|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1494750767
| 9781494750763
| 1494750767
| 3.75
| 20
| Jun 1837
| Dec 31, 2013
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jul 06, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1587156040
| 9781587156045
| 1587156040
| 3.51
| 1,686
| 1912
| Nov 01, 2001
|
it was ok
|
A modern man starts receiving psychic messages from hundreds of thousands of years in Earth's future--messages from himself. The sun is dying, the wor
A modern man starts receiving psychic messages from hundreds of thousands of years in Earth's future--messages from himself. The sun is dying, the world is filled with horrific monsters, and the last remnants of humanity have locked themselves away in a vast pyramid to await the death of their world in peace. They peer out from countless windows at the awful monstrosities which beat at the gates, who want nothing so much as to kill every man, woman, and child within. Then, one day, they receive a message, from far beyond the monstrous lands--someone else is out there. At first, I thought it no wonder Lovecraft declared this a must read for any scholar or writer of Supernatural Horror--it's a great premise, not quite like anything before, with clear potential for unexpected moments, high tension, a depiction of the ultimate struggle of mankind to survive--and Hodgson squanders all of it. Everything about this book seems designed to work against the story, to undermine it, to remove any thrill or tension or genuine human sentiment. Our hero isn't just psychic--he's themostpsychic, with knowledge and theories that no one else can ever hope to comprehend. The message isn't just from some other survivor, it's from the reborn soul of his dead girlfriend. Though it's supposed to literally be a love for the ages, the romance is as naive and idealized as a Taylor Swift song, full of grand words and gestures but completely lacking in any emotional depth or personal connection. It's the sort of romance that occurs automatically, without any participation from those involved--there is no connection, and their personalities (especially hers) are entirely superfluous to the relationship. The romance is really for him, to motivate him, to draw him out--it's your standard 'love interest as plot device'. The entire relationship is presented in terms of control and possession, until the 'hero' ends up creepier than all the faceless monsters. Here's a man who sees himself as far above others, in both body and mind, who constantly talks about his own amazing abilities (Hodgson was, himself, an early proponent of bodybuilding). Meanwhile, he is beset on all sides by a dark, incomprehensible world of faceless figures bent on destroying him. It is such a complete image of self-obsession, persecution complex, and profound entitlement. Hodgson's success in House on the Borderlands seems entirely to hinge on the fact that the protagonist wassupposedto be a creepy, reclusive weirdo--'write what you know', I guess. Then there is the physical style of the work, which begs through bloody lips for some kind of editing. We get the same information again and again, recapped and repeated. The agonist is constantly trying to explain the plot to us, as well as his thoughts, his desires, and every other thing. The story is never allowed to progress naturally, but is instead whipped and drug every inch of the way. It’s as if an author wrote a short book, perhaps two hundred pages, and then went back through everything he had written and copied paragraphs and sentences, repeating them over and over throughout the story, changing the order here and there, until the book swells to six hundred pages. There is no thought, observation, description, or scene too banal to be repeated five or six times--usually capped off by the narrator saying ‘as I’ve mentioned several times before’. There are entire chapters (and the chapters aren’t short) which are just the author walking for six hours (always six hours) across some barren plain or dry seabed before reaching some notable piece of landscape he’d mentioned before (usually a large rock), and then, ‘at the tenth hour’, realizing that he hasn’t slept or eaten anything in twelve hours, and collapsing exhausted in a shallow cave to a brief meal before passing out a good long while. When he wakes up, he’ll hear or see some terrible beast nearby, but it won’t notice him. Then he’ll get up and do it all again two or three times, until the chapter ends. That same scenario repeating is literally at least 50% of the book. Finally, after walking ‘halfway across the world’ (in the narrator’s words), he reaches the only other human settlement on Earth, a place he’d never imagined existed, but which he was determined to reach against all odds. So, what does he do then: Check for supplies? See who else survived? Try to band together and save some of the other people? He doesn’t even look at the place, he just conveniently finds his girlfriend in a shallow cave outside, takes a nap, and then they leave. Her only home has been destroyed, everyone she knows is dead or hiding from monsters, and yet when they meet, it’s all sweet kisses and blushing, holding hands, laughing and teasing--and of course him ordering her around for her own good, since she’s too stupid to do even the most basic things herself. Then there's the language, which is artificially archaic, as Hodgson seeming to think that the residents of One Million AD will all sound like a Roanoke colony parson. While I enjoy the carefully-constructed archaism ofDunsanyandE.R. Eddison,which provide their works with a sense of tone and poetry, a beauty of language that is appreciable in and of itself, Hodgson’s archaism is clunky and serves only to draw out an already tedious narrative. The book is odiously stupid, just a constant test of the reader’s patience. Yet, it’s not stupid like most books, which are simply cliche and badly written by accident of the author’s lack of skill--this book is terrible because of a series of increasingly stupid and pointless decisions, all despite the fact that it’s conceptually interesting and inventive. By all rights, this book should have been worth reading, but it simply fails to be, at almost every turn. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Oct 17, 2014
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1841955760
| 9781841955766
| 1841955760
| 3.54
| 369
| 1994
| 2005
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jun 16, 2014
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 3.12
| 104
| 1894
| 1894
|
it was ok
|
This one didn't hold up very well for me. Moorcock'supdate of the ideais a much more enjoyable read. Griffith's approach is just so juvenile much of
This one didn't hold up very well for me. Moorcock'supdate of the ideais a much more enjoyable read. Griffith's approach is just so juvenile much of the time--which isn't to say childish, it's more of a young man's immaturity. The whole premise: that a powerful terrorist force is trying to destroy all world governments is somewhat uncomfortable for a modern reader--and the fact that the terrorists are meant to be theheroesbrings it to another level. However, their rebellion is a vague, nonsensical thing. The idea seems to be to destroy society, and not to worry about what the next step is until later. I guess they've never heard of the 'baby with the bathwater' problem. I mean sure, society has lots of problems, but if you don't have something better to put in its place, then tearing it down is not going to solve anything--it's probably going to make things pretty shitty in the meantime. But then, it strikes one as being typical of a man in young adulthood: irate with the horrors and inequalities of the world, rebelling against anything society has to offer without really understandingwhythings are the way they are. But conveniently, everyone just signs up and agrees that this is a great plan. There are no ideological disagreements or concerns about where this whole thing is going--everyone is stalwartly devoted to the undefined cause, and willing to die for it (whatever it might be). There are actually a few members who betray the cause, but they always do it out of mere greed, not because