I had to read that in my high school AP literature class. One of our activities was to do a group presentation acting out a scene from a book we'd read that semester. My teacher emphatically shot down my suggestion of reenacting the massage scene . Isn't that the book where the last words of Dutch Schultz are quoted though? "A boy has neither wept nor dashed a thousand kim"? I know they featured extensively in The Illuminatus Trilogy but I seem to remember them from Ragtime.
It’s funny (though not terribly surprising) that you still remember that “encounter” in the book. I guess I probably would have too. Doctorow uses some imaginative description to paint the scene. Possibly. Many of the details of the book have already completely faded from my memory.
It is a good rule after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. - C.S. Lewis
Finished two books. (1) The King Beyond the Gate, David Gemmell. This wasn’t one of the better Drenai series installments, but it had enough ‘Gemmell goodness’ to make it worth my time. Moments such as the impromptu and heartwarming wedding during a city seige. Classic Gemmell. Rating: 3 stars (2) The Prestige, Christopher Priest. This read like an H.G. Wells story (authorial voice, premise, and themes) but with more alloted pages to further explore its ideas and fascinate its readers. I was hooked from the first page to the last. Despite their long and bitter rivalry, I thought it was the perfect choice for both magicians to have a good sense of right and wrong, as well as reasonable motivations. And what a terrific ending; I loved the mixed emotions I was left with. Rating: 4.5 stars The surviving Borden will therefore realize that I had the last word, that the feud is over and that I triumphed. While invading his privacy I showed I could respect it. From this I hope he will learn that the enmity he fostered between us was futile and destructive, that while we sniped at each other we were squandering the talents in both of us. We should have been friends. ~ The Prestige
I didn't know this was adapted from a book, but there's a movie version starring Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman that's pretty okay as I remember. Christopher Nolan directed, if that's either your thing or a red flag.
Yeah, I’ve seen it. I’ve been wanting to read something by Christopher Priest for quite a while, and eventually decided to try out a story I was familiar with. Good decision.
A summary of the 2022 Omnibus spending bill (I know - I can't help it). I may take a stab at the bill itself (4155 pages).
My suspicion is that after the first few pages it just says "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over and over...
I’m reading Piranesi. Recommended to me by this website. It’s an interesting work of sci-fi and the scenery described is beyond this world. Short book. Not much more to go.
And representing the Low Brow Contingent of the Forum is me, reading Murder in the Ballpark by Robert Goldsborough, who is writing novels involving Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe. He's not Rex Stout, but I'll finish the book since he's got a good grasp of the characters.
Just finished The Tortilla Curtain by TC Boyle, and wrapping up listening to A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy O'Toole.
I have at least 5-6 books in the nearby that I started reading months ago and never finished. One of them is: I also sometimes use online websites to get books that are about to be published.
Frankenstein (1831 Edition) by Mary Shelley (★★★) The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde (★★★★) Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem (★★ 1/2) At the Mountains of Madness by H.P. Lovecraft (★★★★ 1/2) The Shadow Over Innsmouth by H.P. Lovecraft (★★★★★) The Colorado Kid by Stephen King (zero) Yeah! I'll post 6 reviews at once. ---------------------- Frankenstein (1831 Edition) by Mary Shelley (★★★) A scientist creates a monster. It slaughters his family. He pursues it in revenge. It's a so-so story. I tried to keep it in historical context, but there's just not much to the plot. The writing is pedestrian. Every character (including the monster) speaks in exactly the same phrasing. The male characters are clearly written by a woman because there is zero about them that is masculine. Guys do not go around noticing how other men's eyes are "lustrous." Really, this doesn't happen, not even in Regency times. I don't even think gay guys would do this, so I don't know what these characters are supposed to be. Certainly these men shouldn't be swooning and becoming so feverish with anxiety that they slip into convalescence. I just didn't buy it. It read like the writing of a teenage girl, which it was. I would also like to point out the monster is an incel. He lurks about in a rage because he can't have a woman. He hides in the wilderness (a metaphorical basement hidden from society). He is well-read and sophisticated, in his own estimation, yet any woman would see him and reject him because of his hideousness (typical neckbeard). He wants Frankenstein to set him up (make him a bride) so he can score. Well, that doesn't happen. Frankenstein fears that they will breed a race of murderous incels. This cannot be allowed! The monster is insanely jealous of "Chad" Frankenstein and kills his wife on their wedding night. Compare that attitude to that of infamous incel gunmen and I think you'll find a lot in common. Lots of plot holes and I reject the idea that this is early sci-fi. You have to do more than mention a chemistry set to create a sci-fi story. This is more properly a Gothic Romance. I'd probably give this less stars, but it gets a couple just for being a progenitor of