Thursday, July 19, 2012

Review: The Magician King


The Magician King
The Magician King by Lev Grossman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



For those of you following these reviews in anything like chronological order,
you'll notice that I just reviwed Lolita.

Now, in the aftermath of that bloodbath*, I am here to commit further literary blasphemy.
I am here to tell you that The Magician King is a similar book to Lolita in terms of its themes and plot, and also a vastly superior one.

First the theme, Lolita is about imprisonment, and about the desolation of fulfilling your innermost desires. The magician kings is about choices, and freedom, and the desolation of not having a purpose (e.g. because you've already fulfilled your innermost desires.) It's not a perfect match, but it really resonated with me reading them more or less side by side.

But where Lolita deals with this with clever word play, subtle manipulations of the characters,
and the readers expectations for them, and a never quite infocus view of a tremendously disturbing abusive realtionship,
the Magician King handles them head on, with characters for whom it is actually possible to have some true affection**, and a
plot that actually #$%^ing goes somehwere; one that has some real stakes, and produces honest challenges for the characters. And on top of that it's a wildly epic fantasy set in a very compelling multiverse with some fairly grand set pieces. (I'll see your moral apotheosis*** and raise you an ACTUAL apotheosis.)

Which is not to say the magician kings is sugarcoated. In some senses, it's more disturbing than Lolita is. The difference is the Magician King has the guts to present the world as is, not hiding behind literary tricks. Characters die, characters suffer
horrible physical and spiritual wounds, and learn to live with them. The don't all mysteriously expire off camera to make a literarily convenient conlusion.

Of course, I'm biased. I have said over and over that I like books with heroes not characters. No one in Lolita comes within a mile of being a hero.
but the heroes in the Magician king have the kind of resonance that truly good characters ought to, too.

So, dear readers, I say to you. Jettison your lit-ret-chaw! Find your literary pleasures in the world of the fantastic!

You can actually have your cake and eat it too.

* Actually, I mostly liked it, but where's the fun in that.
** You know, apart from mild distaste.
*** No, seriously, it's one of the main themes of Lolita. Google it if you don't believe me.



View all my reviews

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Review: The Stranger You Seek


The Stranger You Seek
The Stranger You Seek by Amanda Kyle Williams

My rating: 1 of 5 stars



About 25 pages into this book, I really liked it. The detective, her support network of family, friends and coworkers seemed to have a nice dynamic, the story had a good mix run and gun bounty hunter action and behavioral profiler procedural and a nicely nasty serial killer. It was really promising and I was already writing a 4 star* review in my head where I apologized for saying all the Shamus award nominees always suck.**

By 125 pages in my review of the book had shed a star because nothing was happening. By 200 pages I was planning a 2-star review because the plot twist in the middle was stupid and because I had already, basically, figured out the mystery AND because nothing was still happening.

Then with 50 pages to go, right when the narrative tension should have been at it's highest, when the mystery should have been solved and the the climatic confrontation between killer and detective should be beginning, the detecitve goes off on a subplot to look for a missing cow.

A missing cow.

The entire momentum of the serial killer plot (what little of it there was) is stopped so that the detective can go look for A MISSING COW. At that point I was done with the book, but of course, my policy is to only review books that I've finished. So I slogged through.

And you know what? In the last 30 pages (yes, the missing cow subplot took 20 fucking pages), when the detective FINALLY gets around to solving the mystery that I had figured out in the previous 180 (cowless) pages?...still nothing happens.
Pic Related (from comixed.com) 

The detective dithers about with a downright silly interrogation of the killer, and a whole lot of political nonsense.

The climax between the detective and the killer? About a page long. And that pages doesn't even make much damn sense.

* The book loses a star early for having in its opening pages a shootout that, if it had happened in real life would have had the detectives arm splattered all over the pavement when she stupidly reaches inside a house to unlock a door, knowing full well there's a bail jumper with a shotgun on the other side.

** If Clare DeWitt and the City of the Dead doesn't win the Shamus award for best first PI novel, I am done with PWA forwever.





