Showing posts with label Poor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poor. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Lady Oracle, Margaret Atwood

Title:
Lady Oracle
Author:
Margaret Atwood
Rating:
Poor

I've been holding off on this review for a while, which is something I tend to do. A bit of distance from the book I am reviewing lets me see how well it holds up, and if it sticks with me or not.

Lady Oracle is an earlier work by Atwood, and one I have struggled to come to an opinion about.

On the plus side, Atwood's writing is generally quite good, and her characters are very alive. Her heroine has history in a way most people can't remember about themselves, and Atwood writes it lovingly.

On the minus side, though, all that history is just about all there is. She spends most of the book on back story, and then suddenly the pace picks up to tell about what is happening in the present. It comes across feeling disjoint as a result of those pacing issues. To me it was like the heroine now and the heroine in the past were two entirely different people.

Finally, the biggest issue for me is that almost nothing happens. Yes, the heroine does fake her own death – don't worry, that's on the back cover, and not a spoiler – but that's about the only actual event that takes place. The rest is all interior monologue and a few conversations.

To be clear, it's not that I only like books in which things are blown up, but I sadly conclude that Lady Oracle goes too far into the realm where nothing ever happens for my taste. Lovers of Atwood or less action based stories might appreciate this one.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Paul Of Dune, Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson

Title:
Paul Of Dune
Author:
Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
Rating:
Poor

I love the original Dune books by Frank Herbert. Well, I love some of them and appreciate the others for what they are, even if they aren't up the quality of Dune or God Emperor Of Dune, which are the best two in the series. Sadly, however, Herbert died with the series incomplete, and left a lot of questions unanswered.

His son, Brian Herbert, picked up the tale with co-writer Kevin J. Anderson, but rather than continue where Herbert left off, they have so far set their stories before or between the original novels in the series.

I'd read another one of their works some time back - Dune, House Atreides, I think - and found it flat. Recently, though, I was given a copy of Paul Of Dune and decided to try it, to see if the earlier work was just a poor example or actually reflected the reality of what Herbert and Anderson are writing. Sadly, it turns out to be the latter.

The Dune universe provides a rich tapestry to work with: compelling characters, fascinating settings, unique technology, incredibly complicated politics, and (of course) the spice. Herbert and Anderson, though, simply cannot find anything interesting to write about here. In fact, they barely find anything to write about at all.

The story has no focus, and we go from chapter to chapter wondering why any of it matters. It appears the time Paul Atreides spends consolidating power after assuming the role of emperor is pretty dull. If this wasn't fiction it might even be true that nothing of interest happened during this period, but Herbert and Anderson could and should have done better. Alternately, if they are following notes left by Frank himself, they should have skipped this part of Dune's history and written about something else. Something that matters.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter, Carson McCullers

Title:
The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter
Author:
Carson McCullers
Rating:
Poor

This is one of those reviews in which I let Doug down. If memory serves he loves this book.

Frankly, I didn't particularly like The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter. From what I've read elsewhere, it's a classic of American literature, but it didn't work for me.

I found it to be a disorganized presentation of several barely related stories, all of which were bleak, dull, or both.

I felt a small attachment to only one character - Mick - over the loss of her music at the end. Truth be told, though, none of the characters discussed seemed particularly real to me, and their struggles weren't all that important.

None of McCullers's characters grows much in any way during these pages. They just soldier on, suffering through their lives - we follow 6 or 8 of them for a year - and learn essentially nothing.

On a technical level I have to appreciate what McCullers did, though. As a rule I dislike excessive use of writing in the vernacular of the characters. When an accent or speech pattern gets to the point of inhibiting comprehension, I get frustrated. In this case the author walked a fine line. The southern speech was understandable, but because she wrote it in the vernacular it could never be called great English prose. Despite that her writing was pretty good. I give her credit for striking that balance.

I just wish the story had something in it for me. I didn't learn anything new about the human condition or about these people. I can't even tell you how the title is related to the contents.

In a week or two I'll have forgotten it all, and I won't be sorry.

Don't let my dislike stop you from reading this, though. There are a lot of things in the world that others love but which just aren't for me. This may be another in that category. A lot of reviews - and Doug's opinions - strongly support that theory.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Dead-Eye Dick, Kurt Vonnegut

Title:
Dead-Eye Dick
Author:
Kurt Vonnegut
Rating:
Poor

This book didn't exactly win me over. Unlike much of the Vonnegut I've read, this one actually had a recognizable plot, though, which was something in its favor. The premise, however, was pretty thin, and there just wasn't much meat here.