early horror. ---------------------- The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde (★★★★) Young, foppish Dorian has a painting that absorbs his sins. While he looks immaculate to others, the painting shows his degenerate soul. I always mistakenly assumed this was a story about someone with immortality. Maybe it was from watching that dreadful movie with Sean Connery. The real point of the story is that the people of Oscar Wilde's age believe in physiognomy, that a person's character can be seen in his face. Dorian's flaws are absorbed by the painting, and once he realizes this he goes wild with horndog lechery, drug abuse, etc? You know, I'm not really sure what he does. It's strange to me that his behavior isn't really explained. He goes to "dens of iniquity," and that's about all that is said. He spurns his fiance so that she kills herself. He covers up crimes. He lusts after women and "spoils" them (if you get my drift), though that's only mentioned in metaphor. The painting shows his base nature while the world is amazed at his beauty. The original edition of this book, which was the one I read, was censored and removed from shelves. Readers were horrified at the gay undertones of the story. Truthfully, there's not much there. The guy who paints Dorian is clearly smitten with him, though Dorian doesn't feel anything in return. Dorian is very much a ladies' man, and ruins many maidens with his antics. Regardless, the painter was definitely a gay character, and he was shown sympathetically. The second edition of the book tones down some of his confessions so that his feelings are more fraternal. I guess there were some pretty sick real-life scandals at the time (imagine Epstein and brothels of underaged boys), and I think that worked against Mr. Wilde. People wanted to be angry. I actually found the painter's sentiments to be universal and easily understood. This shouldn't have been censored, but I say this from modern times. What's funny to me is that Frankenstein opens with the same tone. The sailor who picks up Frankenstein (the scientist, not the monster) is head over heels for the guy. He can't believe how wonderful Frankenstein is and wishes that they could be "close friends." It really can be read the same way. That story was written much earlier and no one assumed anything into it. ---------------------- Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem (★★) In a slightly off modern-day New York, a cast of characters get stoned and dwell on existence. My summary sounds better than this book reads. The problem is that there's no real plot. There are strange events happening around the characters, but it's all so distant as to have no bearing. The MC, named Chase Insteadman (everyone has a weird name in this book), meets a strange stoner friend and they question their own existence. They think they might live in a simulation, maybe. Who knows? I liked how the MC had an astronaut girlfriend who was stranded in space, starving. Well, I don't like the concept, but as a plot device it was unique. She writes to him and confesses her love while telling him how the crew is dying in agony and how she misses him. Those were my favorite parts because they felt like a proper story. The rest of what is here is supremely weird. I don't think I was in the book's audience. Beautifully written character and setting descriptions though. Really, this is written by an incredibly skilled author. It just wasn't for me. I notice the author mentions "Humboldt's Gift" as one of his sources of inspiration, and I can see that, for sure. That also had a nebulous plot. It was also written with high skill. ---------------------- At the Mountains of Madness by H.P. Lovecraft (★★★★ 1/2) An expedition from Miskatonic University explores the Antarctic. Eldritch hilarity ensues. There's so much to love here. Just the way the MC is drawn deeper and deeper into unfathomable madness. It is in many ways reminiscent of Heart of Darkness. The evil which is found is beyond the scope of human understanding. It's cosmic not because it is from the stars, but because it is so vast that Man is lost within it. But being scientists, the MC and his crew must pursue that knowledge. The MC and his buddy are the greatest readers of stone carvings of all time. How they manage to translate this Tolkienesque history from simple carvings is really amusing when you consider the totality of what you're being told. As they explore an ancient city and realize that humanity is nothing within the breadth of its history (at one point appearing as bufoonish ape pets), and as they run from the remnants of its inhabitants, there is another forbidden land deeper in the Antarctic. That idea reached me and I really felt the horror of it. What would frighten the genius, timeless civilization of the Elder Things? At many times through the story, Lovecraft mentions "The Mountains of Madness." I believe he does it once each chapter, and I believe it's because the story is serialized and the title needs to appear in every published issue. The final "mountains of madness" are the forbidden peaks beyond where the MC is exploring. Imagine the Himalayas stacked on top of themselves. They're that awesome. The idea of what must be living there, waiting, is all that's needed. No explanation, just the suspicion is enough. ---------------------- The Shadow over Innsmouth by H.P. Lovecraft (★★★★★) Our hero decides to visit Innsmouth. Round these parts, they don't like dem city boys. Lovecraft has no love for small-town America. They're always worshipping dark gods, conjuring Shogoths, and in general up to no good, haha. Innsmouth has made a deal with the (sea) devil, and its inhabitants are inbred mutants