|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 26, 2022 8:14:34 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of sending money like that (no consumer protection if something goes wrong), but for $5 that's very tempting... Paypal actually offer a lot of protection for buyers I find. And the one and only time I've ever needed to use it -- when a company I'd bought a couple of hundred pounds worth of product from when bust before they had delivered -- they were brilliant: I had my money back within a couple of weeks. I had the same experience with a book that was never delivered. I was instantly given a full refund, no question asked. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 28, 2022 1:33:44 GMT -5
Jack the Ripper by Paul Begg and John Bennet.  I've been fascinated by the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper since I was a teenager and this is the fourth book I have read on the subject. The main selling point of this book for an armchair "Ripperologist" like me is its CGI street view reconstructions of the crime scenes. These atmospheric and pin-point accurate computer generated reconstructions were an absolute revelation to me; more than any other book I've read on the subject, these illustrations put you right there in the dark, deserted streets of the East End of London in 1888 at the scene of each crime. To give you an idea of how good these CGI reconstructions are, here's a view from the rooftops looking down into Mitre Square, Aldgate, scene of the murder of the Ripper's fourth canonical victim Catherine Eddowes (though I personally believe she was actually his fifth victim)...  While they are certainly fascinating and hugely atmospheric, these CGI illustrations shouldn't distract from the quality of the information in the book's text, which is well researched, carefully presented, and authoritative. Both Paul Begg and John Bennett are well respected authorities on the Whitechapel murders, with several Ripper books and articles to their names, and their knowledge and familiarity with the subject is clear to see on every page. The book begins by giving us some context, by covering daily life in the East End, the era's policing, its politics etc, and then moves on to detailing the five canonical murders that were attributed to Jack the Ripper (though the non-canonical victims who may or may not have been murdered by Jack the Ripper are also covered in a decent amount of detail). One small criticism is that the book is kinda short on discussing the Ripper suspects: it seems much more concerned with presenting the details of each murder than spending a lot of time speculating on who committed the crimes. That's fine for me, as I have other books that cover this aspect of the murders in an awful lot of detail, but if this was your first or only book purchase on the subject, I think you'd be frustrated by the scant amount of detail presented about who may've committed these infamous crimes. Nevertheless, this is a superior book on the Ripper murders. It provides as clear a view as possible of the murders and crime scenes, with well written text, plenty of photos, street maps and illustrations, and all those wonderful CGI crime scene reconstructions. This is definitely recommended if you are interested in getting a real "on the ground" feel for the Autumn of Terror. This book has also been published under the alternate title CSI: Whitechapel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 6:29:18 GMT -5
After Reading Volk's All the Marvels, I decided it was finally time to tackle Sean Howe's Marvel: The Untold Story.  This book has been in my TBR list since it came out. The issue with waiting so long is that pretty much any new information Howe brought to light have entered into the discourse about comics a while ago, so reading it now didn't present me with much I didn't already know, and Howe's prose in and of itself wasn't much of a draw. And for a book called The Untold Story, he spent way too much recapping comic story plots that had already been told rather than discussing the people behind the comics. He did that too, and maybe he was trying to provide context for non-comic readers who might be reading his book, but for me, I wasn't looking for summaries of comic stories from him, I could read the comics themselves if I wanted, I was looking for the behind the curtain stuff. And there was plenty of that too, but because I had waited so long to read it, it all felt already told. And that's on me, now Howe for certain, and I certainly recognize it was an important book, and made a lot of important contributions to the discourse on comics, but because of the circumstances under which I read it, it didn't provide a very interesting or satisfying reading experience. Howe wasn't a strong enough prose writer to make just the reading of his prose a worthwhile experience on its own. He's a strong researcher and certainly a decent writer, but with the aspect of adding no grist to the mill still on the table, the reading experience of it for me, was less than compelling. It's not a book I will revisit, but I think that would have been true even if I had read it as soon as it was released as well. Informative, important, competently written, but a one and done experience. -M |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jun 28, 2022 7:51:25 GMT -5
Man, I haven't thought of Howe's book in years, although yeah: I recall what a big topic of discussion it was on all of the comics blogs, forums, etc. back when it was first published. In fact - as you suggest to some extent - it was so extensively discussed, excerpted and commented upon that it seemed, to me anyway, almost pointless to read the actual book. I recall in particular a two-part review and discussion at my favorite comics blog of the time, Bronze Age Babies (here's links to part 1 and then part 2), in which Howe himself even dropped by and left a comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 28, 2022 8:25:36 GMT -5
