Abandoned

 In the unlikely event that someone stumbles across this blog and can't live without know why posting suddenly stopped, it's because I moved over to substack. Google will probably give up on this platform in a hot minute anyway.

Later.

Review: In Cold Blood

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I don't know if I can say anything about this book that hasn't already been said. It only takes the first few pages to let the reader know its reputation is clearly earned and further reading never lets up its hold. Even the most negative of negative people (namely me) can't deny how great this book is. Of course, I'll find something to gripe about. And that is why I'm putting the disclaimer that you should turn back now. Just know that "In Cold Blood" is as good as everyone says it is and go from there.

There had always been a lingering thought about ICB that had floated in my head. Something that persisted for years and kept this book on my 'to read' list for seemingly an eternity. The moral question of writing a story on a real-life murder. As the true crime genre continues to expand, especially among all the bored housewives, the debate only grew. This question continued as I read the granddaddy of true crime, wondering how much was real and how much was invented by Capote. Was it artistic license run amok, or was this the most thoroughly researched book of all time in the hands of the 20th century's most capable writer? While the latter seems the least likely, it should be left to each reader to ultimately decide. Though, before I finished reading, I concluded that morality has no real place in literature.

I took my time with this book. And, if I have any advice to give, it's that you should as well. Not because this book is deep, but because it's rich. A book not to be pretentiously dissected, but to be appreciatively absorbed. Instead of knocking around quips or vomiting plot points, every sentence wraps itself in the humanity of it all. It gets my highest recommendation as, while it is bloody in the most conceivable way, it is far from cold.

View all my reviews

Review: Discourses and Selected Writings

Discourses and Selected Writings by Epictetus
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

There's a section of Discourses titled "On the Treatment of Slaves". I understand there is a nuanced difference between the slaves of Ancient Greece and the brutality of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but having a class of people with no rights is still not a good thing. Still, there seems to be a lack of self-awareness on Epictetus' part where he rants on and on about freedom but seems to be okay with a slave cleaning his house. I point this out to explain the overall tone of this work, a journal of sporadically good advice mixed in heavily with outdated thinking.

I could probably write a companion work to Discourses highlighting every ounce of the archaic, but I would mostly be repeating myself throughout most of it. As the one example I'll give, Epictetus makes several points about how illness can't hurt you because your body is meaningless when compared to the mind. While I won't dispute the overall point, the thing is, in Epictetus' time, if you got sick and didn't get well on your own, you probably just died. Sure they had doctors, but their solution to everything was leeches. I don't oppose the mindset of Stoic thought, if I did I wouldn't be reading Discourses, but with Epictetus there always felt there was a lack of flexibility.

There's also an underlying religious element to Discourses along with a strong believer in fate. When shit happens, I've always been a 'it is what it is' kind of person, but Epictetus leans heavily into it being 'God's will'. On a practical level, those mindsets aren't that different as both allow you to accept whatever happens with resolve, but how you frame it does matter. The way Epictetus frames his thoughts allows him to drift, occasionally, into self-righteousness. Example: There's a bit about how he thinks you should avoid sex until marriage. While I could argue that sex is a skill like any other that needs to be practiced (Queening, tickling the pearl, etc.), honestly, Epictetus comes off as believing this not because of Stoic thought, but because he's just a prude.

The phrasing is also entirely intended for cis-gendered males of a certain class while the translation is so obviously done by a British person(s) that I felt myself colonized just by purchasing it. But I won't even bother unpacking all of that.

Discourses is basically a couple hundred pages of a guy arguing with himself. However, despite certain outdated aspects, there is good to be had here once you cut through all the stuffiness. He hits upon several gems of wisdom but also suffers from not being able to recognize when he's wrong about something. As a stoic tome, I would say it's required reading. As anything else, I would describe it as an extra-long opinion article in the New York Times. Something intelligent and well-written, but you'll end up turning up your nose to it more than once.

View all my reviews

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Well, here you are. At the very last final conclusion. ...Or are we? There's an inherent flaw with a series, especially when it becomes a full-fledged franchise. And that's the inability for people, even the creator(s), to just fucking let it go. There always seems to be one more series to beat out of the corpse or a sequel that is crapped out twenty years too late. And Harry Potter, the little tosser, isn't any different. While the Grindelwald stuff has its place in the story, JK races right past the need for it and starts pitching their next idea. And, let me tell you, rolling your eyes makes it really difficult to read a book.