I finished reading it 3 weeks or so ago and I honestly don't remember all that much from it. Flipping open to a few pages at random I am reminded of things, but the whole work doesn't snap back to me.

What I am learning from my efforts at reading Vonnegut is that he's really a hit-or-miss writer for me, and this was a miss.

Sorry fans. I can't recommend this one.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Scorpion's Gate, Richard A. Clarke

Title:
The Scorpion's Gate
Author:
Richard A. Clarke
Rating:
Poor

I think I heard an interview with Clarke on NPR at some point and thought this book sounded interesting. Clarke, if you'll recall, was the counter-terrorism advisor to Bill Clinton who then carried over to work for President George Bush. Clarke was very critical of the Bush administration in a number of areas and wasn't afraid to say so publicly. There was a lot of controversy over what he said that can still be found in Clarke's Wikipedia entry, or at least in the discussion page related to the entry.

The tag line (if you want to call it that) on The Scorpion's Gate is "Sometimes you can tell more truth through fiction." I'm not so sure - at least in this case - but he tried, and clearly he tried hard. So hard, in fact, that it appears he may have been dragged along by his publisher who saw a good thing if they made the right market window.

The story is set in the not-too-distant future and follows the activities of several groups in the middle east. There are two significant points of difference from the current situation:
  1. The Saudis have been overthrown and their kingdom replaced with an Islamic republic.
  2. The US was "asked to leave" Iraq sometime after the Iraq war ended.
  3. As a result of the above, the US has less power in the region, and most of it is in the form of naval vessels.
From there Clarke spins a tale of intrigue where the bad guys are in positions of power in the US, and where catastrophe (in the form of a significant war) is narrowly avoided by a small group of renegade intelligence and military people working on their own.

Quite frankly, the plot was OK at best. He does his best to drive the action hard - probably on the orders of his publisher as mentioned above - but as a result the characters are basically cardboard cutouts. And there's an off stage sex scene in here that may well have been added as an afterthought, again possibly at the request of the publisher. Gotta get the racy stuff in or no one will read it, right?

The writing is uneven, sometimes sounding a bit like those old radio news broadcasts. "FLASH! Something interesting just happened in Iran!" But again, the entire work feels rushed, just as if the publisher said "you've got two weeks to write a book so we can make a lot of money." Then when he handed them the book they said "OK, we don't have time get you an editor, but add a sex scene somewhere and we'll shove it through the presses." I have no proof that sort of thing happened, of course, but it feels like it did.

One of the more amusing things appears in the acknowledgments section. It says, in part: "Some may think, as they read this volume, that they see themselves or others portrayed. They do not. This is a work of fiction, in which all characters are fictional." If I hadn't read those lines I might not have seen various Bush administration people in these roles. But having read that blurb first, it was impossible not to see at least one or two of them represented here. I suspect that was deliberate. An amazon.com review suggests that the book is allegory for the US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps, but that may be a bit deep for Clarke given what I see here.

Overall I think the book is far from great. Clarke's got a newer novel out in 2007, but based on this I have no desire to read it. Perhaps his time in the national spotlight is coming to an end. I don't see his career as a fiction writer taking off all that well, but I have the predictive powers of a gnat, so even I don't give that thought much credence.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt

Title: On Bullshit
Author: Harry G. Frankfurt
Rating: Poor

For a while this book was all the rage. I, personally, thought it was... well... bullshit.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But that is really what I think.

There's no interesting content here, and not much content at all, really. The back of many cereal boxes is more satisfying.

Read something else - I don't care what it is. You'll probably be better off and have learned more than you will by reading this thing.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Shopgirl, Steve Martin

Title: Shopgirl
Author: Steve Martin
Rating: Poor

I picked up Shopgirl some time back - on a whim - via paperbackswap.com. I was ordering several books from someone else and found this on their list. Martin's films are hit or miss for me, but when they work they're very funny. I figured it couldn't hurt to try his prose.