After Reading Volk's All the Marvels, I decided it was finally time t tackle Sean Howe's Marvel: The Untold Story. This book has been in my TBR list since it came out. The issue with waiting so long is that pretty much any new information Howe brought to light have entered into the discourse about comics a while ago, so reading it now didn't present me with much I didn't already know, and Howe's prose in and of itself wasn't much of a draw. And for a book called The Untold Story, he spent way too much recapping comic story plots that had already been told rather than discussing the people behind the comics. He did that too, and maybe he was trying to provide context for non-comic readers who might be reading his book, but for me, I wasn't looking for summaries of comic stories from him, I could read the comics themselves if I wanted, I was looking for the behind the curtain stuff. And there was plenty of that too, but because I had waited so long to read it, it all felt already told. And that's on me, now Howe for certain, and I certainly recognize it was an important book, and made a lot of important contributions to the discourse on comics, but because of the circumstances under which I read it, it didn't provide a very interesting or satisfying reading experience. Howe wasn't a strong enough prose writer to make just the reading of his prose a worthwhile experience on its own. He's a strong researcher and certainly a decent writer, but with the aspect of adding no grist to the mill still on the table, the reading experience of it for me, was less than compelling. It's not a book I will revisit, but I think that would have been true even if I had read it as soon as it was released as well. Informative, important, competently written, but a one and done experience. -M I read this shortly (about two months) after it came out. So I only have vague memories and what I wrote on Goodreads to go by. What I really liked about it was that Howe was the first (or seemed to be) to give us much about the early life of Martin Goodman. He also seemed to remain fairly neutral on the Stan/Jack, Lee/Ditko controversies. I get more than enough partisanship on those. I recall liking it overall, but more for the early years and the post-Shooter stuff (which I also didn't know much about). The main Marvel Age has been covered so much over the years that I don't think there's much left that is untold. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 28, 2022 9:01:48 GMT -5
I read Sean Howe's book not too long after publication, immediately when it arrived in my library system. I recall enjoying the book, it was a smooth read. Having read tons of fanzines and interviews for decades in the 20th century, there wasn't much of what I was unaware but there was just enough to make the reading worthwhile
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 28, 2022 14:08:11 GMT -5
 Five Decembers by James KestrelI've been a big fan of what Hard Case Crime has been doing (if not all their offerings) since the imprint was started. So when this new book was available for cheap and it was very well reviewed I decided to pick it up. Joe McGrady is a Honolulu police detective who is assigned to a brutal homicide in late November of 1941. The trail leads him across the Pacific and ultimately to Hong Kong on December 8, 1941 (December 7th in Honolulu). Along the way he found a very similar murder on Wake Island. There's honestly very little that can be said about the book without getting in to spoiler territory. Overall this is a good first novel. If there's a problem it's that the characters sometimes act in ways (particularly in relationships) that just don't quite ring true. And that's maybe to the good. It means that Kestrel has created characters we feel like we know and care enough about to want them to make the right decisions. Definitely recommended. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 29, 2022 19:06:20 GMT -5
Currents of Space by Isaac Asimov I picked this up as a hard cover at a used book store, mostly just out of the novelty of it being a Hard Cover... I suspect it's from the old sci fi book club, but it doesn't actually say anywhere on the books that it is, just the original publishing date of 1952. The SFBC editions can usually be recognized by the ragged, untrimmed edges of the pages. I think there was a discreet note like "Book Club Edition" somewhere on the dust jacket; does yours have its dust jacket? |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 30, 2022 12:23:24 GMT -5
 Casino Royale - Ian FlemingI've watched quite a few Bond movies. Not all of them, by any means, but probably around half. But I'd never read any of the Bond books. I decided to alleviate that by reading the first book (because I'm wont to read series' in publication order). And I kept wondering to myself...how did this become a phenomenon? At about the 25% mark in to the book I noted that the book was incredibly boring and I'd just like "something" to happen. Ultimately some things (not very many) did happen. But they weren't particularly interesting and some of them made less than little sense. I try to cut Fleming some slack as it's a first novel. Bond, himself, isn't particularly interesting. And even if you haven't seen the Daniel Craig movie, it's patently obvious to anyone but Bond that Vesper is compromised. He just doesn't seem very good at his job. Neither Vesper, nor Le Chiffe are particularly compelling characters. Vesper mostly pouts and Le Chiffe is evil for evil's sake, but isn't interesting in being evil. Felix Leitner is the only character who is vaguely charismatic, but it's very vague. I've been told that the books get better and that some of the short stories are pretty good. I hope so. Because this is not interesting as anything but an artifact. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2022 12:44:21 GMT -5
I’d agree with that, Slam_Bradley. I bought a load of the books at a jumble sale years ago. I found Live and Let Die to be rather boring, despite the film version being enjoyable. Casino Royale was okay-ish, but, as you say, more of an artefact than anything. Moonraker was about the only one I enjoyed, an interesting contrast to the film adaptation. I felt that it had a solid plot, was unique (Bond never even left the UK in the story), and was a bit of a page-turner. I suffer from “completist syndrome” so I want to read all of the books. Maybe I’ll enjoy some, maybe I won’t. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jun 30, 2022 14:40:02 GMT -5
