment
App
***“It’s a goofy theme with fun art and high replayability, but beneath that veneer of casual...