Search
Search results
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
MisterMovieDude (2 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Dec 29, 2017 (Updated Dec 29, 2017)
Hong Chou (3 more)
The concept
The SFX
Has heart
Every actor except Hong Chou (2 more)
Run time
Pacing issues
Big Concept, comes up short
Contains spoilers, click to show
Going into Downsizing I was excited. I had seen all of Alexander Payne’s previous work, but couldn’t necessarily call myself a fan, but I had respect for him as a filmmaker. I had a feeling that this was going to feel more like stranger than fiction, or everything must go than the trailers and tv spots were making it seem. Unfortunately, I was right.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Serious Sweet: Longlisted for the Man Booker Prize in Books
May 13, 2017
This novel is a work of art, l I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
‘The trouble was, that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
Kaz (232 KP) rated White Teeth in Books
May 15, 2019
A Disappointing Read
What the 'blurb' says:
'One of the most talked about debut novels of all time, White Teeth is a funny, generous, big-hearted novel, adored by critics and readers alike. Dealing - among many other things - with friendship, love, war, three cultures and three families over three generations, one brown mouse, and the tricky way the past has of coming back and biting you on the ankle, it is a life-affirming, riotous must-read of a book.'
My Thoughts:
This novel has had quite a lot of attention over the past few years, particularly on BookTube. So when I saw it in my local charity shop, I decided to give it a go. I have to admit that upon starting it, I had very high expectations of it, so I was quite disappointed by the end.
First, the positives. This is had some very good writing within it.. The way in which Zadie Smith writes, is funny and the characters were very believable.
But the plot itself, was the main problem I had with this book. At the beginning, certain characters had a lot of attention and their stories seemed to be developing nicely and some of the things that happened to them, were really intense. But then suddenly, all of the focus of this story was completely shifted, onto another character and those who initially seemed important, became secondary characters, who were hardly mentioned in the rest of the book. Then, more and more characters were added, without fully focusing on any one person. This meant that, by the end of the book, even though they believeable, I really didn't feel like I knew any of them
Partly due to this, and the fact that every chapter felt like an individual short story, this made the flow of the plot stop and start all of the time, and, although some chapters were really enjoyable, for me, they didn't link together well.
Randomly also, there were almost essay-like chapters, which talked about the ideas of identity and race within a multicultural society. Even though these were really interesting and thought provoking, they didn't seem to belong within the story itself. So for me, the organization of the plot was really weak.
The most disappointing thing for me, was the end. The different strands of story did kind of come together towards the end. It was all building up to something that I thought, would make a powerful ending.
However, it felt like Zadie Smith had run out of energy by the end and couldn't be bothered to gives us readers a plausible and realistic conclusion. For some characters, they didn't really have any resolution at all. This made me feel frustrated about investing time on this book.
I think this book had some interesting ideas and the style of writing was really good, but the plot was terrible. This is shame, because this could have been brilliant..
My Rating ***
'One of the most talked about debut novels of all time, White Teeth is a funny, generous, big-hearted novel, adored by critics and readers alike. Dealing - among many other things - with friendship, love, war, three cultures and three families over three generations, one brown mouse, and the tricky way the past has of coming back and biting you on the ankle, it is a life-affirming, riotous must-read of a book.'
My Thoughts:
This novel has had quite a lot of attention over the past few years, particularly on BookTube. So when I saw it in my local charity shop, I decided to give it a go. I have to admit that upon starting it, I had very high expectations of it, so I was quite disappointed by the end.
First, the positives. This is had some very good writing within it.. The way in which Zadie Smith writes, is funny and the characters were very believable.
But the plot itself, was the main problem I had with this book. At the beginning, certain characters had a lot of attention and their stories seemed to be developing nicely and some of the things that happened to them, were really intense. But then suddenly, all of the focus of this story was completely shifted, onto another character and those who initially seemed important, became secondary characters, who were hardly mentioned in the rest of the book. Then, more and more characters were added, without fully focusing on any one person. This meant that, by the end of the book, even though they believeable, I really didn't feel like I knew any of them
Partly due to this, and the fact that every chapter felt like an individual short story, this made the flow of the plot stop and start all of the time, and, although some chapters were really enjoyable, for me, they didn't link together well.
Randomly also, there were almost essay-like chapters, which talked about the ideas of identity and race within a multicultural society. Even though these were really interesting and thought provoking, they didn't seem to belong within the story itself. So for me, the organization of the plot was really weak.
The most disappointing thing for me, was the end. The different strands of story did kind of come together towards the end. It was all building up to something that I thought, would make a powerful ending.
However, it felt like Zadie Smith had run out of energy by the end and couldn't be bothered to gives us readers a plausible and realistic conclusion. For some characters, they didn't really have any resolution at all. This made me feel frustrated about investing time on this book.
I think this book had some interesting ideas and the style of writing was really good, but the plot was terrible. This is shame, because this could have been brilliant..
My Rating ***
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Children of Hare Hill in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Moonstone in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Of all the books I had to read at school, The Moonstone was probably the only novel I really enjoyed. It is one of the first 'whodunnit' type of books and, remarkably, it manages to hit virtually every requirement of the genre dead centre. If this book was written today, it would still be a classic.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dracula Untold (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The latest Dracula movie attempts to honor an ancient story while adding some new spice and bringing the usual graphics flair we’ve come to expect from Hollywood, but falls short.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Heart-Shaped Box in Books
Jun 18, 2019
Unlikable characters (1 more)
Parts that weren't needed
Which one of us hasn't imagined being a successful rock star? The main character of this novel is an aging one, who has become the stereo-typical hard-ass that is expected of a death metal rock star. We begin with Judas Coyne, who hasn't made an album in years, and who is constantly running from his past- - -a habit he acquired when he ran away from home in Louisiana at the age of 19, and this is the problem that permeates Hill's 'Heart-Shaped Box.'