I hate to start off a book review like that, as it undermines it, but the inclusion of a backdoor pilot does the same for the book as well. There is a need to be reflective about Dumbledore and to acknowledge that he lived an entire life (if not several) before Potter was even born, but I have this feeling it takes up too much space in the story. It is fair to say that I might not have even noticed it if I read this book before the next movie series emerged from the capitalist boardroom, but I think it's equally fair to say that JK only allows the subplot to take as much of a hold because of their future franchising.

It's also a problem I have with the latter three books in the series. As the pacing seems to suffer from the inclusion of various unneeded things. There is something to be said about a book series that was able to grow up with its audience, but the latter novels just don't hold up on their own. I could see myself re-reading Prisoner of Azkaban on its own, but never Order of the Phoenix. That's the biggest issue with a book series such as this, they need to live together or die alone.

I suppose I need to talk about Deathly Hallows as a book on its own. It's fine. I would even say it's good for the most part. It just needs to be trimmed down a couple hundred pages. When it shines, it really fucking shines. The rest of the time, I'm kind of waiting for the next good bit. If the book needs downtime to establish something, that's great, but here I feel we have an author who has the authority to do whatever they want. So, bottom line, it's mostly good with a side of bad pacing.

One thing that stuck out to me was the actual Battle of Hogwarts. JK taking a very much JRR Tolkien approach to battle writing. As in we don't actually see much of the battle as we have to follow around some noncombatant asshole. It's more of an observation than a criticism, but I will say this is why third-person omniscient is the best literary perspective. That's a hill I will die on.

There we have it I suppose. A book series I finally got around to reading and didn't feel I wasted my time. Which is probably the highest praise I can muster unless your last name is Heinlein. A book, and series as a whole, that was clever, charming, and well-written, but got more and more up its own butt. The last never becoming a fatal flaw, but probably would have if they wrote two or three more books/movies.

View all my reviews

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

HP&tH-BP is a massive lore dump. It's a much needed one, but that aspect keeps it from being a real book. There, I just reviewed the entire thing in two sentences. I'm going to keep reviewing and nitpicking, but you can stop reading (if anyone is even out there). I spent two 1/2 weeks reading this book, so the least I can do is give it a few paragraphs.

I will say, as lore is concerned, it does a lot of things right. It not only digs up the past, but it properly connects to the present and offers options of how they're going to get out of this shitshow. It's also spaced out over the course of the 'story' instead of laying it all out at once like the world's nerdiest history book. It also doesn't make the mistake of trying to reinvent or provide unnecessary characterization. Like attempting to make Voldemort sympathetic, tragic, or something like that. It's a good thing he was always a creepy Damien-like kid.

Everything else about the book, however, can barely register as mediocre. The actual story of this book only exists to pace out the lore dumps. None of the other characters really have much to do as everything, even the mystery that makes up the book's title, takes a backseat. There is one major plot point at the end, but I feel it didn't create the 'all is lost' moment it had intended. Though that might be because I was spoiled by the movies.

This volume of HP didn't have much to say outside of the lore, and thus, neither do I. From a purely writing standpoint, it's okay. I found the pacing to be tight and the lore interesting, but everything falls apart once you put it in a vacuum. The previous volumes could be enjoyed, at least somewhat, on an individual level. This book exists solely as the penultimate volume and nothing more.
View all my reviews

Review: Mistborn

Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I liked this book. I swear. I know that I'm going to sound like I didn't, but I do think it's a good book. The thing is, there are glaring issues I can't ignore. Imagine that you're on a date with a great person that matches your preferences and values perfectly. Now think of them having just one small flaw. A huge mole on their face or an annoying habit that just grinds your gears. That's Sanderson's writing. Great in many ways, but also annoying in ways that a lesser reader could probably just let go of.

Let's get my biggest problem out of the way first, and, if you've already read this book, it should be fairly obvious. That is: we're reading another hero's journey story. Vin is basically Luke Skywalker. Kelsier is, admittedly a more interesting, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Even Allomancy is just the Force with extra steps. This doesn't make the book drab or predictable, but, once a writer commits to the hero's journey, there are certain tropes that the book has to follow by the rule of law. The most annoying trope is that the hero is special for no real reason beyond being born that way. I can write an entire book on why that's a terrible way to think, but I'll save both of us the trouble.

