What are you currently reading?

André · January 18, 2016, 10:23:50 AM

Boris Akounine: The Coronation

Surprisingly like Michel Strogoff (Jules Verne). Thanks, Milos !

Super Blood Moon · January 19, 2016, 10:00:53 AM

ASHLEY BELL by Dean Koontz. Enjoying it halfway through.

Daverz · January 19, 2016, 04:20:40 PM

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on January 18, 2016, 01:19:31 AM
Moll Flanders. Defoe's language is surprisingly clear and modern for a writer spanning the Baroque in music (1660-1731). The preface said he was one of the fathers of the English novel.

Indeed, very readable prose. But I found the plot too episodic and gave up about 3/4 through. The TV production with the very yummy Alex Kingston was fabulous, but avoid the film, which has next to nothing to do with the novel and is crap.

Artem · January 24, 2016, 08:39:37 AM

Two books that I finished recently. They were very different, War and War is experimental while Sahota's book is more of a straight forward storytelling, but I enjoyed them equally.

andolink · January 25, 2016, 03:31:27 PM

I'm thoroughly enjoying this:

SimonNZ · January 25, 2016, 09:37:56 PM

Starting:

aligreto · January 26, 2016, 08:41:14 AM

Quote from: SimonNZ on January 25, 2016, 09:37:56 PM
Starting:

I have only seen the film and I really, really liked it....

aligreto · February 02, 2016, 12:55:47 PM

Just started "The Guest Cat"....

Super Blood Moon · February 03, 2016, 01:56:47 PM

NOTHING!

Karl Henning · February 04, 2016, 06:27:37 AM

Quote from: Super Blood Moon on February 03, 2016, 01:56:47 PM
NOTHING!

You are such a fibber! How does Roz endure you? 0:)

Brian · February 04, 2016, 06:56:34 AM

After watching the movie last month, now reading Laura by Vera Caspary.

Karl Henning · February 04, 2016, 06:56:56 AM

Quote from: Brian on February 04, 2016, 06:56:34 AM
After watching the movie last month, now reading Laura by Vera Caspary.

The Preminger movie?

stingo · February 05, 2016, 04:16:30 AM

Quote from: aligreto on February 02, 2016, 12:55:47 PM
Just started "The Guest Cat"....

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it. I read it a few months ago and liked it.

Super Blood Moon · February 05, 2016, 04:37:46 AM

If you've never heard of him, where you been hiding, bro?

[asin]0143107380[/asin]

NikF · February 05, 2016, 06:13:34 AM

The 'holiday' book.

Something of a standing joke, where I'm asked "Have you packed the book?" and I reply that I have and will definitely read it this time. But now I'm admitting defeat and it's my current choice of reading at home.

Brian · February 05, 2016, 10:20:23 AM

Quote from: karlhenning on February 04, 2016, 06:56:56 AM
The Preminger movie?

Indeed! Many details of plot are different, and there are occasional very strange metaphors in Caspary's writing toolbox, but the spirit is very much the same, including Waldo's ambiguous sexuality. Plus, there's a very neat structure where every character (well, almost) gets to narrate for at least part of the novel.

aligreto · February 08, 2016, 08:14:59 AM

Quote from: stingo on February 05, 2016, 04:16:30 AM

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it. I read it a few months ago and liked it.

Despite not really liking the first three or four essays/chapters I did eventually grow into it and ended up liking it. Despite being [obviously] about a cat it had a warm, human dimension to it. I would like to read an alternative translation of it though as I felt that is where it fell down a bit for me.

André · February 13, 2016, 03:19:56 PM

Henning Mankell, The Chinese Man.

One of his non-Wallander books. I enjoyed the acrobatics of the storyline. The characters are well drawn, although some are by force cardboard-like (the brother and sister duet of Chinese nouveau riche and Party apparatchik). Not fakes, but rather predictably one-dimensional. For Mankell fans.

Daverz · February 13, 2016, 04:29:49 PM

I had read the first book in The Expanse some years ago, and had not been moved to continue on by the mashup of solar system space opera, zombies, and Lovecraftian horror. I decided to reread it again after watching the SyFy production. The elements of pastiche didn't bother so much this time (these guys do write well), and so continued on to the second book, which is even better than the first. (It really annoys me that everything SF and Fantasy these days is part of some gigantic series, but that's the way it is.) I'm now on the 3rd volume, which seems to be the inevitable falling off point, with some "I don't care about this person" type characters. But hopefully it will improve.

[asin]0316311294[/asin]

Karl Henning · February 17, 2016, 05:10:18 AM

I think I do like the movie, and in spite of the fact that, if I had read Ebert's surgical review, I should certainly have seen his points and agreed with them:

Quote from: Roger Ebert"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.

That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away.

"The Thing" is basically, then, just a geek show, a gross-out movie in which teenagers can dare one another to watch the screen. There's nothing wrong with that; I like being scared and I was scared by many scenes in "The Thing." But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing" and in "Alien," there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.

Yesterday, I watched a 12-minute YouTube video of a fan of the movie discussing fine points of who was infected and when, which right away seems to gainsay Ebert's objection that the fun has been removed.

My point being that, if I had simply read Ebert's review, I should have been impressed that the matter was cut and dried. But, perhaps it is not. (That said, I love Ebert's zingers like, he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind.)

This weekend, perhaps, I shall revisit the movie.

(More great Ebert lines . . . in reviewing Alien Resurrection, he wrote: In "Alien3" she told this life form: "I've known you so long I can't remember a time when you weren't in my life." I'm telling the aliens the same thing. This is a series whose inspiration has come, gone, and been forgotten. I'm aliened out. And: Like the bugs in "Starship Troopers," these aliens are an example of specialization. They have evolved over the eons into creatures adapted for one purpose only: To star in horror movies.