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated An American Family in Books
Jan 11, 2018
Amazing memoir
Like many people, I was inspired by the Khizr Khan's speech at the Democratic Convention last year, and appalled by Trump's reaction. As a Marine wife, the family members left behind when a service member dies get my utmost sympathy and compassion. That was my biggest fear while my husband was in the Marines, and it's still a very emotional memory to look back on. So when I heard that Khan was writing a book, I knew I HAD to read it. I put a hold request in at the library before the book was published, and I'm glad I did. The book is definitely one of my favorites of 2017. (One of my next posts will be a round up of my favorites from this year.)
An American Family follows the Khans' journey from Pakistan, to Dubai, to Texas, Maryland, and finally Virginia. And it's fascinating. He says in the beginning of the book that he wrote it to answer the question he's constantly asked: why do you love America? Why are you a Patriot? He couldn't answer it in a few short sentences. This book is his answer, and what an answer it is. It's impossible to summarize this book - it must be read.
It's a very easy read - it flows beautifully, and Khan tells a story well. It's easy, at least, until you get to the point where their son dies in action. Perhaps it wouldn't have such an emotional effect on someone else, but that, and its aftermath, was pretty hard for me to read about. The event is important, however. Its repercussions ripple out through the Khans' lives and affect everything they touch.
I can't recommend this book highly enough. Especially if you're American, and no matter where on the political spectrum you fall, this book is important. It might give you a different view on immigrants.
You can find all of my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
An American Family follows the Khans' journey from Pakistan, to Dubai, to Texas, Maryland, and finally Virginia. And it's fascinating. He says in the beginning of the book that he wrote it to answer the question he's constantly asked: why do you love America? Why are you a Patriot? He couldn't answer it in a few short sentences. This book is his answer, and what an answer it is. It's impossible to summarize this book - it must be read.
It's a very easy read - it flows beautifully, and Khan tells a story well. It's easy, at least, until you get to the point where their son dies in action. Perhaps it wouldn't have such an emotional effect on someone else, but that, and its aftermath, was pretty hard for me to read about. The event is important, however. Its repercussions ripple out through the Khans' lives and affect everything they touch.
I can't recommend this book highly enough. Especially if you're American, and no matter where on the political spectrum you fall, this book is important. It might give you a different view on immigrants.
You can find all of my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Possession (Possession, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I haven't figured out how I feel about Possession. I'm not sure if it's a 5 star book or a 1 star book.
Short story: It's really good.
Long story: well, that's a bit more involved.
Reasons this book was really good:
1. Pacing: Excellent. One thing leads to another, it's almost impossible to put down, and the tension never really goes away.
2. Good dialogue, good but concise descriptions, catchy interior monologue.
3. Good characters.
4. Jag is really sexy.
Reasons I wanted to slam my head against a wall while I was reading it:
1. Jag is awesome. Vi is awesome. Their relationship? Extremely dysfunctional. They are freaking bi-polar. One minute they're having a decent conversation, the next someone jumps to a conclusion and gets emotionally hurt and storms off, twenty-four hours and a hot shower later, they're sorry and cuddling and making out. THIS IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A RELATIONSHIP. Oh my word.
2. I got lost around Chapter 30. Stuff started happening, I could never tell if Vi was Vi or if she was dreaming, sometimes something would happen and it was a little cryptic, and confusing, and one thing stacked on top of another until by chapter 40 I was like "what the crap is going on?" I seriously closed the book and wasn't going to finish but I just HAD to know what happened. (I really should have quit while I was ahead.)
3. I got to the point where I couldn't tell who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, and I kind of stopped caring.
Reasons why the ending pissed me off:
1. The only bad guy who could have become good, didn't.
2. Then, the bad guys won.
Honestly, now that I've finished it, I really wish I hadn't. Luckily I checked Goodreads and found out it was book 1 in a series. Because THAT'S NOT AN ENDING. That was worse than The Hunger Games and Catching Fire endings!!!
Content/Recommendation: Some language and kissing, ages 16+
Short story: It's really good.
Long story: well, that's a bit more involved.
Reasons this book was really good:
1. Pacing: Excellent. One thing leads to another, it's almost impossible to put down, and the tension never really goes away.
2. Good dialogue, good but concise descriptions, catchy interior monologue.
3. Good characters.
4. Jag is really sexy.
Reasons I wanted to slam my head against a wall while I was reading it:
1. Jag is awesome. Vi is awesome. Their relationship? Extremely dysfunctional. They are freaking bi-polar. One minute they're having a decent conversation, the next someone jumps to a conclusion and gets emotionally hurt and storms off, twenty-four hours and a hot shower later, they're sorry and cuddling and making out. THIS IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A RELATIONSHIP. Oh my word.
2. I got lost around Chapter 30. Stuff started happening, I could never tell if Vi was Vi or if she was dreaming, sometimes something would happen and it was a little cryptic, and confusing, and one thing stacked on top of another until by chapter 40 I was like "what the crap is going on?" I seriously closed the book and wasn't going to finish but I just HAD to know what happened. (I really should have quit while I was ahead.)
3. I got to the point where I couldn't tell who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, and I kind of stopped caring.
Reasons why the ending pissed me off:
1. The only bad guy who could have become good, didn't.
2. Then, the bad guys won.
Honestly, now that I've finished it, I really wish I hadn't. Luckily I checked Goodreads and found out it was book 1 in a series. Because THAT'S NOT AN ENDING. That was worse than The Hunger Games and Catching Fire endings!!!
Content/Recommendation: Some language and kissing, ages 16+