I entered into this book
with a little hesitation -- sequels are always difficult, particularly
when the original story is as iconic as The Shining. However, I
was pleasantly surprised.
Years after the events that took place at the Overlook Hotel, Daniel Torrence's life has gone off the rails. He's a drifting, aimless alcholic, spending his days drinking to try and dull the nightmares of his past. He uses his unique gifts to help ease the passing of hospice patients, earning him the nickname "Doctor Sleep." As it turns out, though, the universe has a plan for Daniel, and despite his efforts to resist, he will once again have to stand and fight an ancient evil. This time, however, he will have allies, some of whom are even more powerful than he is.
While this story doesn't necessarily have the
terrifying power of its precursor, it's a good, solid story with
likeable, sympathetic characters. Daniel Torrence is a wonderful
protagonist, and Abra Stone has a special charm. The villain could have
been fleshed out a little more, and I would have be interested to know
more about the history of "Rose the Hat," but on the whole I was
pleased. And the ending wasn't stupid, which for Stephen King (as much
as I love him) is not always a given.
This is definitely not a stand-alone book--you really need to read The Shining to truly understand Doctor Sleep--but I recommend it for fans.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
CBR5 #11: The Black Cathedral by L. H. Maynard
This started out as a fairly
promising "Psychics investigate a troubled house" book, but the
beginning was a bit slow, and bogged down by a lot of completely
unnecessary personal issues. A lot of time was spent unravelling some of the history between some of the characters, but for all the time taken, I felt like I got very little real feeling of most of the personalities. The photographer is sarcastic, the psychic is naive, the extra psychic is (maybe?) jealous? There is some history between them all that is never fully explained, but just agressively hinted at.
Eventually, things started to get good, only to take off at the speed of a runaway train. The house being investigated really starts rocking, flapping its plastic and setting off some spooky effects. Even then, there was less information I wanted (once again, the house's history was hinted at, but not detailed the way I would have liked.) The finale felt rushed and unfinished, and a lot of the carefully laid-out sub-plots seemed to go nowhere or ended totally unsatisfactorily. It feels like this book ended halfway through, and I liked it just enough to wish that it had been completed.
Eventually, things started to get good, only to take off at the speed of a runaway train. The house being investigated really starts rocking, flapping its plastic and setting off some spooky effects. Even then, there was less information I wanted (once again, the house's history was hinted at, but not detailed the way I would have liked.) The finale felt rushed and unfinished, and a lot of the carefully laid-out sub-plots seemed to go nowhere or ended totally unsatisfactorily. It feels like this book ended halfway through, and I liked it just enough to wish that it had been completed.
CBR5 #10: Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates
(So clearly I am not going to manage a double Cannonball this year. Or a full Cannonball. Or even a half Cannonball. But BY GOD I will at least complete the quarter, so at least I have not totally failed.)
Joyce Carol Oates's tale of Quentin P___ is unpleasant. And I know it's supposed to be that way--after all it's a dip into the mind of a serial killer--but it's more than that. He is the antagonist of his own story, making the reader into the protagonist. You spend your time reading his diary, and begin to get the creepy feeling that this is something you should never have seen. Quentin is not likable. You don't root for him as you do with Dexter or Hannibal Lector or even Patrick Bateman. Quentin is all the violence but none of the charm. I found myself rooting AGAINST him, rather than for him, and spent most of my time completely revolted. I suppose that's an indication that Oates did her job in making this character so real that he overwhelms the reader, but success doesn't necessarily lead to enjoyment, and this book left me with the strong desire to take a hot shower and never open it again.
Joyce Carol Oates's tale of Quentin P___ is unpleasant. And I know it's supposed to be that way--after all it's a dip into the mind of a serial killer--but it's more than that. He is the antagonist of his own story, making the reader into the protagonist. You spend your time reading his diary, and begin to get the creepy feeling that this is something you should never have seen. Quentin is not likable. You don't root for him as you do with Dexter or Hannibal Lector or even Patrick Bateman. Quentin is all the violence but none of the charm. I found myself rooting AGAINST him, rather than for him, and spent most of my time completely revolted. I suppose that's an indication that Oates did her job in making this character so real that he overwhelms the reader, but success doesn't necessarily lead to enjoyment, and this book left me with the strong desire to take a hot shower and never open it again.
Friday, September 20, 2013
CBR5 #9: What Alice Knew by Paula Marantz Cohen
(I received this book through a LibraryThing giveaway, but that will in no way effect my review.)
A murderer has been stalking the streets of London. He's called Jack the Ripper, and he has the city trembling in fear. Enter the James siblings--Henry, the author, William, the lecturer and early psychologist, and Alice, the invalid. When William is called to London from the US to apply his new studies in psychology to the case, the brothers and their sister decide to work together to suss out the Ripper.
