Full Review Listing

All of the following review pages contain my comments on the work in question. Most of them contain my categorized rating system, other related discussion points, and reader feedback as well, so you will probably get far more than just a simple review of the book/movie/etc.  The review portion is always on top; scroll down past it to read more, when available.

• #/# = More than one title scored in the review.
• Inc. = Incomplete. May be completed later.
• NA = Not scored (for reasons explained in the non-review).

Buy anything you see reviewed here (or anything at all) via my Amazon.com links, and a small % of the purchase price will go towards my site hosting expenses.

I Am A Critic

Of all the blog topics I indulge in here, the one that routinely generates the most reader feedback is fiction. My own, to some extent, but definitely when I talk about published works, ask for reader recommendations, or make my own. Whenever I do that pretty much guarantees I'll get two or three mails from various guys listing their favorite fantasy and sci fi authors and series.  Which is cool, I've gotten some good recommendations that way, and even if the recommendations were for stuff that wasn't that good, I learned from reading it.

An aspiring writer (as if I'm not one myself?) mailed me a couple of days ago asking about quality authors I'd recommend, and I really couldn't give him too many. I read a lot of series by a lot of authors, but very very seldom do I read anything that I think is high quality. A book can be quite enjoyable to read while still essentially being crap, in terms of quality.  And that goes for music and movies and TV and everything else as well.  Look at what sells the most copies; is it ever really any good?  Is anyone going to argue that Shania Twain or Britney or other mega-platinum artists are the best quality music?  Critics certainly don't think so, but then the general public are not critics, and seldom care for their advice.  Critics are sniffy and holier than thou and have superior attitudes and think they know more about evaluating the quality of a work than the clueless general public.

I am a critic.

An unusual one though, since I think I'm a creative creator myself, but I also enjoy analyzing and critiquing the work of others, and I think I have a decent eye and objectivity for it.  Of course so does everyone else, and we're all above average drivers as well.

But my criticism is unusual in that I know what I like is sometimes crap, and that doesn't stop me from liking it. Sometimes I think an action movie or genre novel or little-known CD is under-appreciated and deserving of more critical praise than it has received, but generally I think it's crap, I know exactly why it's crap, but I still enjoy it. The impression I get from most major critics is that they can't like crap, even if it's enjoyable crap, and if they do like it they have to try and make it sound like a very guilty pleasure, or an exception to the rule, or stress that this particular piece of crap is oh so very different from all the rest.  I'll do that sometimes, but more often I'm content to wallow in it, like a big fat piggy.

One of the most interesting things about crap is that it can be learned from. In fact, I often learn more from crap than I do from high quality material, of any genre or medium. It's all about taking the proper attitude or outlook on a subject.

Truly awful writing probably won't teach you much, unless it's popular, and then it teaches you just how horrible the taste of your average consumer is. However, you can analyze the material and try to observe what needs (in the public) that awful novel is fulfilling. Romance fiction is generally sappy dreck, but there are plenty of people out there, mostly women, who enjoy it. Why? What needs does it fulfill in them? How can you tap into that longing and that market, while not writing sappy dreck yourself?

To return to the query from the aspiring writer, about what great books he can learn from, there are lots. However the great stuff is often very difficult to learn from. Would you learn more about how to play basketball watching a superstar who finds it all so easy, or a man of modest physical talent who has learned to maximize his abilities on the court? I.E. you'll find it hard to leap 4 feet and dunk reverse after outrunning everyone on the floor, but you can probably learn to run an effective pick and make an open jumper. And they're both worth 2 points, even if yours won't get you on the highlight reels.

Sports metaphor aside, when it comes to literature, envy and learn from the best, and despise but still try to learn from the worst. I read a lot of books, and most of them are crap, but that doesn't mean they're worthless to me. They're somewhat inspirational, for one thing, since after all, if that idiot could get his crap published, we're sure to get our higher quality work into print eventually. Right?