View all my reviews

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Review: The Annotated Lolita: Revised and Updated


The Annotated Lolita: Revised and Updated
The Annotated Lolita: Revised and Updated by Vladimir Nabokov

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



This is actually two reviews in one (What a deal!) as I read the Annotated Lolita and frankly the annotations deserve some words, too.

First a caveat about expectations. On one hand, Lolita is hailed as one of the great works of 20th century literature,
so in that sense my expectations were high. On the other hand, I usually hate anything that could be construed as "lit-ret-chaw." so my
expectations were very very low.

First the good. There are parts of Lolita that are very very good. For the most part the writing is excellent.*
There is lots of word play, puns, spoonerisms, and neologisms. Parts of the book are very very funny, parts are downright heartbreaking.
The threads that span the novel (both internal: such as Quilty's subtle but pervasive presence,
and the external: the continual Poe and Joyce-ian themes.**) are both interesting and sufficiently apparent that (although I apprecaited having the notes to crib from)
I could pick up on most of them easily. The annotations, for the most part are clear. A pretty good balance is struck
between purely textual notes: all of the french is translated, as are most of the obscure words***, and contextual ones.
The best part about the annotations is that the author of them knew Nabokov and held him in high esteem. There is
genuine affection in the notes about what he consideres particularly brilliant wordsmithing or particularly innovative manipulation of the reader.
It's fun to read writing that is passionate, and both Lolita and the annotations are passionate if nothing else. It's also kind of hilarious to have the annotator mention and allusion and then have to admit that Nabakov declared to have intended none.

Then the bad. Parts of Lolita are really really boring. There is only so much you can read about the loveless manipulations
of a pedophile before it starts to grate on you. I'm sure this is some brilliant literary trick by Nabokov to echo the
them of imprisonment within the reader: "As Lolita is imprisoned so too shall you be imprisoned." Maybe it's brilliant but
it's not much fun to read. Likewise, even some of the word play gets wearing. I really liked the idea of Quilty's cryptic motel ledger references,
but seriously? Dr. Gratiano Forbeson, Mirandola, NY?**** Really? that's the best you could come up with? Really?
The worst part of the novel is that for a novel that proclaims to be about Lolita, she's really not much of a character is she? Again, I get that this is partially intentional, Humbert Humberts
tragedy is that he could not help but uttler smother the thing he loved, but it also means that the reader is left wondering just what the fuss is all about.

As for the annotations, well, come on, there was bound to be some bullshit in there somewhere.
Some of the references (not to the mention the conclusions drawn from them) are pretty obscure. Meanwhile, some of the themes were explored in excrutiating detail. (Butterflies, anyone?)
While others are given pretty thoroughly short shrift.

And, for proper dramatic form, the ugly: The book is about sexual slavery and sex abuse. Yuck! If Lolita were a more
finely drawn character, then perhaps we could make some sense of her experience. Is her initial consent, as presented by Humbert real?
Is there any affection for Humbert from Lolita? Likewise, the annotation which are content to ramble for pages and pages on things like allusions to french, english, and russian literature, butterflies, fairy tales, greek mythology, celtic legends, 19th century painting, popular music, prostitution, every conceivable slang for penis, and the full pallet of colors used by nabokov,
have almost nothing to say about the dynamic between Humbert and Lolita. WHAT?!?! Kind of makes me think they do not make for such a thorough treatment of the book after all.

One more interesting (if not so ugly observation): The thing that everyone thinks of when they think of Lolita is Humbert and Lolita's cross country road trips: the roadside motels and cheesy
tourist attractions. These two scenes take up, what 3 chapters in the novel? I rather wonder why that is? Maybe because
we're prefer to put on the rose colored glasses and talk about the defining american experience rather than how it's kind of awful that Humbert pays Lolita to continue to abide persistent
sexual molestation.