This is a pretty good mystery, though I thought the solution came a little bit from left field. However, the characters--particularly Henry--were quite enjoyable, and I liked the way they each had a different view of the society in which they existed. Also, the author used shifting perspective well.
On the whole, I'd definitely read another mystery involving the James siblings!
A murderer has been stalking the streets of London. He's called Jack the Ripper, and he has the city trembling in fear. Enter the James siblings--Henry, the author, William, the lecturer and early psychologist, and Alice, the invalid. When William is called to London from the US to apply his new studies in psychology to the case, the brothers and their sister decide to work together to suss out the Ripper.
This is a pretty good mystery, though I thought the solution came a little bit from left field. However, the characters--particularly Henry--were quite enjoyable, and I liked the way they each had a different view of the society in which they existed. Also, the author used shifting perspective well.
On the whole, I'd definitely read another mystery involving the James siblings!
CBR5 #8: It's Kind of a Funny Story by Ned Vizzini
Craig Gilner is fifteen, and he wants to kill himself.
He feels like he's under pressure from every direction, and no one--not his parents, not his teachers at his pre-professional high school, not his best friend to whom everything comes easily, not the girl he has a crush on--seems to understand. The "tentacles" of responsibility and social obligation are tangling through his life and he gets to the point where he can't even manage to sleep or keep food down. Finally, when it all gets to be too much, Craig checks himself into the psych ward to try and get some help.
I actually saw the movie version of this first, and enjoyed it quite a bit. While the film focuses entirely on Craig's time in the mental hospital, the book adds in a lot of the time leading up to that. It definitely shows just how Craig ended losing it, but it also expands the role of his family and friends. The first half of the book was basically a lead-up to the second half, which is the time he actually spends in the hospital.
On the whole, I liked this a lot -- the main character's voice is really likeable and seemed authentic to me. I also enjoyed the secondary characters, though I felt like some of them could have been a little more three-dimensional, particularly Noelle, the love interest. She occasionally came out with some interesting dialogue, but I didn't feel like I got a good sense of her as a person. It's a good YA book with some interesting turns -- but I actually prefer the movie. The character played in the film by Zach Galifianakis, Bobby, is much less important in the book, and I missed him. Craig needed a foil, which the book doesn't necessarily provide.
He feels like he's under pressure from every direction, and no one--not his parents, not his teachers at his pre-professional high school, not his best friend to whom everything comes easily, not the girl he has a crush on--seems to understand. The "tentacles" of responsibility and social obligation are tangling through his life and he gets to the point where he can't even manage to sleep or keep food down. Finally, when it all gets to be too much, Craig checks himself into the psych ward to try and get some help.
I actually saw the movie version of this first, and enjoyed it quite a bit. While the film focuses entirely on Craig's time in the mental hospital, the book adds in a lot of the time leading up to that. It definitely shows just how Craig ended losing it, but it also expands the role of his family and friends. The first half of the book was basically a lead-up to the second half, which is the time he actually spends in the hospital.
On the whole, I liked this a lot -- the main character's voice is really likeable and seemed authentic to me. I also enjoyed the secondary characters, though I felt like some of them could have been a little more three-dimensional, particularly Noelle, the love interest. She occasionally came out with some interesting dialogue, but I didn't feel like I got a good sense of her as a person. It's a good YA book with some interesting turns -- but I actually prefer the movie. The character played in the film by Zach Galifianakis, Bobby, is much less important in the book, and I missed him. Craig needed a foil, which the book doesn't necessarily provide.
CBR5 #7: They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the Civil War by DeAnne Blanton and Lauren Cook
As you all know, I'm an avid Civil War buff, and am always on the lookout for a new and interesting slant on things. They Fought Like Demons focuses on women who disguised themselves as males to join in on both sides of the conflict. Though primary sources and also reported anecdotal evidence, the authors demonstrate the methods and motivations of women in the Civil War trenches.
This definitely reads more like an academic paper than a book, but that's okay. The authors managed to cram in an amazing amount of facts and research into a fairly small amount of space. A lot of it was fascinating, though there were sometimes SO MANY facts that it got a little hard to follow or in a few spots a bit repetitive.
The only thing I found a little questionable was the authors' adamant denial that any of these women (even the ones who lived as men both before and after the war) were lesbians. While I see their point, which is that women had so few options at the time that some might choose to continue to live as men because they preferred a more independent lifestyle, I think it's a bit silly to think that none of them would be what today would be referred to as "transgendered". In all, it's an excellent piece of research on an overlooked area of history.