this whole 'terrorism' things seems kinda shaky. They also rebel despite the fact that the terrorists have an infallible network of assassins, the only airships in the world, and a leader who can literally control men's minds with a thought. All betrayers die the same chapter in which they commit their betrayal. I mean, I understand that this was a serial, but the fact that every problem gets solved as soon as it's introduced means that the whole thing doesn't have as much continuity as it might. Indeed, for the whole first half, they're just hanging around, waiting for things to happen, not even putting their plan into action. Now, if this had been juvenile in a sort of fun, adventure way, that could have been enjoyable, but it's clear that Griffith is taking it a bit more seriously than is warranted. It's never a battle with a fleet of ships, it's always two destroyers, five torpedo boats, a complement of three thousand men, &c. Then there are all the wire telegrams and news stories that repeat information we already know, or just talk about various battles and parts of the war that don's seem to matter much to the story. Then, of course, there is the titular 'Angel of the Revolution' herself, a totally gorgeous teen girl who all the terrorists want to marry, but whom they respect too much to romance overtly. She's also a crack shot, and utterly loyal to the cause, even if it means (horror of horrors) marrying someone she doesn't love. Our superscience hero, of course, does everything he can to get her, until she finally tells him that the best way to get into her pants is to destroy society and create eternal peace. Sexy. Once again, what could have been a passable adventure story is ruined by the author's inane attempts to make it 'realistic' and fill it with all sort of unrelated details. It doesn't take much seriousness to ruin the guileless charm of a pulp romp. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jul 23, 2013
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| unknown
| 3.57
| 7
| Jun 01, 2013
| Jun 2013
|
did not like it
|
Many books have delighted me, but none have done it so accidentally and inexplicably as this one, so it is with great pleasure that I bring to you'Yo
Many books have delighted me, but none have done it so accidentally and inexplicably as this one, so it is with great pleasure that I bring to you'You Are to Decide.. But Death And Rising Are Through Human Flesh' (Fantastic Thriller).It's clear right from the title that this is going to be a winner, from the erratic capitalization and an ellipses that is both improperly usedandthe wrong length, to the complete incoherence of its message, it is one of those rare titles that tells you everything you need to know about this book in one fell swoop. Sadly, none of you received a request in your inbox to review the work from one of the authors (because clearly, a work of such staggering scope could not have been made alone), so it falls to me to inform you thatThe prose is strengthened by poetry that completes the content,as evidenced by the following example of the work's profound prosody: "At the crossroads of pathways, Where morning fogs are blue and cold, Your eyes enchafed those of my days, When silver frost suffused my soul. The text is written on originally formed pages. " I think my eyes are chafing right now. The rest of the prose is an equally confused mish-mash of pseudospiritual nonsense fed through a Google translator and then set loose upon an unwilling world. Of course, the book experience is not complete without a visit totheir website,which contains excerpts from the book, a hilariously serious video featuring partially animated fan art of Jesus killing naked ladies and flashing phrases like'Outwit Destiny or the Right to Truth',as well as the misleadingly labeled 'fan site', which turns out to be a comment page full of equally garbled and confusing messages from people like 'Reader', and 'Sam', who clearly have high opinions of the book: "Bow to authors. Brave, genius and talented people. Interesting, how do they live?" My first thought was 'through the ingestion of nutrients'--but suddenly I'm beginning to doubt... "Read with interest. But how can you dare to predict this? Practically claim this." The audacity of claiming. Then there is 'Carole', who I suspect may be a study nook that has somehow gained sentience, who says in a single, fragmentary, ungrammatical sentence the truest thing that can be said about this book: "it will take many times reading it to really get the full value of he is trying to convey" Undoubtedly. However, I'd be careful of how many times you read it, as I've come to suspect it may be an experiment by the Chinese in brain reprogramming. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jun 26, 2013
|
MP3 CD
| ||||||||||||||||
| 0679776214
| 9780679776215
| 0679776214
| 3.59
| 1,756
| 1989
| Jan 28, 1997
|
did not like it
|
Between the description of an 'infinitesimal glass of sherry', the litany of cutesy place names ('Crook Manor', 'Ceck's Bottom', 'Pock-on-the-Fling')
Between the description of an 'infinitesimal glass of sherry', the litany of cutesy place names ('Crook Manor', 'Ceck's Bottom', 'Pock-on-the-Fling') and actually reminding the reader in as many words that the theme of the book is 'the grotesque', I now know what it's like to read a book with the iconoclastic spirit ofGormenghastas written by an author lacking the wit or idiom to carry it off. It's affected, trite, and tiring. Mostly tiring.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
May 31, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0060838655
| 9780060838652
| B007CDYGTO
| 4.08
| 248,817
| 1980
| Jan 01, 1995
|
did not like it
|
Howard Zinn saw a problem in the world, a great bias in our understanding of history, a history written by the winners--by tyrants and industrial magn
Howard Zinn saw a problem in the world, a great bias in our understanding of history, a history written by the winners--by tyrants and industrial magnates and warmongers--and so he did something about it: he created an equally flawed and opposed bias, just as carefully constructed to prop up his own one-sided conclusion, in an act which always calls to my mind Bob Dylan's line: "In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand. At the mongrel dogs who teach. Fearing not that I'd become my enemy. In the instant that I preach." A staunch idealist, Zinn's standard method is to throw out the baby with the bathwater: he finds an imperfection in a plan or event, and declares that, since it it not perfect, it should be rejected, outright. There is no pragmatism, no sense of compromise, no utilitarian notion of 'the greater good' for Zinn--if there is a flaw in an action, then that action must be condemned. He has come out as saying that war is never a solution, that since people died, the conflict of World War II is not excusable, that the cessation of the Fascist war machine was not worth the cost. Of course, this beggars the question: what else? Is there some better solution to the problem, is there anything else that could have been done to prevent it? Likewise, he has rejected US intervention in Korea, despite the fact that when we look at the split Koreas today--the North a wasteland of violence, malnutrition, and ignorance, the South a modern nation with a thriving economy--it is difficult to argue that, despite the deaths in that war, the intervention was not, overall, a positive. Certainly, I am not of the camp who believes the US to be some sort of 'World Hero', that we are justified in policing the world, or in enforcing our ideals upon other nations, but neither do I buy the image Zinn paints of the US as a hand-wringing Disney villain that ruins everything it touches--the real truth of the matter is somewhere in between. Some things which the US has done, such as our interference in Afghanistan--well on its way to becoming a modernized, self-sustaining nation in the mid-20th Century--tearing down its government, arming its warlords, and making it the staging ground for our Cold War battles with Russia--are awful examples of selfishness forced upon the world. The actions of our government and intelligence community there were