On the other hand, when I read something truly brilliant, it's often hard to see just why it's so good. What is it about the arrangement of words, the character interactions, the plot, etc, that makes it so much better than other stuff. What can you do to emulate that in your own work?  Try to pick at it, or see why it works so well, rather than just getting depressed and falling into a, "Christ, I can't match that!" despair.

That is, needless to say, the wrong way to look at it.

So I guess that my writing and reading advice is to read what you like, lots of books that are similar to what you want to write, and try to emulate the penthouse, and surpass the outhouse.

The last 4 or 5 Stephen King novels I've read have all been quite mediocre, but they are still pretty good novels.  How can they be good, and sell a ton, and keep his fans interested, when they aren't really any good?   Well I kind of addressed that a couple of weeks ago in my From a Buick 8 review, but in a nutshell they are interesting stories, just much less (story, character, action, ideas, etc) than his earlier work, which was what made him such a popular writer. I think that an unknown could probably get published today submitting From a Buick 8, or Rose Madder, or Bag of Bones, or Dreamcatcher, but they certainly wouldn't sell a fraction of the copies they do by King, and wouldn't build the new author any major fanbase in the process, since they just aren't very good novels.  Nothing really sets them apart from any of hundreds of other semi-horror stories.

And yes, I think I can do better.

My point with this, if I have one, is that aspiring to write brilliantly is great, but it's not necessarily commercial.  Aspiring to write brilliantly with a story people like and interesting characters and everything else is commercial and will garner you fame and fortune. And that's common sense, but it gets hard to see at times when you are just sitting home alone writing away on your PC and dreaming of a better world.  *sigh*

Oh wait what, you thought I was talking about myself there?  No no, it's all advice for others.  Don't be ridiculous.

Big Bang Writing

A lot of fantasy (and other genre) writers are "big bang" writers, to use a term of my own invention. A "big bang" novel means that the story, characters, plot, etc, are mediocre, just involving enough to keep you going, until there's an amazingly cool scene that makes you love it, after which the novel sinks back into mediocrity for another 100 or 200 or 500 pages. An awful lot of fantasy writers also seem to be great at making memorable characters, but awful at doing realistic conversation, working in exposition smoothly (as opposed to dropping it in Anne Rice style, ala in huge and obvious chunks), pacing their story (so there are interesting things regularly, and not 50 page stretches of boredom), etc. Many of them are able to salvage their work by stringing the flabby body along between explosions of interest and action, but this doesn't always work, and it tends to grow tiring for the reader.

Prime examples of the big bang school of writing (which beats no bang at all) are Anne McCaffrey (Dragon Riders of Pern), Ursula K. LeGuin (A Wizard of Earthsea), and Robert Jordan (The Wheel of Time).

Perfect Kid's Books and Childish Reading Habits

Something I've noticed while reading the first few Harry Potter Novels, and especially while reading what critics say about them, is that quite often critics disapprove of the novels since they are far less than perfect children's books. The critics point out (correctly, for the most part) that there's no real moral lesson imparted by the Harry Potter novels (except that lying and breaking the rules is fine if it's for a good cause or to stay out of trouble, which probably isn't what the critics were really looking for), there's no overriding theme, most of the characters are very one-dimensional and static, the books all follow a similar plot structure, etc. All of which is true, but so what? No one's arguing it for the Pulitzer Prize (or whatever the UK novel equivalent would be), they're just saying it's a fun book for kids to read.

The odd thing to me is that the harsh critics seem to act almost as if kids are only going to read one or two books in their lives, and that they shouldn't waste their reading on fun but ultimately pointless page-turners like the Harry Potter books. This angle never even occurred to me, since I figure kids will read these, enjoy them for what they are, and read lots of other books too, some of which are probably a lot better for their minds, if less fun to plow through.