I was right - it didn't hurt - but it wasn't all that enjoyable either. In fact, I think Shopgirl qualifies as "chick-lit" written by a male. It wasn't all that interesting, the major plot points were predictable, and I didn't buy the development of at least one of the three main characters. The other two main characters really don't undergo much development at all, leaving me wondering what the point of the story is.

The cover claims the book is "Now A Major Motion Picture" like that's some sort of recommendation. It wasn't for me. I had no clue that was the case when I requested the book, and I have no desire to see it now.

All in all this was mostly a waste of time and paper.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

America: The Book: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, Writers of The Daily Show

Title: America: The Book: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
Author: Writers of The Daily Show
Rating: Poor

I've been slogging through this one for a long time now. Others have given it glowing reviews. Alas, I must be hugely out of touch with modern culture. I didn't laugh aloud even once while reading this. I rarely even cracked a smile.

To say the humor is heavy handed would be putting it mildly.

To say it made me sad - on a number of fronts - would be accurate.

I guess my biggest problems were (a) just how often the book descended into bathroom humor and (b) how often the non-bathroom humor was too close to the truth for me to be comfortable. An example of the latter issue: chapter 3 is titled "The President: King of Democracy". Has anyone actually watched the Bush administration accumulate power?

I found the book's layout - parodying high school civics class textbooks - to be mildly amusing, but only in that it showed me just how bad the layout of my old textbooks was. How I read those books - with all those asides and distractions - I'll never know,

Anyway, I found America: The Book to be somewhat repetitive, not particularly funny, and sometimes too close to reality to even be considered humor. I'm glad I got it through http://www.paperbackswap.com/ so it didn't really cost me anything. I'll send it on to someone else.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

A Treasury Of Great Science Fiction, Vol 1, Anthony Boucher

Title: A Treasury Of Great Science Fiction, Vol 1
Editor: Anthony Boucher
Rating: Poor

This was a waste of time. I kept reading only out of the hope that the next item in this anthology would be better. They really weren't. And there is a second volume to this tome and I am not at all sure I am going to bother trying to sled through it the way I did this one.

This anthology was compiled in the 1959 and mostly appears to contain material published in the early 1950s. These pieces are almost all very, very dated. Most are just plain poor in my opinion. They include:
  • Re-Birth by John Wyndham. A short novel about a post atomic apocalypse society. 125 pages of trudging predictability.

  • The Shape Of Things That Came by Richard Deming. A short story that might have been fascinating in 1950 but is horribly out of place in 2007.

  • Pillar Of Fire by Ray Bradbury. I know he's supposed to be this god-like author, but this wasn't a winner for me. And in fact, viewed with our sensibilities in 2007, he'd probably be locked up for writing this now, particularly if he wrote it as a kid or in college. It's basically a horror story, though, set somewhere in the future, with a couple mentions of rockets that probably caused people to think of it as SF. Not in my definition, but...

  • Waldo by Robert Heinlein. Now I know why mechanical devices that manipulate items in place of people's hands are called "waldoes", but beyond that there isn't anything to recommend this novella. I've always had trouble with Heinlein, but this is problematic in an entirely different way from his later works. Waldo is boring. His later works are patently offensive.

  • The Father Thing by Philip K. Dick. Another horror story; definitely not SF. I am starting to think that much early SF was actually horror in disguise, and that renders it much less interesting to me.

  • The Children's Hour by Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore. This one borders on fantasy, rather than SF, and it's a pretty dull tale of a relationship doomed to failure.

  • Gomez by C. M. Kornbluth. A childish tale - though perhaps not from the POV of 1953 or so - about someone working out important atomic secrets on his own. Other than enhancing my impression of the paranoia of the 1950s about our atomic secrets, there's nothing of interest here.

  • The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff by Theodore Sturgeon. This novella is probably the strongest entry in the book. Again it bordered more on fantasy than SF, but it was actually centered on a whole series of complex relationships, and kept me interested as a result. Not enough to re-read it, but it was OK.

  • Sandra by George P. Elliott. I have no idea why this was included in a volume of SF. I'd call it an alternate history piece, I guess. The central idea is that slavery still exists (the time of the story is not specified, nor is it easy to determine from context) and the main character presents in writing the development of the relationship with his female slave. I found the entire thing pointless and offensive.