not for the greater good, they were at the expense of the Afghans to our own benefit, and there are many such damning examples, but to focus solely on them is just as bad as ignoring them entirely. Zinn has received much credit for revealing truth, for reinvigorating our education system and our view of history, but honestly, his work was a bit late for that--already, such diverse perspectives were emerging, and while it took some time for them to trickle down to Middle Schools and the public consciousness, nothing in his book was a revelation to devoted students of history. Even those historians who were sympathetic to minority experiences and opposed to the white-washing of historytended to condemn Zinnfor cobbling together a poorly-researched work which took only those parts that were convenient to his thesis and left out all else--and beyond that, twisting and misrepresenting his sources to his own ends. But his work is sensationalistic, and work of that sort has a way of finding its way into popular discussion, whether it is accurate or not. His opponents can cite him of an example of 'all that is wrong with that point of view', while his supporters are attracted by the fact that his work tends to cast as the true heroes of history the uninvolved thinker, the academic who talks a great deal, attends protests, but does not get his own hands dirty, since in Zinn's approach, to interact directly with the imperfect world is to sully one's self. It's hardly surprising that, in the modern age of 'Entertainment News', as represented by the vehement spewing of incoherent bias, figures like Zinn andChomskyshould become elevated. Zinn's book is like the 'documentaries' Zeitgeist ,or What the Bleep Do We Know? ,like Daniel Quinn's Ishmael or Hesse's Siddhartha ,or the writing ofBell Hooks--all works that are fundamentally more concerned with the author's prejudice than with anything resembling fact. In college, it's not uncommon to find folks who are devoted toallof the above--and if there's a better way than that to say"I have relatively little capacity for critical thought, but need constant confirmation of my own specialness',I don't know it. But then, such works are liable to spark off movements--not because they are accurate or well-written, but because they flatter certain preconceptions in the person who reads or watches them--meaning that the movements they inspire are not far removed from cults, centered as they are on philosophies which do not correspond to reality. It is truly sad that, in the end, the common state of politics can be boiled down to a question like 'Do you follow rush Limbaugh, or Kieth Olbermann?', when in fact both of them are equally sensationalistic purveyors of half-truths delivered by way of ideology-filled rants. One sometimes wonders what we might achieve if we were able to think of the world in terms other than false dichotomies--but since I, unlike Zinn, am not an idealist, I shall have to accept the fact that it's simply how the human mind works, and do my best to work within that system. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
May 03, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 079142152X
| 9780791421529
| 079142152X
| 4.10
| 39
| Jan 01, 1994
| Oct 28, 1994
|
Bah, I lost my copy of this in the move--and I was enjoying it, too.
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 24, 2013
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1449724450
| 9781449724450
| 1449724450
| 3.00
| 4
| Oct 20, 2011
| Oct 31, 2011
|
did not like it
|
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like, if I were an author, and wanted to promote my book, I would try to find some interesting people with well-written
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like, if I were an author, and wanted to promote my book, I would try to find some interesting people with well-written reviews who seemed to be in the market for a book like mine, and then I'd strike up conversation, try to discuss books, the craft, genres--try to open lines of communication before asking that they do me the favor of condescending to read something I labored over. The more common option seems to be mass-sendings to strangers with little more than a generic note "You seem like you'd enjoy this!", with no explanation as to why. And so it was with this book. But, I still decided to go and have a look, not wanting to disregard a quality book because the author's self-promotion was somewhat impersonal--indeed, there are only so many people one can make personal recommendations to. So, I found a 'free preview' online. If I were an author, I would make sure my free preview showcased the best of my work--typifying my style, my writing philosophy, and hinting at what else might be found within my opus--and so, I will assume that this free preview is an above-average example of the book's contents. Editorial problems abound. Never sufficient to show things once, there is just enough redundancy in the prose to ensure that the average dog will not get lost in the plot. I didn't see the ur-example: "What's that?" He asked, questioningly. " but it would not necessarily have looked out-of-place. Likewise, we are often told what to think and how to comprehend the situation, as if someone had gone through a normal story and added the analysis of a high school essay: "I had shown more manners than the beast who stood before me laughing in his arrogant pleasure." Writing tip: if it is not clear from your scene who has been more mannerly, having the narrator explain things is not an improvement on the writing. If it is clear, the explanation is even more unnecessary. If reading three hundred pages of this sounds like your cup of tea, then go to! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 10, 2011
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 160239802X
| 9781602398023
| 160239802X
| 3.59
| 1,785
| Mar 08, 2010
| Mar 08, 2010
|
did not like it
|
I met Jesse Ventura as a high school senior, when he was governor of my state. My class was invited to meet with him and ask questions while sitting o
I met Jesse Ventura as a high school senior, when he was governor of my state. My class was invited to meet with him and ask questions while sitting on the sumptuous carpets of his office in the capital. By this point, he was nearing the end of his term, and the frustration was clear in his voice. He spent most of the time complaining about how school budgets go up every year, with the clear indication that he couldn't understand why. The following Q&A with a group of advanced standing Government students didn't do much to improve his case. So, when an acquaintance handed me this book and intimated that if I read a single chapter, it would 'blow my mind', I was skeptical, and with good reason. I read the chapter on voter fraud and it was disappointingly simplistic. It wasn't merely that it only showed one side of the debate, but that it did not even show all of that side. Any person with a passing interest in the issue who has followed articles and stories on it already knows more about it than Ventura gives us, even with his secret, 'insider' sources. But then, Ventura never was an insider. Even as governor, he was an outsider looking in, a frustrated, ranting man who didn't understand law or governance and who found the whole system too complex and nuanced to ever play the game. In that, he is like many people: frustrated with the government, but unable to articulate why. We all feel that way, sometimes, and feel a desire to act out, but acting out naively is a pointless waste of time. But that won't stop people from doing it, or from writing books about it, or from reading them. This book is too simplistic and poorly-researched to qualify even as a primer to the nature of power dynamics. Perhaps the most telling lesson from this book is that Ventura paints the hidden conspirators as brilliant and powerful, despite the fact that the government is made up of people just as confused and ineffective as he was. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Aug 29, 2011
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0140440399
| 9780140440393
| 0140440399
| 3.94
| 38,737
| -411
| 1972
|
To be completed anon.