* No, in fact, I do not take it as a given that one of the most celebrated works of literature from the last 100 years would have good writing. Why do you ask?
** One of the aspects of lit-ret-chaw, that I actually like are the veins that transcend a single authors work. A character who is created by one author can be alluded to and given to life by another--in this sense all of the "great" books exist in the same bizarre universe.
*** Actually this got kind of irritating, too. I know what "lavender" is, thanks.
**** Dr. Gatiano is a reference to Commedia Dell'arte adn Mirandola is (according to Nabakov no less) a minor character in a different italian play. What a...uh...rogue that Quilty is.



View all my reviews

Review: Upgunned


Upgunned
Upgunned by David J. Schow

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



This one is so much out of the Warren Ellis playbook that I'm surprised it doesn't have a blurb from him
on the cover. It is a straightforward thriller, peppered with [highly implausible] anecdotes about a host of the messed up things humanity
has to offer. Tell me that doesn't sound like Crooked Little Vein.

Fortunatly, I liked Crooked Little Vein quite a lot, and I liked this one too.

It starts as a straightforward, if hard-edged, thriller: a cynical photographer, narrating in the first person
is kidnapped by a psychopath and made to take some blackmail photographs.
But the reader is surprised (at least I was) when in the second chapter the point of view flips and we get the
story from the psychopath's point of view.

Chambers, the aforementioned psychopath, has a great voice and is a very interesting character.
Unfortunately, he's also so unredeemably nasty that there's no real way to root for him. The thing that
would have elevated this novel from pretty good to amazing would have been a story line that offered the reader a
real choice.

There are a miriad of other flaws: the denoument is weak. The main character is really tremendously ineffective.
But overall this is a fun ultraviolent romp through hollywood's seamy underbelly. I will be checking out the author's other work.*

* Which, incidentally includes the screenplay for the Crow, which I've seen, and leads to a creepy bit of in-world
verisimilitude when the weapons handler on a movie set discusses with great seriousness the changes in weapons safety following
brandon lee's death on the set of The Crow.



View all my reviews

Review: Claire DeWitt and the City of the Dead


Claire DeWitt and the City of the Dead
Claire DeWitt and the City of the Dead by Sara Gran

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Holy crap is this book good. I don't really even have the words for it.
It is worthy entrant into the Canon on mystery novels (such as it is.)

I have read so many god-damned books where the author is declared to be a worthy successor to
chandler or hammett, and with the exception of robert b. parker at his pinnacle, or robert crais, at his pinnacle,
I have always been disapointed.*

And this book wasn't even advertised as the worthy successor to hammett. But oh my is it ever.

The novel is so very brilliant because it succeeds on three levels. The first, it is a precise encoding
of the experience we want to have when we read mystery novels. The identity of the Detective is important. Detectives are born, not made--they discover in themselves the need to find the Truth, and from there
it is pre-ordained that they shall, in time, find themselves working as licensed private eyes.** In this world, mysteries are
Named and have registered: The Murder on Rue Temple, The Mystery of the Green Parrot. The detective who is wary of the clues
being presented cannot help but find the truth, even when, inevitably, the truth is something no one wants to hear.

Secondly, the novel is a noirish, The Wire influenced portrait of post-Katrina New Orleans.*** The ruined city truly comes to
life with vivid descriptions of city before during and after "The Storm," as do each of the rich and complex characters. No one in
this novel is really good, but no one is entirely evil either.

Thirdly, the novel lays seeds for a truly awesome saga. Although the central Mystery (the Mystery of the Green Parrot) is
thoroughly resolved, there are many Mysteries that are introduced but not solved. Better still, there is a tantalizing
preview into what's next for Claire Dewitt, which although it is foreshadowed early is not truly revelaed until the end and i will say, it's a doozy.
I simply cannot wait for the next Claire Dewitt novel.

My obligatory complaints? I found Claire DeWitt's pervasive drug use and mysticism vaguely irritating. A few of the plot pieces
could have been better integrated. But these are minor: I am deeply impressed by the writing in the book. Seriously, is the next one out yet? How about now?


* I am looking squarely at you, p.g. sturges.
** Don't all we mystery readers, deep down, want to believe that we too will someday discover our inner Detective?
*** That reminds me, I need to watch Treme one of these days.