who eventually will slink off to the ocean depths. That makes them reverse amphibians or something like that. They become more fish-like with the years. The descriptions of the city are really quite beautiful. Even the ugly aspects of it are well written. I don't think Lovecraft gets enough praise for this. When he's just describing setting, he's very, very good, on par with the greats of his day. There are quite a few histories recounted to the MC (the ticket guy at the bus depot just can't shut up), and why the MC decides to go to this place is beyond me. Or is it? Knowing how the story ends, perhaps his impulse to see Innsmouth is instinctual. He gets more history from the last remaining human inhabitant and then it's a mad scramble for survival. I really like this story. I like the movie lots too. I want to play that video game with the sunken city (seems a lot like Innsmouth) but I'm betting that you fight the cosmic in gung-ho fashion with a tommy gun and dynamite, and I just can't endorse that. The whole point of cosmic horror is that you are nothing in the face of it. There is no possible way to stop it, not on this scale. By the time you realize it's near you, it has already conquered humanity. It's just a matter of time before you succumb. ---------------------- The Colorado Kid by Stephen King (zero stars) The surprise in this book is that you, the reader, believe you've found a story. That's what's contained within fiction books, right? Here, you will read words, mostly consisting of two old New England coots who are indistinguishable from one another lauding praise upon a young woman who wants to join them in the newspaper business, and after 100 pages you find out that this book doesn't contain a story at all. How foolish of you to assume more! You just read the prose equivalent of a Rick Roll. Sucker. I've read quite a few horror books that have weak, poorly plotted endings. "The Ruins" comes to mind. It should have been a short story, nothing more. "Devil's Rock" ended laughably. It was obvious that the writer had no idea how to resolve the story. At least they were trying. This "book" is an insult to the reader. You are tempted with a tale of the ultimate mystery. What is this mystery? Brace yourself! A man leaves Denver (are you still with me?), he travels to Maine and dies on the beach. He got there in record time. What's that, you say? Did I leave details out? Not at all. That's it. That's the entire story, and you don't follow the fellow out there. His journey is recounted by others. Is he chased by the mob or are there supernatural shenanigans? No . . . nothing really happened. The dead guy choked on some food. He is discussed by the two old men. The young reporter gal guesses key details while the old men grin at her and then shower her with Mary Sue praise. The story ends with an excuse that sometimes strange events cannot be explained. No new writer could ever publish this trash. It exists solely because of the author's name. I saw the good looking dame on the front cover (c'mon, that's what that art style is, a noir dame) and thought it would be a gangster/crime story. What was I thinking? It's been nearly 30 years since I read anything by Stephen King. It will be at least that long before I read anything by him again, which is to say, never. I rarely give zero stars, but there is nothing redeeming about this book and I resent being tricked into reading it.
I love your reviewing style! You make me want to go back and read Frankenstein again. The first and only time I read it was after the ploddingly faithful Kenneth Branagh/Robert DeNiro version came out and I just remember being underwhelmed. Ditto with Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I also read after the "faithful" movie adaptation was released. Never heard of Chronic City nor its author, the cover art doesn't appeal, and it seems unlikely to be the sort of book I'd enjoy. Curious about Dorian Gray and it should be available on Project Gutenberg, which is one of my favorite publishing houses Old Howard Philip... I've read both of those books, actually right now I'm currently working my way through his collected works, courtesy IIRC of the above-mentioned publisher. In my misspent youth I was a Korean linguist in the Marines, and the day I arrived at that school I probably would have had trouble finding Korea on a map. It has a writing system that, while alien to English, is one of the more logical and easy to learn of the Asian languages, but if I were in a cave in Antarctica contemplating a history written only in Hangul today, I'd know exactly nothing at the end of the day. Like you, I love the cosmic horror aspects of it, the "Cthulhu says 'No Lives Matter' and he's not gonna be persuaded otherwise," but those linguistics are a suspension of disbelief that remains in the gibbet for me. The Shadow Over Innsmouth on the other hand, oh that's a cool one. Spoilers? Spoiler I liked the story when I read it the first time, but then years later I read a brilliant analysis of Lovecraft's racism and how discovering that he was one of "THEM" would have been the ultimate horror. I've heard about but can't be bothered to find a cite for some on the cross-burning edge of the far right having unpleasant surprises when their 23andMe DNA tests didn't come back quite as Aryan Nordic as they'd always assumed. But for me Lovecraft was an idea man, his conception of the world around us and how we fit in (like a raspberry seed stuck in the tooth of a deity. On a good day) was really amazing and has had a massive influence on SF, horror, and fantasy. I enjoy the view and ignore the fact that I'm often in a pedal car, or something like that. Anyway, thanks for the reviews!