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Apr 03, 2011
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1435129326
| 9781435129320
| 1435129326
| 4.03
| 950
| 1934
| Jan 01, 1811
|
Picked this up because it was a cheap binding of many of Howard's Conan stories. I've since gotten the much more thorough and accurateDel Rey collect
Picked this up because it was a cheap binding of many of Howard's Conan stories. I've since gotten the much more thorough and accurateDel Rey collection,which I suggest highly. This edition doesn't include any of the stories De Campaltered and finished,publishing them under Howard's name posthumously, so one need not worry about bowdlerization or other tampering. Curiously, this edition was published in Thailand, which is likely cheaper, but I wonder if they are also profiting by the fact that in most countries besides America, Howard's stories recently entered the public domain, which isn't likely to happen here as long as theMickey Mouse Lawskeep getting passed. What marks this book as particularly cheap are the slapdash illustrations, one of which is featured on the cover in blotchy color. If this is the same John Ridgway who made a name for himself in 2000AD, Hellblazer, and Judge Dredd, I'm at a loss to explain the sad quality of the art here. There are occasionally signs of quality in the hatching or backgrounds, but for the most part the drawings are indistinct, lacking in chiaroscuro dynamic, and the anatomy is flat and ungainly. Perhaps it was a rush job, perhaps Ridgway is suffering from a recent hand injury--or perhaps the publishers decided it would be cheaper to publish his roughs rather than pay for completed pieces. I mean, this is the internet age, there are tons of great, young artists out there just giving their work away for free, so it shouldn't be a problem to actually get some solid Conan art, even if they don't have name recognition. I was reading a few stories in here, but now that I've found my Del Rey, I think I'll switch to that. My Fantasy Book Suggestions ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 07, 2010
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0192834401
| 9780192834409
| 0192834401
| 3.18
| 36,690
| 1764
| Jul 16, 1998
|
it was ok
|
Another read for my research into early horror as I work on my own supernatural Victorian tale, but in the end I have to agree with Lovecraft's assess
Another read for my research into early horror as I work on my own supernatural Victorian tale, but in the end I have to agree with Lovecraft's assessment in hisSupernatural Horror in Literaturethat Walpole's style is insipid and full of silly melodrama. It's not hard to see why it was so influential, as it introduced a great number of interesting ideas and symbols, but like so many books that inspired a genre, its the fact that original author did so little with those ideas that left room for better writers to improve upon it.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Oct 11, 2010
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1582404836
| 9781582404837
| 1582404836
| 3.65
| 846
| May 17, 2005
| Sep 30, 2008
|
did not like it
|
I'd heard some interesting things about this, but I'm afraid I couldn't get past the art. It looked like Jon Luna just traced stock photos from advert
I'd heard some interesting things about this, but I'm afraid I couldn't get past the art. It looked like Jon Luna just traced stock photos from advertisements. The characters were all dead-eyed with the wide, laughing mouths you expect from billboards. It was simplistic without being elegant. There was no style to it, just very rudimentary and lifeless. It was like seeing sex dolls carefully posed to stand in for real people. Maybe I'll try it again in a while and see if the story's any good. My Suggested Reading In Comics ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Aug 30, 2010
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0441004016
| 9780441004010
| 0441004016
| 3.90
| 16,985
| Dec 01, 1983
| Jan 01, 1997
|
did not like it
|
A fairly common mistake made by authors is failing to be familiar with their genre. They end up retreading old ground and relying on long-dead cliches
A fairly common mistake made by authors is failing to be familiar with their genre. They end up retreading old ground and relying on long-dead cliches because they aren't aware of what's already been done. So, it behooves an author to get some familiarity with the genre he intends to work in, to ensure that he isn't just writing the same old story over again. In that spirit, I thought I'd check out this award-winning early piece of Steampunk. It was a rough start. One of the first red flags in an author's prose is how often they use 'almost', 'seemed' or worst of all 'almost seemed' in their descriptions and metaphors. Such words are meaningless filler, and are usually a sign that the author is not comfortable with his own figurative language, or is trying to seem mysterious without really knowing how to do it. We're barely a page in before Powers gives us'a musty fetor... almost shockingly incongruous when carried on the clean breezes of Hampstead Heath'.Almost shockingly incongruous, but not actually shockingly incongruous. But, if it isn'tactuallyshockingly incongruous, why not tell us what it really is like? Why use a phrase that almost describes the situation, but not quite? What is the benefit to this imprecision? Of course, in most cases, it is just 'shockingly incongruous', and the 'almost' just happened to slip in there for no reason at all. From there we move on to the conflicted metaphors: "His cloak flapping behind him in the wind like the wing-case of some gigantic insect" 'Like some' is another meaningless phrase to look out for in figurative language. It's meant to sound mysterious, but really, it's just filler. Beyond that, to anyone actually familiar with insect wing-cases, this metaphor just doesn't make sense, because wing cases are rigid andheld out steadily from the bodyduring flight. They don't flap. In the case of the scarab, which I assume Powers is trying to evoke here in his Egyptian magic story, they're also shiny. Also, why does it have to be a 'gigantic' insect? Because he's a person, and people are bigger than insects? Figurative language already has that covered. If you say'his gaze darted about like a viper's',you don't have to continue'but a viper with hair, and external ears, and lacking scales, and also much larger than a normal one, and with limbs and no tail, and without the capacity for natural poison'.There's a reason that explaining a metaphor that way is often done as a joke--it's simply not necessary. Here's another one: "[The tent] looked, thought Fikee, like some huge nun in a particularly cold-weather habit, crouched beside the river in obscure devotion." Can you picture that? Does that produce a clear and effective image in your mind, or a rather confused muddle? For me, it was definitely muddle. These two metaphors appear on the same page, along with another one about a smile being'like a section of hillside falling away to expose old white stone',which isn't so bad, but that's a lot of trying-too-hard similes to cram on just one page. Next page. "Romany intoned, his voice becoming deeper as though trying to wring