I suppose that my view of how much kids are likely to read is skewed by my own childhood, when I watched too much TV and played video games and skateboarded and played soccer... but also read a lot of books and started reading novels regularly by the time I was 5 or 6, and continued all through school. The only other person I've talked to about childhood reading habits is... Malaya, and she was a far bigger bookworm than even I was. To me a 300-400 page novel is something you read for an hour or two a go, and finish in 2 or 3 days. Shorter books or ones that move fast, like the Potter novels, are things you read in 3 or 4 hours total.  I'm not bragging about my speed reading or anything; that's just how fast I read when I'm trying to enjoy a literary work.  When I skim fluff, like Entertainment Weekly articles or online movie reviews, I skim and blow right through them, but with fiction I always take more time, since I like to analyze how the author has structured her work, how the prose is constructed, etc. (Unless it just sucks, in which case I hold my nose and skim.)

Therefore, I'm probably underestimating the potential importance of any one book, since I figure kids will be like I was, and read a lot of books. Who cares if they spend some time on fluffy fun stuff like Harry Potter when they'll have plenty of time to read other novels?

In contrast, the harsh Potter critics seem to be people who didn't read much as kids, or who think kids today don't read much (which they don't, as far as I know) and therefore they overestimate the importance of every book, since they think (or know) that it's the only one their kid will ever read.  That may be true, but it seems like it puts unrealistic pressure on a book to be perfect; interesting, fun, easy to read, intelligent, morally uplifting, etc. You'll never be happy with any book your kid wants to read if you're holding it up to that high of a standard.

Also, isn't it better that they read something fun that they'll plow through and enjoy than reading nothing at all?  Or forcing some book on them that they're not going to enjoy, thus driving them back to the TV, or their video games, or sneaking out at night to engage in minor acts of vandalism?  Give them something fun and easy to read and they'll enjoy it and want to read more, and as they get used to reading and get faster at it and enjoy it more, you can steer them towards other works you find more morally or ethically substantial.

And yes, it's very easy for me to make these pronouncements and recommendations having never even babysat a child, must less raised my own.

Movie Theater Concession Price Insanity

The prices in theaters really are absurd, and I'm convinced, counter-productive. I'd love popcorn and a soda at the movies, and would be willing to pay considerably more than it would cost me to recreate such food items at home... but not the outrageous prices they demand in theaters. A soda and a big bag of chips at 7/11 will run you maybe $3 or $4, and you know that's far more than it would cost to get them at the supermarket, or at a bulk store. Yet in the theater you'll drop $3 for a small soda or water, and $4 for a small popcorn, and no one buys the small!  Go large and you're looking at $10 or more for a drink and a popcorn, and God help you if you want some candy or an ice cream bar or something too; you'll spend more on some junk food in the darkness than you would on a quality dinner with wine.

I understand that the theaters want to take advantage of the monopoly they create by banning outside food and drinks, but why do they overdo it so much? If they changed high prices, but not ridiculously high, I would probably give in to my cravings and get something at least every other movie, just to reward their common sense pricing.  Everyone knows that soda is essentially free, when bought in bulk, and popcorn is even cheaper; the packaging might well cost more to produce than the kernels. Hell, you can get a 36 pack of microwave popcorn in every flavor imaginable for about $8 at CostCo, and a 30 cube of soda for something like $8. And that's small servings with more packaging.  You know that movie theaters pay a fraction of that, buying their popcorn in 50lbs bags and making soda from syrup, tap water, and compressed air.

A can of soda and a bag of microwave popcorn at home will run you less than a dollar, if you bought them in bulk. You can have seconds, or make some for your date, and you're still well under $2, which is still less than half what you'd pay for a single popcorn in the theater!

If movies sold the various sizes of popcorn for say, $2, $2.50, $3.50, and sodas for $1.50, $2, $3, and gave you refills on larges, they'd probably sell 4 or 5x as much as they do now, and the few people who do pay their ridiculous food prices now would not only buy more, say a candy bar along with the popcorn, but would probably go to the movies more, rather than budgeting it like an expensive dinner for two; something they can only afford to do once a month, or less. I'd pay $3.50 for a drink and some popcorn, and they'd still make about $3 profit on the sale. Now it's $6, or $8, or $10 for the same thing, and most people just don't pay it. Or if they do they hate the movie for the prices and themselves for giving in and paying them for such shitty food.  And that's no mood to begin watching a film in.