  • Beyond Space And Time by Joel Townsley Rogers. A travesty of a hard SF story. I'd never heard of Joel Townsley Rogers before reading this, and I hope I never hear of him again. A quick google search tells me that he was prolific. I'll continue to avoid him, and if you're ever offered the chance to read this short story, don't bother. It's the worst of the lot in this book.

  • The Martian Crown Jewels by Poul Anderson. A rather predictable pseudo-locked room mystery set in the future and involving space travel. Yawn.

  • The Weapon Shops Of Isher by A. E. van Vogt. An oddball novella with some appeal, but I found it slow going for reasons I am not entirely sure I understand. There are a few interrelated plot lines and a reasonably well fleshed out universe, but something seemed lacking.
And there you have it. Many of the giants of SF have pieces in this collection, and my impression is mostly not good. To be honest, the editor states that he was trying to "get together a great deal of good reading in modern (1938-1950) s.f. which had been overlooked by earlier anthologists". I suggest there is a reason these works were overlooked.

As a sociological study, however, there is a tiny bit of interest here. Female characters are scarce and female leads are even less common, everyone smokes, and the predictions for the future are mostly lame. None of those is a good reason to read this volume - or these works in other locations - but if you were making a study of just how far wrong SF can go, this might be an interesting place to start.

Thursday, March 1, 2007

The Unfettered Mind, Takuan Soho

Title:
The Unfettered Mind
Author:
Takuan Soho
Rating:
Poor

In this review I am likely to write things considered crass and/or culturally insensitive by many. It is possible I will offend you, along with the rest of the the planet. If so, I apologize, but such is life. Nothing I say here is meant to be taken personally by anyone.

I was given The Unfettered Mind as a gift over the recent holidays. The givers know me as a fencer, and thus thought I might be interested in this volume. The subtitle of the book is "Writings of the Zen Master to the Sword Master," and it contains translations of three letters by Soho, all relating to Zen and the martial arts in some way. It seemed like a good bet.

And in truth I've always had a soft spot in my mind for Japanese culture and Zen. I've never felt any interest in learning Zen - for reasons that will probably become obvious below - but the "idea of learning Zen" has always appealed to me in some way, though definitely not as an actual thing to do. Those who know me probably cannot imagine me trying to follow Zen Buddhism in any way, shape, or form. Truth be told, I can't imagine me doing it either. But the idea has appeal regardless, much like the idea of becoming an astronaut has appeal. At my age I should know enough to discard these fantasies, but I'm weak, just like everyone else.

So I cracked open this small (101 page, including end notes) tome with the hope that I'd learn something about Zen and/or Japanese sword fighting.

Feh.

Let me repeat that, just to be clear: Feh.

It took me well over a week to slog through this thing, and I came out the other end knowing basically nothing new. But thanks to the experience even the idea of learning Zen is no longer interesting.

Before I review the book in more depth, though, I want to give you a tiny bit of background about me, so that at least some of my reaction will make more sense. Call it a "coming out" of sorts.

I became an atheist when I was young. Grade school age. Still in cub scouts. Standing there, reciting the infamous "under god" line in the pledge of allegiance got me thinking that religion was a pretty silly concept. (Yes, we said the pledge every morning in school as well, but for some reason my memory says my lack of religious belief crystallized at a cub scout meeting.) Ever after - whenever forced to recite the pledge - I'd mumble over those words, rather than say them, because saying them felt - and still feels - dishonest.

As I got older, I learned more about religion in various ways, but never did I come to believe any of it. It didn't matter which faith was under consideration, they all looked equally bad to me. But if there was a weakness in my armor, it was going to be for something like Zen. Something that was highly introspective, as opposed to the extravagantly obvious, organized religions that generally flourish in the US.

As I say, this book killed that last bit of religious potential in me. I'm not sorry. In fact, I'm happy about it. But that doesn't mean it was fun reading. What we have here is 101 pages of - and I'm sorry to say it so bluntly - tripe. Maybe if I were to spend thirty or more years learning Zen from the beginning I'd have a clue about what this muck means, but I doubt it. Now that I've been exposed to a tiny bit more of it, Zen - at least as espoused by Takuan Soho - is obviously composed of the same gobbledygook that makes up every other religion I've seen.