an echo out of the surrounding carpets" 'As though' is another vague little bit we want to be careful about when we write. I don't think the verb 'wring' works there at all. Are you imagine someone twisting carpets (with their voice) in order to try to squeeze some extra echoes out of them, because that's what this description paints into my mind, and it is not remotely working. A few pages on, and we break suddenly into a long stretch of story exposition straight from the narrator about all this stuff that happened before, to set up the story. So, why start off with a mysterious intro where your characters are mumbling odd references to events, if you're going to explain them all a few pages later? That's a pretty quick way to kill all the mystery you had just been trying to build up. Then, the characters themselves start delivering long pieces of story exposition to one another, even though they all know these things already! "I'm sure you haven't forgotten how you suffered after playing with the weather at the Bay of Aboukeer three years ago." So yeah, that's definitely enough of this book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jul 22, 2009
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 081257639X
| 9780812576399
| 081257639X
| 4.10
| 72,927
| Aug 2000
| Dec 15, 2001
|
did not like it
|
This book has become an unusual point of discussion between me and my literary fantasy friends. It all started years ago when this kid from fencing an
This book has become an unusual point of discussion between me and my literary fantasy friends. It all started years ago when this kid from fencing and I were discussing what fantasy books we read. I was a Goodkind fan, but I admitted that, partway through this book, I just couldn't do it anymore. Something in me just stopped responding, and I never managed to finish it. He creased his brow and frowned and said the same thing had happened to him. He'd been following the series and at this book, it was just over. We started asking around and it seemed to be the same for everyone: they liked the series, then this book, and they were done. We knew other Goodkind books had been written and published since this one, but for years, we couldn't find anyone who had made it past the sixth book. Eventually, we all moved on, read better books, and looked back at our love of Goodkind, Jordan, Martin, and all the rest as a sign of our naive youth. But it's still one of those things, like Ninja Turtles or late nights playing Dungeons & Dragons, that can be fun to think back on. Then, one day, it happened: that fencing kid, who grew up to be my college roommate and dearest friend, found someone at his law school who claimed this was theirfavoriteGoodkind. He asked them why, but to no avail: they had no critical theory to describe what they liked. We wrote it off as a fluke--then it happened again. There seems to be a small, devoted group who actually really liked this book, but so far, none of them have been able to give us any clue as to why. At this point, it's less concerning, since Goodkind is just another long-winded, cliche fantasy writer who writes okay adventures, and has a weirdly high opinion of himself: "The books I write are first of all novels, not fantasy, and that is deliberate; I'm really writing books about human beings."(1) "To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals."(2) "The stories I'm telling are not fantasy-driven, they're character-driven, and the characters I want to write about could be set in any world. I'd like to address a broader audience."(3) Plus the fact that all of his interviews inevitably devolve into a discussion of Ayn Rand and 'the meaning of art', just in case you missed the pretension of declaring fantasy books 'not fantasy!' The guy certainly has a chip on his shoulder, but it's pretty clear that this guy has neveractually read any fantasy.He doesn't seem to realize that the things he says 'separate him from fantasy' are fundamental parts of how modern fantasy works. A novel that's fundamentally about character interactions with a magical setting? How original! This is why it's often important to be familiar with the genre you intend to write in: if you don't know what others have done, you will probably end up reinventing the wheel, and accidentally creating something that sounds just like everyone else. Michael Moorcockcritiqued Tolkienas a false romantic, which is rather apt considering that his love story takes place almost entirely in absentia (prompting Peter Jackson to infuse some extra loving with a hot, elven, psychic dream sequence). Most fantasy authors rectify this by having the girl come along for the journey. Goodkind likes to keep the separation for much of the story as our hero tries to seek her out across a continent (though she is often just in the next room! Oh! What a tragic coincidence!) Actually, after the first time it's just an annoying and painfully artificial way to try to hold off the conclusion for another hundred pages. It's a good thing Terry doesn't have to rely on magical or artificial means to keep his stories fresh. The rest of the time, the hero finds the girl and lovingly transfixes her on his mighty sword. No, really. I'm not sure why these authors always end up feeling as if they have to dump their sex fetish issues at this particular juncture: "Huh, I dig BDSM. Maybe I should confide my fantasies in a book for mass publication". I cannot think of a single female character in the entire series who isn't either raped or threatened with rape. If you want to give me an example of one, remember: I'm counting magical psychic blowjob rape as rape. I wish I never had the opportunity to qualify a statement with 'don't forget the psychic blowjob rape'. I don't mind actual BDSM literature, but I'd rather have my own reaction to it than be told "isn't it totally dirty and wrong!? (but still super sexy, right?)" Porn for porn's sake is fine, but remember, Goodkind isn't some escapist fantasy author, these are 'real stories about real people' so he has to act like his magic porn is somehow a reflection of real life. Goodkind's series is cookie-cutter genre fantasy, but it's not that badly done, and if you like people narrowly missing one another, bondage, masochism, rape, and dragons, it's pretty good. But by this point, the characters have thinned out into shadows of themselves and Goodkind's self-absorbed obsessions are all over the place; because the one thing you want from a fluff fantasy series is a long, incoherent attempt to argue politics. If you are enjoying the series, you should probably avoid reading any of his interviews, as he rarely misses an opportunity to claim that he is superior to all other fantasy authors, and never compare him to Robert Jordan, because "If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books."(4) Goodkind truly lives in his own fantasy world if he thinks his mediocre genre re-hash is 'original' or 'deep'. Then again, I've never met an adherent of Ayn Rand who didn't consider themselves a brilliant and unique snowflake trapped in a world of people who 'just don't understand'. TheRandian philosophiesare also laid on pretty thickly in his books, but at least he found a substitute grandmother figure to help him justify hisGorean sex-rompas 'high art'. All in all, he's just another guy who likes to hear himself talk, and you can tell from his writing. Just like most modern fantasy authors, his greatest failing is the complete lack of self-awareness that overwhelms his themes, plots, and characters. And if anyone thinks this is thebestSword of Truth book and wants to take a shot at explaining why, my teenage self would appreciate it. My Fantasy Book Suggestions ...more |