View all my reviews

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Video Game High School

Video Game High School
Webseries
4 out of 5 stars*

I want to be clear. I really really liked Video Game High School. Please keep that in mind when I  tear up the season finale in a few paragraphs.

Because the series was so damn good, it deserved a much better finale.


Video Game High School is a Kickstarter funded webseries from Freddie Wong. It is available for free (with 15 or 30 second ads ahead of each episode.)  at http://www.rocketjump.com.**
The premise is, shall we say, implausible. In the not too distant future, video games are our nation's national passtime, and there exists a Hogwarts-like boarding school for very talented young video gamers as a farm league for the pros. You can only go to VGHS by special invitation, and if you're ranking falls too low you are expelled.*** (Kind of like a video game, get it?)

The thing is, the show wears it's improbability well. Nothing is taken too seriously, and yet everything is played with a straight face.  As a result, even the most ridiculous set pieces (like the mario-esque jump for a lost id) come off as charming and funny, rather that uncomfortable and sad.

The real highlight of the show is the casting. Pitch-fucking-perfect. Josh Blaylock (playing our hero Brian D) is believable both as an out of his depth underclassman, and as a competent, tough as nails first person shooter player. Plus the fact that he's tiny and adorable makes his attempts at swagger downright hilarious. Speaking of hilarious, Brian Firenzi's villain, "The Law" is doubly so. Over the top evil is rarely done so well, and that's entirely due to his polished acting. Finally, Ellary Porterfield perfectly captures the technically-hyper-competent, socially-utterly-inept every-nerd. Plus she's gorgeous.

This leads to another thing that VGHS does really well. Throughout most of the series, there's a more or less equal mixing of genders in all of the video games, and by and large the women are portrayed as just as competent as the men.

Until the last episode. (Spoiler alert, by the way.) In the last episode, Jenny Matrix, the  love interest, gets the jump on the bad guy not once, but twice! And does nothing about it! The first time, she just walks away--the second time she sacrifices herself (and her chance to play on the "varsity" team.) to give the main character her gun and let him take everyone out. First off, it's a video game: no one dies for real, so there is never a good  reason to not take a fucking shot if you have it, and secondly, it would have been just as easy to write a finale where the hero gets the girl, and saves and the day AND the girl doesn't have to be a dumbass.**** Seriously the ending would have been ten times better if, when The Law and his ENTIRE TEAM have Brian D surrounded, Jenny Matrix just captured the flag and won the game. The end! Good guys win. Monologues will get you nowhere. Instead we get the season's least sensible action sequence*****, and a feeling like we've been cheated out of the real ending.

So yeah, I really really liked video game high school. I think you should go out and watch it. And the ending really bothered me. But, you know what? Here's hoping for a season two!

* Was on pace for 5 except the finale sucked. 
** Yes, that's right, I'm complaining because the free webseries I really liked wasn't quite good enough. Deal with it.
*** One minor pet peeve, the ranking system and how it fluctuates is never fully explained? Is it a point system? Is is a ranking from 1 to the number of students? How do you gain and lose points? Inquiring minds demand to know.
**** And, you know, if you'd explained how the selection for the teams worked, you could have worked in how their teamwork was somehow good for both of them.
***** In a show about a video game high school, no less.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Review: Redshirts


Redshirts
Redshirts by John Scalzi

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



"Huh."

That was my response to Redshirts.
Now, to be fair I finished the novel in a severly jetlagged state
and so I blame that for at least part of my ambiguous and incoherant response.

To be fair though, it's a kind of an apt summary.
Let me clarify. It's a nuanced "huh." vaguely positive, said with a small nod, but perhaps with
furrowed eyebrows. A "huh" that says, "I understand, but will have to
ponder about what I think about all this."

For those of you living under a rock* Redshirts is the new novel by John Scalzi in which he deconstructs the lives
of the hapless members of a Star-Trek-ian away team who would inevitably suffer some horrible fate to add additional drama
or convince the watcher that the situation really is dangerous.