First off, what is presented here is religion as a way to control others. I long ago come to the conclusion that was one of the major reasons - if not the single most important reason - religion came into existence in the first place. A society where people feel bound together by some set of beliefs and are led by a charismatic individual is probably more likely to survive and reproduce than one that is leaderless, particularly after evolution had brought some level of consciousness into the picture. I'm far from an expert, but it seems that anyone who's thought anarchy through to its actual conclusion will feel similarly. Religion filled a particular niche in the earliest societies - forming a long time ago on the plains of what is now Africa or elsewhere - and that niche was control.

And as if to confirm that, the first letter in this book contains - among other things - a long diatribe about the relationship between the servant and his lord. I found it flatly offensive, but it drove home the point that even Zen embodies (and probably springs from) the same need to control the population as other religions. But despite that bit of new knowledge, it was still unpleasant reading, and only the fact that the author was born in 1573 - and thus a product of a much differently organized culture than my own - kept me reading at all.

The rest of the book is mystical claptrap, often structured as a relatively simple statement, followed by a restatement or an explanation of that same item. However, the explanations never - and I mean never - actually explain anything, and the underlying concepts and principles on which Soho bases his arguments are entirely unjustified. There may be texts out there that explain things like "the Five Roots" or "Latent Cause" or "the Five Skanhas" (and many similar phrases) in other ways, but thanks to The Unfettered Mind I know I won't be reading them.

Wrapped among those statements of "fact" (that aren't actually fact at all) are too many metaphors to count. Often these are quite pretty, but they don't illuminate anything. Regularly there will be some statement of "fact" and then a metaphor to make it clear. Picking a page entirely at random:
As a rule, a thing born cannot be without Form, so we speak of the Essential Quality of Form. Although Form may change in multitudinous ways, as Form it is the same. When Form changes, even the sound of its song will change: the cuckoo sings the song of the cuckoo, the nightingale sings the song of the nightingale.
Boy I sure am glad I read that. I know so much more about Form now. And that isn't even a slightly remarkable or unusual passage from the book.

Amusingly, I found myself reminded of Dungeons and Dragons. The author discusses the various "levels" that people advance through, and how most of us - me in particular, no doubt - are stuck at the lowest level. But between the lines, the arrogance of the author screams at the reader: "I'm on my way to being a Buddha while you are nothing!" And, of course, the recipients of these letters aren't a peasants either. Nope. They're highly regarded swordsmen, also clearly on their own path to Enlightenment. This book almost reads like a joke. One can almost imagine the author himself saying...
Hmmm, how can I put one over on these swordsmen and keep my standing high? After all, I've still gotta eat. Enlightenment hasn't fixed that little problem yet.

<gentle, "enlightened" laughter>

I know. I'll talk about the Fourteen Donkeys of Freedom. No. Wait. That won't do. How about I go grab some books of old poetry, find a few references to things no one is ever going to get, and make up some words that make it sound like I understand it all. Yeah. That's the ticket. And maybe I can work in the Fourteen Donkeys of Freedom while I'm at it. After all, there are fourteen days in a fortnight. That'll bamboozle 'em.

<more gentle, "enlightened" laughter>
A literal reading of this book - even knowingly discounting the metaphors - would lead you to believe you can do anything you want, and know anything there is to know. With training, you can defeat an army of hundreds of thousands single handed. You can probably fly too. The level of mysticism in here is amazing.

Most of us have probably encountered someone spouting stuff like this at some point in our lives. On a street corner perhaps, or on the grounds of a university. Maybe on the subway. In any event you've encountered someone, somewhere who has a mystical answer for everything right at hand. They've been "Touched by God" (tm) and they know "The Truth." Most of us edge away from those people when we see them. Sometimes out of fear. Sometimes out of disinterest. For my part I give them a wide berth because I don't want to draw attention to them. They don't deserve it.

Soho comes across to me just like that guy. He may not foam at the mouth the way Max did on the quad, but he's got that old time religion, the mystical answers, and a willingness to believe that he's special - much more special than nearly everyone else on the planet. If I met him today and realized what he was about, I'd cross the street to keep away. I do not willingly encourage this kind of fuzzy thinking.

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Breakfast Of Champions, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Title:
Breakfast Of Champions
Author:
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Rating:
Poor

Breakfast Of Champions is the third book I've read by Vonnegut, and it is much more like Timequake than it's like Cat's Cradle. In that regard it is disappointing, but the disappointment goes beyond just that similarity. Breakfast Of Champions just doesn't hold together all that well, and though it appears to be a commentary on American society at the time it was published (1973) it looks pretty lame (in my opinion) viewed from 2006.