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jun 30, 2009
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0380817926
| 9780380817924
| 0380817926
| 4.04
| 30,840
| 2003
| Jun 28, 2005
|
it was ok
|
I love the idea of a throwback, an author who takes cues from classics and puts a new spin on them. Mieville took rollicking pulpand updated it,Susa
I love the idea of a throwback, an author who takes cues from classics and puts a new spin on them. Mieville took rollicking pulpand updated it,Susanna Clarke madefairy talesand theGothic novelsing for a modern audience--but if you're going to adopt a bygone style, take only the best, and leave the dross. By all means, copy Howard'sverve and brooding,butskip the sexist titillation.Copy Lovecraft's cosmic horror, butskip the racist epithets.Dan Simmon'sIliumfeels like 50's sci fi for all the wrong reasons--less a throwback than a relic. Each of his intertwining stories features a slight variation on the standard science hero, that idealization of the author that we all roll our eyes at: the adventurer who is a bit dorky, out of place, more at home in the safety of a library, but who is now stuck on Mars, or floating in space, or trapped in a dystopian conspiracy (respectively), and must get by with only his smarts and good character. Like most such stories, the plotting is convenient--instead of being motivated by their own desires, the story is imposed upon the characters. They are vessels for the reader to inhabit instead of thinking, feeling beings. The main plots roughly parallel classic sci fi texts: like Riverworld ,we have powerful, advanced beings recreating humans to toy with them, taking on the role of the gods. The next combines elements ofBrave New World,and Dancers at the End of Time :we follow a man on a dying Earth as he tries to uncover who'sreallybehind it all. This latter story also has a more interesting antecedent in Nabokov's Ada --as several characters, images, and relationships are drawn from that work, yet it is not an expansion upon Nabokov's sci fi foray, but a regression of his themes back into titillating pulp. The main character goes on and on about how hot his cousin is, and how he wants to sleep with her--however, since he is rebuffed and mocked at every turn, we have to assume that this is meant to be a satire. Yet, we’re still getting those descriptions, that same primary point of view, so I’m not sure Simmons is doing quite enough to differentiate the satire from the object of ridicule. Likewise, it’s so overstated and repetitious that it becomes tiring. The literary turn is curious, seeming to promise that more thought has gone into this work than the average genre adventure. One character lives in a Nabokov story, the next has constant discourses on the meaning of Shakespeare's Sonnets and the philosophy of Proust, and the last is full of literary interpretations of Homer. Simmons is aiming high, deliberately drawing comparison with the literary greats, trying to borrow depth from them--but it's not enough to simply invoke the names, to place their thoughts into the mouths of this or that character, if he fails to integrate these ideas fully into the structure and prose. Simmons' languages is disappointing--overly explanatory, nitpicking in that familiar sci fi way, where everything is reductive. The inner lives of the characters, their motivations, the finer points of the plot, all are stated outright, then rehashed and restated. The reader is told what to think, how to react, and what it all means--it all becomes rather overbearing. Much of the bulk of it (and it is bulky) comes from the fact that the author is never willing to leave well enough alone. At one point he mentions Hector’s son’s nickname and what it means twice in as many pages--at which point I wondered if anyone had actually bothered to edit this thing in the first place. A grand and strange idea needs grand and strange prose to propel it. Narrowing down and simplifying it for the crowd just isn't going to do it justice. If you’ve decided to write a complex book, with various story threads drawing on both classic sci fi and great literature, at a certain point you need to have faith that it will come together, in the end. Otherwise, the anxious urge to control every aspect and get itjust rightis going to strangle the life out of it, until there is no room left for mystery or strangeness. In bad fantasy, it often feels like the author has set themselves the masochistic limitation of constructing a book solely using words and phrases cut from an antiques catalogue--which would explain why, by the end, the swords, thrones, and banners have more developed personalities than the romantic leads. Likewise, in bad sci fi, it feels like authors are forced to do the same thing with an issue ofPopular Mechanics--filling out the text with little gadgets and a blurb on the latest half-baked FTL propulsion theory. We can go back as far asWellsandVerneand see the split between social sci fi and gadget sci fi: Wells realized that it was enough to simply have the time machine or airplane as story devices, things that might change society. He did go on his preachy tangents, but they were always about theeffectsof technology, not particulars dredged from an engine repair manual. Verne, on the other hand, liked to put in the numbers, to speculate and theorize about the particulars--yet here we are,stillwaiting on the kind of battery banks he describes as powering theNautilus.Going into intense detail simply isn't useful in a work of fiction. A communicator or phaser or transporter is just as inspiring and fascinating onStar Trekwithout bothering with vague pseudoscience for how the thing is supposed to work. In the end, focus on the story itself, on the characters and the world, and leave out the chaff. TheNautilusis no more (or less!) interesting for a few paragraphs about its engine room, so as in all editing, if nothing would be lost by the omission, best to cut it. It’s odd to still be getting this in the post-speculative age--Dick, Ellison, and Gibson have already paved the way for the odd, literary, genre story--and their works ended up being far more predictive of the future than any collection of gadget-loving writers. Gibson didn’t even own a computer at the time he wrote Neuromancer ,and certainly didn’t go into great detail about the technical aspect of ‘decks’ or ‘cyberspace’, but that didn’t prevent him from being remarkably prescient about how those technologies would change our world. So why, thirty and forty years after the Speculative Fiction revolution, should we end up praising a regression like this? It's bizarre how much a modern sci fi novel can end up feeling like Tom Swift, with the character constantly mentioning his ‘shotgun-microphone baton’, ‘levitation harness’, and ‘QT medallion’--going into long theoretical digressions