Scalzi himself claims the novel can be spoiled, so consider yourself forewarned, but frankly, I had been avoiding reading reviews
before hand for fear of spoilers, and I had a pretty good guess about the twist by the time I had finished the prologue.
I mean, it's pretty obvious, really.

The concept is fun. The Universal Union is appropriately evocative of Federation Starfleet, and the deaths that
inevitably befall the crew are amusing and keep (most of) the moribundity at bay.
I actually felt like the writing and editing were weak for scalzi. The device "a part of his mind said this, a part of his mind said this, a part of his mind said,
boy I sure do have a lot of parts today" is used like two too many times.*** And to be frank the characters are all a little too slight. I realize this is part of the
conceit, but I feel like a better written (or hell, maybe just a longer) book could have preserved the conceit and still given each character enough dialogue
to formulate a more distinctive voice. Plus, there's a major gaping plot hole which kind of ruined the mood for me.

Ultimately, though, the novel isn't really about being on an away team or anything else. It's a deeper meditation
on living, living well, dying, dying well, destiny, fear, and fate. And actually, the real meat of the themes doesn't really come out in the novel itself but rather in the
codas.

Which brings me to the primary redeeming quality of this book.

The codas are really great. The first one is best. It's really funny, but it's also a slightly profound look at art and life.
The other two are pretty great too, but revisit some pretty familiar Scalzian themes.****

So, "huh" John Scalzi. I liked this. And I was worried after Fuzzy Nation, but if you average a good novel and a great set of codas I think you get something very good. I wish it were better, but I think very good is probably good enough.

* By which, of course, I mean most normal people who aren't tied in to the nerd-o-sphere.**
** To everyone else, though, you should have heard of this. It has a theme song from Jonathon Coulton for god's sake.
*** To be fair, I think it was only used twice.
**** (This one really is a spoiler) I'm on to you Scalzi--Having two people fall in love because their alternate representations
were in love sounds an awful lot like what happened to John Perry and Jane Sagan in Old Man's war.



View all my reviews

Review: Shortcut Man: A Novel


Shortcut Man: A Novel
Shortcut Man: A Novel by p.g. sturges

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Private Eye novels are my genre. They have been ever since I asked my mom (a librarian) for the kind of
mystery novels where they talked about "dames" or something like that.

My mom said immediately, "oh, they're called hard-boiled detective stores" and pointed me to Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler and the rest was history.

20-ish years later, I try to keep track of the private eye genre. One of the most straightforward ways of doing this, of course, is
keeping track of the Shamus awards. I mean, that's the awards from the Private Eye Writers of america.
Seems like it ought to be a good place to start.

Problem is, most of the Shamus award nominees suck. But still, I keep an eye on them, read the ones
that seem interesting, and occasionally I find a sleeper hit.

This book is not that sleeper hit, but nor does it suck, so I'll let it slide.

The plot is straightforward: The main character is a shortcut man, someone who solves problems, not by doing any detecting per se, but
more like by breaking noses and legs.

The good news is, he's funny. The plot moves swiftly, after an unrelated introduction to show how the character does his business, our hero
the detective is asked to determine whether a porn producers wife is cheating on him.
The wife in question happens to already be the detectives girlfriend. (So, as mysteries go,
this ones a dud. but as a crime novel it works ok.)

The author plays it close to the noirish tropes. The wife/girlfriend is a femme fatale of
the first order, and ancillary characters are engaging enough.
In the end though, there's not much *there* there. If there are grander adventures for the
character in place, i'd be interested in seeing it, but for the moment this is a light, fun, and substanceless noirish thriller,
heavy on the noir, light on the thrill.



View all my reviews

Review: The Lost Ones


The Lost Ones
The Lost Ones by Ace Atkins

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



This novel is quite an improvement on its predecessor, largely because in place of the former's clumsy consequenceless action sequences, this novel features some genuine character development on the part of many of the characters from the first book, and some new ones.

Even the bad guys (well, some of them) get a more nuanced perspective. The ending is a bittersweet affair, that leaves everyone significantly changed.


If the next one shows the same degree of improvement, this is going to be a series to be reckoned with.



View all my reviews