Without including spoilers, I can say that the author is a character in this tome. That's an odd writing device but it leads to certain situations and events that are at least somewhat funny. But it is also a way of presenting a story that completely violates the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. It's hard enough to follow any fanciful story - and become engrossed in it - in general, but it's really hard when the author himself makes several appearances as a character. Even the author "speaking out of the frame" (to borrow and probably butcher some movie terminology) is distracting, and that happens all over in this book.

Those looking for more about Kilgore Trout - Vonnegut's alter ego of a sort - will find plenty about him here. Trout is an amusing character, but still a cardboard cutout, like just about everyone else.

Of the actual plot, it's basically nothing. In fact, I delayed writing this review for about ten days while I did several other things and tried to figure out what I wanted to say. During that time, the few actual events of the plot all blurred together to the point where I cannot really tell you what the story is about anymore. Oh, I could name the major characters and hit a couple of highlights, but that wouldn't be important.

As a way of trying to explain that, let's envision a story about a couple of guys that go out for dinner, get into an argument about nothing in particular, then go home. That's it. No significant content (plot-wise) is present. It's mundane stuff that could (and probably should) be ignored. That's the kind of thing (but not specifically the actual plot of) Breakfast Of Champions is about. It just doesn't matter.

I guess what was supposed to matter was the social commentary, and this novel is loaded with social commentary. Just about every other paragraph is a comment about something. The problem is that all of those paragraphs are comments about different things. There is nothing that binds the paragraphs (or chapters) together, except the regular use of the n-word (for reasons that I still don't understand) and the occasional return to the nearly non-existent plot.

If Vonnegut had put together a social commentary on one or two (or even a handful of) themes, discussing them in depth and playing out what the implications of things are, it would be interesting. Here, however, he basically says: "X is bad. Blather. Y doesn't work. Yadda yadda yadda. Z is amusing but pointless. Ho hum." And so on. We learn nothing in depth about what he thinks or what points he is trying to make.

I found all of this very surprising. Breakfast Of Champions has been on my list of books to read for years. It's relatively well known and was a best seller at some point in its past. Now that I have read it, though, all I can do is wonder why it got the level of attention it did.

Given the choices I've had from Vonnegut I'd suggest skipping Breakfast Of Champions and reading Cat's Cradle instead.

Friday, March 24, 2006

The Island Of Dr. Moreau, H. G. Wells (spoilers)

Title: The Island Of Dr. Moreau
Author: H. G. Wells
Rating: Poor

Beware: there are spoilers in here. Sorry.

This is the second of the books in a collection of H. G. Wells's work, and - I hope - the most problematic. I've been sick with a flu for some time now, and that hasn't helped my attitude, but this book is not good. About it Wells writes in the preface: "... and The Island Of Dr. Moreau [is] rather painful." He's right, and for more reasons than he knew when he wrote those words. It hasn't held up over time.

Perhaps looked at as a sample of early science fiction it is an important work. Perhaps as a piece of writing it is significant, though I would argue against that suggestion. In any event, the science is so abominably bad I can't imagine how it could be worse. Taken as a morality play, and with substantial rewrites to get past the most horrific scientific blunders, it might be useful. But even there I wonder. The hero does some stupid things, and doesn't take rational actions when he should have.

Of course this book was first published back in 1896, and apparently the English were all aflutter over the "science" of vivisection at the time. Maybe those factors should cause me to give Moreau a break, but I won't. The language is stilted, the story is simplistic, and as stated above there isn't a single bit of science in here that is close to correct. It really is painful to read 110 years later.

A brief plot summary: the hero (Edward Prendick) is ship wrecked but gets to a life boat. He is picked up by a ship on the way to Dr. Moreau's island with a cargo of live animals. Once there, he is left behind by the ship, and so has to get on with Moreau, his assistant (Montgomery) and a set of servants who turn out to be created (by Moreau's art of vivisection) from various animals. These beast men live on the island after Moreau has decided they are failures. Moreau is eventually killed by one of the animals he is working on, Montgomery is killed by others, the beast men slowly revert back to their animalistic ways, and Prendick finally builds a raft and is rescued. He's writing the tale years later, though no one will believe him.