about how precisely his ‘morphing bracelet’ might work, on the quantum level--as if it makes any difference. And then, of course, he just gives up and says he doesn't really know--so then, what was the point of the digression? You know you’re reading bad sci fi when the author takes a basic concept that we already understand and have a term for--like teleportation--and then invents his own, new term for it--or better yet, a whole phrase. Sci fi authors can’t seem to get enough of pointless convolution, that extra layer of complexity that doesn’t actually add anything to the story. Or they’ll have some gadget, and every time a character uses it, they explain it all over again. Sci fi is about tech, so of course you want the bits and bobs in there, but once a piece of technology has been established, you don’t need to reintroduce it every time--we’ll take for granted that the dude still has it and that it works in the same way. If you want to write a book about robots reading Proust, that’s admirable--but don’t then turn around and treat the audience like a bunch of mouth breathing idiots who need to be reminded what the servo wand does even though it’s the fifth time we’ve seen it. Beyond that, the technology in the world makes no sense--they have advanced in huge steps in things like teleportation and energy conversion, and seem to be able to create whole new people and races from thin air, and yet their ability to heal injuries is extremely limited, slow, and cumbrous. It makes it difficult to believe that this book was published as recently as 2003. Then came that fateful phrase upon which so many a sci fi and fantasy review has turned: And then there's the depiction of sexuality. It feels quite adolescent--physical instead of emotional, women described at length and men not at all--and not just in theAdasection, where it makesa certain senseas an homage, but throughout the book. Strip it down to the bare facts of the description, and it becomes the sort of erotica Beavis and Butthead would come up with: Beavis: So this chick is like, in the bath, and she’s totally of touching her boobs. Is this list of body parts supposed to be arousing? If you were an alien learning the ways of human culture through sci fi novels--firstly, I’m sorry--and secondly, you could be forgiven for assuming that a 'woman' was like any other human being, except that all her limbs had been replaced by breasts, and all her locomotion was achieved by squishing them together and pressing them against things. Is this what passes for seduction? Just'here’s my naked body, have a go'? A few chapters later, the same characters are forced to undress together (because 'reasons'), and so we get this long, loving description of what the ladies look like, what the young man is thinking while looking at them, how naughty and exciting it is--and yet, no description of the men undressing, nothing about what the women might be thinking, what their point of view might be. In the original Ada, Nabokov uses first-person perspective, so the gaze makes more sense, but Ilium is third-person omniscient, so instead of the character's bias, we're just getting the author's. One of these women is probably the closest we have in this book to a strong female character, and yet we only experience her through the eyes of the chubby, naive dude who keeps trying to sleep with her. Later on, we get a scene that is ostensibly about her desire, about someone she wants to sleep with--and yet, once again, the whole thing is painted in terms of what she looks like, of her body, of how a desirous man might see her--even though this doesn't seem to be coming from the man's POV. It’s such a blatant contradiction: the focus on female physical attractiveness is so pervasive that the women's sexual thoughts are presented in terms of what their own physical bodies look like. We get an insight into his desires, which might actually have contributed something to his character, and neither are we allowed to understand what draws her to him--the description keeps turning back to her breasts and skin and hair, so that the consummation ends up feeling less like personal, carnal fulfillment and more like smacking two dolls together--except the child has only bothered to undress Barbie. Then we get to the scene that convinced me to give up on this book entirely: Our mooky, bookish hero has been led around by the nose for a few hundred pages, thrown into the plot without any choice in the matter and maneuvered from one scene to the next by forces beyond his comprehension--until finally, he starts to see that unless he changes his current course, it’s not going to end well for him. At last, he begins to exercise some free will, to play the role of active agent in this book instead of just a passive observer. So, what’s the first thing he decides to do? That’s right, rape a woman. That’s thefirst decision he makes,the first thing he does that he wasn’t directly made to do by some greater power. But hey, at least it’s not a violent rape--no, he’s too mild-mannered for that. Instead, he just uses his super science gizmo to make himself look like her husband and then orders her into bed--though he’s so nervous he can barely get the words out, because he’s one of those shy, bashful rapists--you know the type. He also talks about how many times over the years he hung out in disguise outside her window, just watching her and thinking about her--and then makes a joke about‘the boobs that launched a thousand ships’,because there’s no better time for humor than when you’re about to sexually violate a stranger. Of course, he remonstrates himself for being a ‘jerk’ for thinking something so inappropriate and crass, because he’s so mild-mannered and sweet--though this momentary self-awareness in no way slows down his rape plans. And it’s not like up to this point, he’s been some intriguing, fraught, conflicted character who the author built up to be morally questionable, someone whose actions we must come to terms with. No, so far he has been a generic reader stand-in, a pure observer of the action (that’s literally the character’s job), just a standard nerdy sci fi protagonist who barely has a personality. To switchimmediatelyfrom such a flat character to such a fraught moral situation just doesn’t work. I’m not saying authors shouldn’t explore sexual assault, or the type of person who commits it, but in order to actually deal with that idea, you have to first build up the characters to the point where they have sufficient depth to actually delve into it in a meaningful way. Otherwise, why include it at all? There’s no reason I can see that this scene couldn’t have just been a normal sexual encounter. The assault doesn’t add anything to the book, and as soon as it’s over, the author seems happy to whitewash and ignore it. I read a bit beyond this scene just to see if the author was going to try to deal with it, but instead the victim realizes what’s happening and doesn’t care in the least, then immediately starts questioning her rapist about other things--and after that, happily has sex with him a couple more times. Is this supposed to excuse it, somehow? Like, if a guy fires off a gun into a house that he suspects is full of children, and then we later find out that it was empty, is that supposed to