I assume the theaters have done extensive market research on this, and raised prices and raised prices until they saw their profits begin to diminish.  Plus this way they need to buy far less stuff, pay less to have it delivered and stocked, pay fewer teenagers to work in the concessions stand, etc. So they're probably making money as best they could on it; I just dislike it since I'm poor and would like a snack at the movies, but refuse to pay their outrageous prices for it.  If you'd like to make a difference in my movie theater starvation, feel free.

Movie Review Theory

So I've been thinking I should do movie reviews on the page, and book reviews.  Not necessarily full articles, but maybe like 3 or 4 paragraph things about each book after I've read it.  Be a resource for site readers, sort of, but also would help me to remember.  I'm very good at reading a novel in about three hours, and forgetting 95% of it within the week.

For movies I thought I'd do reviews, but in satirical form.  For example, write as if the movie were non-fiction or a documentary, or as if I were a disgruntled set designer who was fired for taking more than my share of donuts, or the ex-boyfriend of some supporting actress, and of course totally obsess on her role, missing the overall movie entirely.

Being as there are roughly 4 billion sites now doing movie reviews, it seems pointless to just be another film school drop out convinced my insights are the most brilliant of all.  Not that I ever went to film school.

So of the infinite number of movie review sites around, as well as thousands of newspaper and magazine writers who have reviews posted online as well, how many do you actually read that are of any interest?  I mean in terms of being fun to read, not just as a recommendation for or against the film?  The only reviewer I read regularly is Ebert, and I read most every review he does, even if it's for some movie I have zero interest in, just so I'll know something about it, and he's such a good writer that he's usually interesting in describing it.  There are a few funny reviewers, or insane, amateur ones like on AICN or other movie fan sites, which are very hit or miss on interest level.

As for professional reviewers, or at least professional-quality writers who do reviews, 98% of them are identical.  A quick bit about the movie, maybe a few examples or attempts at analogies with varying degrees of success, and a conclusion, usually with a lot of comparisons to other movies. They are relatively pointless, disposable, and forgettable.  Maybe 1% are more inventive, attempting to be funny and irreverent, and are useless to give you any feel for if the movie is good or not.  And then the last 1% are well-written and interesting, like Ebert's.  I want to be in the 1%.  I'm just not sure which 1%.

The problem is that I never see any movies, and then most of the time when I do I don't have really anything to say about them.  Which is why I thought the satirical ones would be more fun/interesting.  If the movie doesn't motivate me to brilliant thoughts, then I'd just make something brilliant up in the process of writing it.

Posted in the daily update April 15th, 2002.

You'll note that I've done nothing thus far to join either 1%.  Yes, I suck.

The "Next Generation" Problem

This is a condition that infects almost every long-term, ongoing novel series, of any genre. And it has nothing to do with the Star Trek series of the same name. (Though it could if say, Picard and Richer's sons were suddenly new recruits and the focus of the series.)

The "next generation" problem is what usually happens in a book series that goes on too long. Most series take 3 or 4 books to tell the initial story, which spans an entire world, involves dozens of characters, and some final huge battle, with a happily-ever-after ending. Often the main characters find husbands/wives, or if there are male and female characters they'll settle down together, etc.

Then the author thinks up more tales to tell in his/her world, or the fans demand more of the same, and the author goes back to their famous land to add a few more books.  The problem is that since everything was wrapped up pretty neatly in the first trilogy, and everyone was settled down, the author wants to have some new/fresh characters rather than reusing the same old ones. So they go for the next generation, the kids of the original characters, in the same world, 15 or 20 years later. So many series use juvenile characters to begin with that it's natural to have the children of the original characters setting off on their own with their parents, the characters that readers grew to love, appearing only in the background.