My biggest problem is that this story goes on forever. I could never believe what was happening, and so the pages dragged on and on and on and on and ... never mind. It was not a fun read.

As of this writing, the wikipedia entry says this book addresses:
  • Society and community. But there is really little here on that. True, the beast men form a society, and true the narrator isn't comfortable in English society when he returns a year later, but that's about all you get. There is no real exploration of what makes up society here. In fact, I would argue that it fails on this point entirely, and there could have been a lot more development of the society of the beast men in the book. That might actually have been interesting.
  • Human nature and identity. What's present on this is so sophomoric that it doesn't deserve the title. Through surgical procedures (vivisection) and hypnosis Moreau enhances animals to near human stature. I think not. But even if you buy it, Wells doesn't actually deal in human nature much here. What little you find is all simplistic stereotyping. Even the hero - who winds up disliking what Moreau does - can't empathize with the animals being tormented. I wonder what Wells's sense of human nature really was.
  • Religion. Other than the hero's occasional statements that he is a religious man, and his use of religious terms when Moreau dies - in an attempt to scare and control the beast men - there is no mention of religion here at all.
  • Darwinism. Yet again I disagree with Wikipedia. First off because the term "Darwinism" has been taken over by the religious right and is used in a negative light. The term that should be there is "evolution". Secondly because once again the term is mentioned a couple of times in passing, and then Moreau goes on to do all kinds of things that simply aren't possible within any evolutionary scheme. (Combining bits of rhinoceros and horse to create a single man-like organism, for example.) There is no exploration of evolution here. It's mentioned in passing to give a hint of science to the work. Nothing more.
  • Eugenics. Perhaps we've hit on something the book is actually about, but even here I am not certain I agree. Eugenics is generally about making the "race" better - for some definition of race, generally encompassing a much smaller set of people than than "all of humanity". In the book, though, Moreau is doing science for no reason at all, unconcerned about repeated failure despite hints that it will never work, and there is no real gain to be had in what he's doing. It doesn't really strike me as a small scale eugenics program going on here. More like a small scale program of torturing animals.
  • The dangers of unchecked and irresponsible scientific research. Yes, here I finally agree with wikipedia, but to my mind the larger problem is the idea that there is such a thing as "unchecked" scientific research. I admit there is a lot of research that leads in unexpected directions, or whose results can be misused, but I would argue that doing the research itself isn't wrong. In any event, Moreau is doing research to no point and purpose. That might be fine if it was mathematics, but he is injuring creatures and discarding them when they fail to meet his expectations. If that was acceptable - even to a minority of people - at the time the book was written, then I am ashamed of that portion of my heritage.
I wish the wikipedia article authors would support why they think The Island Of Dr. Moreau actually addresses - as opposed to "mentions" - these things. If mentioning something is addressing it, then just about everything I've ever read was much deeper than I thought.

My copy of this book is a 1978 reprint of a 1934 edition of this tome. Remember that the preface - written by Wells himself for that 1934 edition - called The Island Of Dr. Moreau "rather painful." He was right, way back then, and it has only gotten worse. Unless you're studying the history of science fiction, I'd give this one a pass.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Dead Man's Tale, Ellery Queen

Title: Dead Man's Tale
Author: Ellery Queen
Rating: Poor

Ed Ting and I go back a ways. We were at the U of I together years ago, and ran with many of the same crowd, including our fine leader here, Uncle Doctor Reverend Douglas J. Shaw. It was a good crew, and we had a good time.

As the readers of this forum know, Ed has been reviewing Ellery Queen novels for some time now, and giving most of them rather breathless reviews. One of those reviews resulted in a conversation, which resulted in his loaning me three Ellery Queen novels. Such are the tangible results of ancient friendships.

Dead Man's Tale is the first of those three. It's a double with Death Spins the Platter, and it came first, so I read it first. Of the three, I believe it is Ed's least favorite.

OK, I hear you ask, what do I think of it?

Way back in high school, so many years ago I barely remember it, I took a creative writing course. (Yes, I know, this isn't anything about the book yet. Please be patient!) In that class, we wound up hitting on a common thematic element in the stories we wrote. One student - whose name I honestly cannot remember, but should go down in history - wrote a detective story in which the detective goes through all the motions of solving the crime, and finally announces he has the answer. This announcement comes as he and his sidekick are crossing a street. They are both run down - and killed - by a passing car, and the story ends. That became "the creative comp" ending - kill your characters off before things were done.