This larger problem of being trope-heavy pretty much feeds the rest of the problems. Most of which I can't complain about as they would technically be spoilers. I won't use the word 'predictable' as you don't know when or how certain things are going to happen, but just knowing those things are unavoidable is enough.

Most of what anyone should look for in enjoying a book, it does well. The writing properly communicates everything going on which I consider an achievement given how easily high fantasy can get mangled from a description standpoint. Characters are interesting despite their existence being tied almost entirely to their purpose to the plot. The pacing is solid and the plot is satisfactory. Even the world-building is interesting and introduced well. The prose was 'good' but there are aspects about it that I can get super petty about. The internal dialogue, written as if Frank Herbert was standing over Sanderson's shoulder, comes to mind.

I also normally rail against book series, but I won't in this case. Here, there is enough resolved while keeping enough unanswered questions for the follow-up. Not making the mistake of doing nothing for two hundred pages before the contrived cliffhanger.

This is my first Sanderson book and I liked... I guess. It was good, but it wasn't the orgasmic revelation some of his fans would have you believe. I'm considering reading more, but I have this lingering thought that his writing won't improve with time/experience. I'm not saying it gets worse, but I feel that this book series is what it is and nothing more. But hey, I love being proven wrong. Being negative is my default and that means, if I'm wrong, it's because the reality can only be positive.

View all my reviews

Review: Fourth Wing

Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book begins with a warning, a caution to its contents. Which I think is very apt for this book as it behaves mostly like a pack of cigarettes. Tasty, strangely satisfying, but, ultimately, not good for you. The warning exists not so much because it's dark but rather because it might be a little much for the younger audience it is intended for. Sure there's a lot of violence, death, and sex, but I didn't find it to be particularly nerve-racking. I was born reading dark literature, molded by it. I didn't read anything cheerful until I was already a man and it was nothing to me but sappy nonsense. So I walked away from this book feeling more like I had taken some nerdy drugs than rather having read anything that might have harmed my soul. This is a shame, for what I found to be a mostly enjoyable book, I still can't get a bitter taste from my mouth.

I suppose the first thing I'll tackle is the book's horniness. If you ignore the dragons, magic, and murder, this novel is almost scene for scene the abject picture of a coed college dorm. Which is why everyone is thirstier than the Death Valley summer tour group. I didn't mind this aspect too much, in fact I found it to be rather charming at times, but there's a tonal shift about the book's 2/3rds mark. What was mostly played off in the background or as tension between certain characters, quickly becomes content usually reserved for the OnlyFans account. That, in and of itself, was fine. It wasn't the best written boning down I've ever read, but it was fine. What turned me off was how quickly lust turns into a rather poorly conceived idea of love. The two characters that end up falling in love, I feel, aren't really in love. They're just both really clingy.

The book is also terribly predictable. What is normally described as Checkov's gun, here, I call Checkov's problem. The world-building is clunky and inorganic, so, whenever a detail is mentioned, the reader knows what change to the plot is coming. It's actually why I have a complete and total hatred for the establishment of rules in writing. It leads to writing that is formulaic and all sounding the same. And this book follows the Checkov rule like she has a gun pointed at her head. The sad thing is, there's nothing here that is trope or cliche. Sure it takes ideas we've seen before, like dragons, but not story elements or characters. This book is truly original in many ways and it makes me weep what might have been if the author was more fixated on the writing rather than the formula.

I think my only other major issue with this book is the pacing. I was leaning towards a 4-star rating throughout most of my read-through but settled on 3-stars by the time I approached the end. There's a major game change towards the end that was the one and only surprising thing that happens throughout the plot. The problem is that almost everything that happens from that point on has nothing to do with the book itself, it has to do with setting up the sequel. Because everything has to be a fucking series. Kurt Vonnegut described a novel's plot as the story of a person falling into a hole. The person is introduced, person falls in hole, person climbs out of hole. The game changer is the person falling in the hole part. The beginning of the second part, i.e. the middle. Not the end. The book has confused instigation with climax. Something I found to be ironic.

There's much to like in this book. There really is. The prose is well-written, we have interesting characters. The book just spends so much time in first gear it never really has a chance to let loose. My problem is that I'm too much of a drifter. Moving from book to book like the player I am. Something that strives to be a series needs to be truly compelling and have enough satisfying closed plot points in order for me to stay long enough for breakfast. While I had my fun, it just wasn't good enough and was checked out before it even really ended.

View all my reviews