Casino Royale - Ian Fleming(...) And I kept wondering to myself...how did this become a phenomenon? At about the 25% mark in to the book I noted that the book was incredibly boring and I'd just like "something" to happen. Ultimately some things (not very many) did happen. But they weren't particularly interesting and some of them made less than little sense. (...) I've been told that the books get better and that some of the short stories are pretty good. I hope so. Because this is not interesting as anything but an artifact. Very much the same experience for me as well - although this happened back in the mid-1980s when I was in high school. I was really into the Bond movies at the time and decided to start reading the books, and - because like you I tend to prefer reading in chronological order - I picked up Casino Royale. Man, I could not believe what a slog that book was. I went on to read Live & Let Die and then for some reason skipped ahead to From Russia, with Love. The former was definitely better than the Casino, but still pretty slow-paced and dull at places (so unlike the movie), while the latter was, I thought, solid but nothing special. After that, I was done with Fleming. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 30, 2022 18:58:46 GMT -5
Currents of Space by Isaac Asimov I picked this up as a hard cover at a used book store, mostly just out of the novelty of it being a Hard Cover... I suspect it's from the old sci fi book club, but it doesn't actually say anywhere on the books that it is, just the original publishing date of 1952. The SFBC editions can usually be recognized by the ragged, untrimmed edges of the pages. I think there was a discreet note like "Book Club Edition" somewhere on the dust jacket; does yours have its dust jacket? It does, and it didn't have any tell tale signs (I'm definitely familiar).. but... seemed odd a Hard Cover would have been printed otherwise of a story from 1952. There is actually no additional info but the original copyright, which was odd. Goodreads lists the particular addition I have as 'book club edition', too.. so I was thinking maybe it was an early one before that standardized their procedure. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 30, 2022 19:09:59 GMT -5
The SFBC editions can usually be recognized by the ragged, untrimmed edges of the pages. I think there was a discreet note like "Book Club Edition" somewhere on the dust jacket; does yours have its dust jacket? It does, and it didn't have any tell tale signs (I'm definitely familiar).. but... seemed odd a Hard Cover would have been printed otherwise of a story from 1952. There is actually no additional info but the original copyright, which was odd. Goodreads lists the particular addition I have as 'book club edition', too.. so I was thinking maybe it was an early one before that standardized their procedure. It’s about 99.98% that it’s an SFBC Edition. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 1, 2022 1:52:30 GMT -5
I'm very much in the opposite camp to Slam, Edo, and Driver, when it comes to the Bond books. First read them back in the late 70s to early 80s and loved them, and I recently re-read the first four and though my reaction wasn't exactly the same as I remembered in every respect, I found them fascinating both as early installments of the Bond series and as stand-alone thrillers. I'll try to get into details later.
edit: I do agree with driver1980 that Moonraker is one of the most interesting and under-rated of the novels. That it's the only one set entirely in England, as driver1980 mentioned, makes it stand out, and lends insight into the Bon character.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 2, 2022 23:02:23 GMT -5
I should read those some time... I think I've read one.. as well as the relatively recent one that was written by someone else... Anthony Horowitz? Jeffery Deaver? not sure. It was ok, but nothing fantasic.
16 ways to defend a Walled City
by KJ Parker
I've been having a bit of reader's block lately, so I decided to grab this book from my to read list as something that would be out of the ordinary and from an author I've not read before.
It's definitely that.. while the main character is the typical 'charming rogue' type that permeates fantasy these days, he's an engineer, not a solider. The book is mainly about logistics.
That part of it is pretty fun and unique. Parker's stand in Roman Empire gets their butt kicked when the stand in barbarians figure out how to foil their logistics and steal all their stuff and use it against them, so our hero, Orhan, is left defending the City with no soliders or resources, which he does really well.
He also goes into commentary about race and class, as Orhan is actually a barbarian himself (in this world, the whites are the barbarian minority, and the Romans are 'Blueskins'.. not sure if he means ACTUALLY blue, or a dark color that's mostly black but looks blue in some light, like in comics back in the day when they didn't actually have black)
If that was the whole book, it would have got 5 stars, but there's a REALLY dumb twist about 1/2 way through that is the sort of thing fans do, not real writers, and it drove me nuts.
Finally, when the inevitable seems to be happening and the city is about to fall.. another silly twist (and an accident that lets it happen) occurs to save the day.
Then, to make matters worse, the end resolves nothing, and to make matters worse, reveals that Orhan is actually not telling the truth (not surprising, but annoying), and that perhaps things didn't quite go as smoothly and brilliantly as he said.
There is some irony.. the book starts be him saying his enemies are generally the ones that save him, and his best ideas are the ones that fail but turn out great because they were bad in the fist place, is totally what happened. It's super annoying though.
There are two more books, but they don't seem to be a direct continuation. At the VERY END, the author goes Princess Bride on us and there's an afterward about the reliability of the text from 'current' scholars... 1000 years or more after the events in the book. This makes me want to tear the book up into small bits and throw it across the room.
I guess it means I cared and liked the story, but really... talk about making sure I'll never read the sequels (though I might some day, just not soon).
|
|