And we did that, in spades. Nearly everyone in the class wrote one or more stories in which everyone of any importance dies, generally with the story still unresolved. We'd read these stories out loud in class and laugh. It was, in hind sight, pretty silly.

While Dead Man's Tale doesn't quite follow the creative comp strategy it comes amazingly close. (See, I did get back to reviewing the book!) Most everyone dies. Shot. Generally for the wrong reasons, but just close enough to the right reasons to keep the plot moving forward.

So, to drive the point home, this is a review of things this book is not. And the first thing this book isn't is a "creative comp" book, but only because not quite everyone winds up shot by the end. It's a close thing, but it falls just short there.

It also isn't a mystery. Now I may have an oddball Ellery Queen book here, but there is nothing for me to try to figure out as it goes along. It tells a story, linearly, and we know who is doing what as it happens. New characters are introduced, of course, but only as needed. Then they are generally shot.

Something else the book isn't: it isn't about Ellery Queen. He never makes an appearance. Now please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought the Ellery Queen books featured a detective named (naturally) Ellery Queen, who solves mysteries. Apparently not this one. What have I missed?

And finally, one last thing this book isn't: well written. I found the prose choppy, and the characters were all pretty wooden. Of course, just how much can you learn about a character in a few paragraphs. And that's all we get, usually, since the next time we see them, they're busy being shot.

I hope the other two Ellery Queen novels I have are better than this. Ed seems to think they are, and I trust his judgment, for now.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

2005 Honda Element Owner's Manual, Honda Motors

Title: 2005 Honda Element Owner's Manual
Author: Honda Motors
Rating: Poor

This was a gripping read. A real page turner. I found the instructions for controlling the ceiling light particularly intense reading.

*sigh*

As you might suspect, this wasn't something I'd intended to include in my list, but I've decided it does count. It's well over 200 pages long, and dry as dust, but I suspect it makes more sense than Ulysses. (Heck, if My Little Golden Book About Zogg and Doug's The Art of Shaving count, then the back of my Raisin Bran box might count too, but I digress.) Some good did come of reading it, as I did encounter a couple of nits that I have to ask the dealer about next week.

Moving off topic a bit:

We are selling our 95 Acura Integra to our excellent mechanic to make room for the new Honda Element. Why am I doing that, you might ask? Good question. The Acura is in very good condition, and would probably get me another 100,000 miles without much expense (and it's got 204,000 on it now), and it's mileage is excellent as well. However, it's a 2 door, and it doesn't comfortably sit more than 2. Rear seat passengers encounter significant chin/knee interference.

Recently my parents visited us here. They rented a Ford POS and my wife and I were ferried around by my father, who was nervous about both the car (which drove like an ancient living room couch) and the narrow mountain roads where we live. We couldn't drive the rental, and we had nothing that would haul the four of us comfortably. In a couple of months my in-laws will arrive for a stay, and I am not going to go through being held to the whims - and vehicle - of my visitors again. Not if there is any way we can avoid it.

So we bought a new Honda Element. It has lots of room, plenty of pep, and seats four comfortably. The mileage is lower, alas, but hopefully not by too much. I like the vehicle a lot, though. It is stylistically "interesting."

I hope to get back to my other reading challenges in short order, but there are other distractions at the moment.

Cheers to you all.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Lemony Snicket, The Unauthorized Autobiography,

Title: Lemony Snicket, The Unauthorized Autobiography
Author: Lemony Snicket
Rating: Poor

This book is probably not worth the effort or money.

It is essentially a cryptic set of chapters that bear some relation to the events in the actual series of children's books. However, it isn't at all clear what this book actually says or means. The author hints at underlying things going on in and around the fictional Snicket family, but nothing holds together.

It's only mildly amusing, and often confusing. The reversible dust jacket is the funniest thing about the book, and while it is amusing, it's not enough to justify the purchase.

However, if you're the kind of person that enjoys incredibly complex puzzles, it is possible that there is data in here that will help to unravel the various goings on in the Snicket books themselves. I haven't had the patience for that - in any forum, not just here - and so didn't find the book useful in that way either.

In short, save time and read only the actual Lemony Snicket series.