The problem is that the kids are (almost) invariably less interesting than their parents, the original characters, were.  On top of that, the plot is usually less interesting since the author's best idea was dealt with in the first novel. So he's got less interesting characters, a less interesting plot, and the world itself isn't as interesting, since it's no longer new and exciting for him or for the readers.

The odds of any series continuing at the same quality in later books is around your chance of winning the lottery and being hit by lightning while picking up your winner's check and running from the terrorists who have appeared to kidnap you.  It might have happened in some series at some point, but I've never read one that did. The examples of this declining quality are myriad, but just going by some series that are covered on the fantasy and horror author reviews: Xanth and The Apprentice Adept by Piers Anthony, both of which Jumped the Shark when the kids took things over.  Xanth lasted longer, with the second generation still pretty interesting, though less so than the first, but by the time it got to the third generation the ideas were running pretty thin. Brian Lumley does this with his Necroscope series as well, which manages the rare feat of having boring next generation characters on both the good and bad side.

Other authors avoid this by just stretching a series out almost to infinity, long after they've run out of good ideas, but keeping basically the same characters the whole time.  There's a very fine line between more good stories in a familiar land, and weak stories that are only read by anyone since they have a popular brand name. You can see this in The Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffrey and the Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice. I'd mention Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, which is clearly going on forever, but since his plot is developing so slowly and has so many characters it reads more like one 3000 page novel, with 200 page chapters.

A tip for writers seems to be to just stay in the same world, with the same characters, forever. Age them a bit, but mostly suspend reality.  Use serial novels and comic books as your guide; Tarzan, Conan, Batman, Superman, etc.  There the characters just keep doing the same thing over and over again, and one episode doesn't have any real resonance in future stories.  Work it like a TV show, where no matter how chaotic and weird the action during one episode/novel, it's all pretty well settled by the end of the story, so you can start off from the same point next time, just with different events.

Waitress Attractiveness Theory

This one fits here since there are restaurant and food reviews on this page, if you were wondering.

You've probably noticed the difference in eye candy "quality" of waitresses from one restaurant to another. It's somewhat non-intuitive.  For example, Anthony's a semi-upscale seafood place in San Diego, has a much lower quality of waitress (scoring by their pulchritude) than other cheaper places, like Chili's, or TGIF, for example. I don't mean their quality in serving food and not screwing up the order, I mean their physical attractiveness.  And I mean that because I'm a man, and men are pigs.  A seat where you can watch the aisle at Chili's is almost worth the price of admission, just for the hot, hot, and hotter waitresses and hostesses sashaying by.  Of course they all wear black jeans or dresses and the lighting is low, so you can't really see a damn thing, but they seem slim and usually pretty.

The Anthony's waitresses and even the door hostess (which is usually the hottest chick in the place, selected for that job to lure in the men, and also because she's too dumb to do any actual waitress work) are not hideous or anything, but they're just sort of average girls, and they even have adult waitresses, women in their 30's and 40's.  Which doesn't seem to be uncommon for waiters, but I hardly ever see women over 25ish doing that job, at least in the places I go to eat.  I suppose they get better jobs, get married/stay home/make babies, or move to truck stops.

I don't have any theory as to why there are prettier/slimmer girls at Chili's than at good restaurants, and it's not really a big deal to me one way or the other, since I'm not going to ask one out, short of her sitting in my lap when she brings my house salad with ranch on the side.  It's just something I notice, and I do enjoy the eye candy, when available.  I'd say it's just based on the clientele, since Anthony's is more of an adults/family sort of place, with a lot of seniors eating there, while Chili's is family, but also lots of college aged people.  So the future waiters/waitresses are there with friends, and figure, "Hey, I could work here."  Perhaps Chili's and TGIF and Bennigan's et al have their pick of the young people, and they hire the best (looking) and leave the rejects for Anthony's and Soup Exchange and Baskin Robbins and other less glamorous places?