Yeah, Dorian Gray is pretty good. Oscar Wilde's one-liners are on full display too. One pithy saying after another. He must throw out hundreds of them. It's really pretty amazing. The ending of the story is inevitable, and a modern reader will see it coming miles away, but you always ignore such things while reading older works. I did like it and found it an easy read. Frankenstein was a bit difficult for me. I just didn't think it was as good as other old stories. It was . . . alright if you forgive it for old tropes, but it really wasn't written with much skill. The sense of dread did not endure. Dracula read much better, IMO. I know it's from a later time though. If you're talking movies, the scores are reversed. Frankenstein is many times better cinema.
Well I enjoyed all of your analysis while I didn’t agree with you on one of your reviews, I appreciated what you had to say about a few of the other books. First off the Colorado Kid. Zero stars? Won’t be reading that one. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Started the book. Found the language old fashioned (off course it is, another age), thought the painter’s obsession with Dorian was annoying and didn’t finish the book. Might wanted to have read it all based on your fine review of it though. I find this observation interesting “the painting shows his base nature while the world is amazed at his beauty”. And finally I get it. Perhaps I should go back and finish it. Whereas Frankenstein I’ve read several times and only because I studied it in school several times. Central to the story is the argument. Would the monster have turned into a good, well-behaved angel if Frankenstein had created a bride for him? Frankenstein doesn’t seem to think so but is that a fair assessment? The point is whether we are supposed to sympathise, if not believe this very strange creature or not. Would you have given him this company he asks for if you were Frankenstein or is he not to be believed even because he’d been a terror to begin with? When Frankenstein judged the monster on his looks, not his personality. But also perhaps it’s dangerous to sympathise or advocate a murderous monster. The book is also a warning not to mess with Creation because that’s not the place for people to take on the affairs of God. When Shelley was writing it, scientists were researching things like creation of soul, electricity etc So Shelley was making a scientific, political and social point when she wrote it. Don’t give him life if you refuse to nurture him, why breed him at all if you’re not willing prepared to care for him and guide him through to a better future? But it was a warning to scientific circles not to go too far. In a way it still is. But the monster’s argument is at the centre of it all. Also read At the Mountains of Madness so I could appreciate your comments especially this. That evil exists beyond the scope of human understanding. I can’t believe how the writer takes it through the universe to demonstrate this. When laws are unnatural sometimes that’s the case except in this story he conveys how evil exists in its natural state - as do a few of his other stories which is overwhelming. Terrifying. Good read.
Finished my final book of the year: Stranger in a Strange Land (original uncut version), Robert A. Heinlein. This was my oddest (I made an effort to not use ‘strangest’) read of 2022. While a compelling main character, Dr. Jubal Harshaw struck me as an intellectual power fantasy for middle twentieth century literary types. I can’t recall any truly great scenes or insights in the book, but it has copious amounts of better than average food for thought, and it’s written with a better than average prose and voice. Rating: 3.5 stars
Someone once told me that Stranger in a Strange Land was a satire on Mormanism. No idea if that is true or not; I didn't know enough about the LDS church to tell. I finally broke down and bought Where the Crawdads Sing since it has been on the reserve list at the library for months. So far, it's okay. The author manages to convey Southern beautifully.
I remember being very underwhelmed when I read it 20 some years ago, but I'm not a big Heinlen fan. I just got The Passenger by Cormac McCarthy for Christmas. I had no idea he'd written something new so I'm super-jazzed to crack her open. I'm a little surprised I didn't hear anything about it here.