make him somehow less reprehensible?'Oh, no one got hurt, so everything's okay--move along.'If it doesn’t provide new understanding of the main character (or of the victim), and the author is happy to ignore the fact that it happened at all, and just move on with the plot, then what was the point? Why include it at all? Of course, in a book about false Greek gods, we can't forget how often Zeus himself liked to pull this trick--a story about a man who gets godlike powers and starts treating his fellow humans like toys would have been interesting--but we're not getting the psychological buildup to support that story. Likewise, the idea that he had been forced into it could work, that he is nothing more than a pawn of the gods (which is altogether likely), but that also requires the proper setup: bits of foreshadowing and signs of internal conflict--all the details that would make such a plot turn interesting instead of merely convenient. Then again, perhaps it’s just exploitation, pure titillation--a hallmark of cheap, thoughtless sci fi everywhere. And yet, here’s an author who spends large sections of chapters having characters discuss Shakespeare’s concept of love, or Proust’s. Clearly, Simmons is attempting to present himself as thoughtful and deliberate. The problem is, if you don’t actually bother to explore those themes through your characters, their personalities and actions, then it simply doesn’t matter how often you have them lecture the reader on the subject--because all you’ve managed to do is write a book that tells us one thing, but where the action contradicts what we’ve been told. It’s like having a protagonist who the supporting cast constantly praises for being smart and clever, but then every decision he makes ends up being short-sighted and thoughtless. Maybe it’s supposed to be some kind of cosmic frat bro slut-shaming. In the preceding scene, the victim gives this whole long speech about what a whore she is, how the current conflict is all her fault, and how she’s been sleeping with these different dudes because she just can’t help herself, and then she seems to be trying to seduce her husband's brother. So perhaps we’re supposed to sit here and think‘well, this is all her fault, and she’s just been whoring around for years, causing all this trouble, so really she’s asking for it’ And yet, as any genre fan knows, that's clearly not the worst you can expect--indeed, while Simmons' portrayal of sexuality is one-sided, it's not deliberately so, like so many writers--he's not lecturing us on the inferiority of women--it's just blandly and thoughtlessly sexist. Beyond that, the reader can see that Simmons is trying very hard todo somethinghere, and between that and the passably interesting turns of the plot, it was almost enough to keep me reading. The concept itself should make a fascinating book--this hyper-tech recreation of the Trojan War on Mars, interconnected with Nabokov's 'Antiterra'. All Simmons' overt connections with literature are meant to establish a place in the canon (as his genre has been trying to do for a century) perhaps that's why this book was shortlisted for awards, and has been widely praised, because of its obvious attempt to connect to Great Works. And yet, it makes the same mistake as any bad writing: trying to force through repetition and overstatement instead of doing all the difficult work of integrating those ideas into the book. Simmons just isn't doing enough, it's lip service, and the approach is just too rudimentary, flawed, and old-fashioned. This isn't a forward-looking book, as sci fi should be, its a weirdly nostalgic attempt to redeem the past of sci fi--despite how goofy, exclusionary, and horribly Gernsbackian it all was. Certainly, we should take lessons from the past, but good sci fi is always searching out the new thought or experience, exploring what it is to be human, and what it might be like in the future--the scree of gadgets is just a distraction, the same urge some shallow folk have to get the newest iphone. That isn't a mind seeking the future, it's one trapped in the ever-consumptive obsession of the present, the self, the now. And I get it, because running on that treadmill feels like moving (especially when you buy a new, cooler treadmill every year) but all that lurching and twitching and shivering is nothing but an ague, and it'll drain you in the end. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 30, 2015
|
Nov 21, 2015
|
Jun 15, 2009
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0679755489
| 9780679755487
| 0679755489
| 4.14
| 1,586
| Jun 1945
| Jan 15, 1995
|
Related to epic poetry and renowned for incomprehensibility? Sounded fun, but a bit hard to get into. Maybe I'll have better luck with this some other
Related to epic poetry and renowned for incomprehensibility? Sounded fun, but a bit hard to get into. Maybe I'll have better luck with this some other time.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Mar 06, 2009
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0142437239
| 3.90
| 280,904
| 1605
| Feb 25, 2003
|
I'll get back to this after some important matters.
I'll get back to this after some important matters.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
| 0140449264
| 9780140449266
| 0140449264
| 4.31
| 940,501
| Aug 28, 1844
| May 27, 2003
|
liked it
|
A sort of evil picaresque which I found too narrowly-focused to engage an ongoing interest. I love pere's Musketeers, but this one proved too melodram
A sort of evil picaresque which I found too narrowly-focused to engage an ongoing interest. I love pere's Musketeers, but this one proved too melodramatic and free of levity.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
Paperback
|
J.G. Keely
>
Books:
abandoned
(32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.75
|
not set
|
Jul 06, 2016
|
||||||
|
| 3.51
|
it was ok
|
not set
|
Oct 17, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 3.54
|
not set
|
Jun 16, 2014
|
||||||
|
| 3.12
|
it was ok
|
not set
|
Jul 23, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 3.57
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Jun 26, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 3.59
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
May 31, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 4.08
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
May 03, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 4.10
|
not set
|
Jan 24, 2013
|
||||||
|
| 3.00
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Dec 10, 2011
|
|||||
|
| 3.59
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Aug 29, 2011
|
|||||
|
| 3.94
|
not set
|
Apr 03, 2011
|
||||||
|
| 4.03
|
not set
|
Dec 07, 2010
|
||||||
|
| 3.18
|
it was ok
|
not set
|
Oct 11, 2010
|
|||||
|
| 3.65
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Aug 30, 2010
|
|||||
|
| 3.90
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Jul 22, 2009
|
|||||
|
| 4.10
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Jun 30, 2009
|
|||||
|
| 4.04
|
it was ok
|
Nov 21, 2015
|
Jun 15, 2009
|
|||||
|
| 4.14
|
not set
|
Mar 06, 2009
|
||||||
|
| 3.90
|
not set
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
||||||
|
| 4.31
|
liked it
|
not set
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
Loading...