This definitely reads more like an academic paper than a book, but that's okay. The authors managed to cram in an amazing amount of facts and research into a fairly small amount of space. A lot of it was fascinating, though there were sometimes SO MANY facts that it got a little hard to follow or in a few spots a bit repetitive.
The only thing I found a little questionable was the authors' adamant denial that any of these women (even the ones who lived as men both before and after the war) were lesbians. While I see their point, which is that women had so few options at the time that some might choose to continue to live as men because they preferred a more independent lifestyle, I think it's a bit silly to think that none of them would be what today would be referred to as "transgendered". In all, it's an excellent piece of research on an overlooked area of history.
CBR5 #6: Role Models by John Waters
(I've been really out of the blogging game this year. Not sure why, but I just WAS NOT FEELING IT. I've been reading at my usual pace, but the effort needed to get online and write up a blog and then copy it to the other blog and blah blah blah was not making the top of my priority list. So I thought "Well, that's it for book blogging, I guess." Then one day, I discovered that as I was finishing books, I was feeling inspired to add a little review blurb over at Goodreads (where I diligently keep track of all my book activities). Nothing major or in-depth, but just a little something to let people know what I thought. As time went on, I thought "Maybe I could copy these little blurbs on my blog? They're obviously not great criticism, but they're SOMETHING at least." So that's what I'm doing. Take it or leave it, people.)
I find John Waters totally adorable. His gleeful enthusiasm for all things tacky, crude, and macabre makes me think that we would probably get along famously. Role Models is a series of essays, loosely gathered under the theme of "role models" but it's mostly musings on his twisted way of seeing the world. Whether it's a heartfelt explanation of his friendship with former Manson girl Leslie Van Houten or an in-depth investigation of the lives of underground gay porn filmmakers, Waters brings a boundless curiosity and a certain amount of sweet affection to all his subjects. He's unapologetic about his own quirks and flaws, which makes him very understanding of the neuroses of others (unless they don't read, in which case, "don't fuck them").
Although a few of his essays can seem a bit endless (the one about his favorite clothing designer reads a bit like the chapter of American Psycho when Patrick Bateman describes in detail each item of clothing and skin care product he owns) most were glorious little blobs of cheerful crudity and giggling chaos. It's not for everyone, but if you love his movies, you'll probably love his books too.
I find John Waters totally adorable. His gleeful enthusiasm for all things tacky, crude, and macabre makes me think that we would probably get along famously. Role Models is a series of essays, loosely gathered under the theme of "role models" but it's mostly musings on his twisted way of seeing the world. Whether it's a heartfelt explanation of his friendship with former Manson girl Leslie Van Houten or an in-depth investigation of the lives of underground gay porn filmmakers, Waters brings a boundless curiosity and a certain amount of sweet affection to all his subjects. He's unapologetic about his own quirks and flaws, which makes him very understanding of the neuroses of others (unless they don't read, in which case, "don't fuck them").
Although a few of his essays can seem a bit endless (the one about his favorite clothing designer reads a bit like the chapter of American Psycho when Patrick Bateman describes in detail each item of clothing and skin care product he owns) most were glorious little blobs of cheerful crudity and giggling chaos. It's not for everyone, but if you love his movies, you'll probably love his books too.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
CBR5 #5: Constable for Life: Chronicles of a Canadian Mountie by Chuck Bertrand
This is a charming little
book that The Boyfriend picked up for me while on a business trip to
Vancouver. He apparently stumbled upon the author doing a signing, and
managed to get a signed copy with a nice dedication for me.
Chuck Bertrand's voice is pleasant, and he tells stories from his career in the RCMP that vary from humorous to heartbreaking. I really enjoyed this, and felt that Bertrand seems to be the kind of law enforcement officer that everyone hopes for--dedicated to protecting and serving, but with a healthy of dose of humor and common sense.
Although not to everyone's taste, I found this a quick and sweet read
Chuck Bertrand's voice is pleasant, and he tells stories from his career in the RCMP that vary from humorous to heartbreaking. I really enjoyed this, and felt that Bertrand seems to be the kind of law enforcement officer that everyone hopes for--dedicated to protecting and serving, but with a healthy of dose of humor and common sense.
Although not to everyone's taste, I found this a quick and sweet read
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
CBR5 #4: The House Next Door by Anne Rivers Siddons
Aaaaand we're back to horror stories.
Bet you didn't see that coming, huh?
The House Next Door is the tale of Colquitt Kennedy and her husband Walter, a very WASPy, fairly average couple. They live in an upscale neighborhood in the South, the kind of place where everyone knows each other, and most know one another's business, though they're usually too polite to mention it. One day, someone buys the long-empty lot next to the Kennedys and begins to build a new house. As you may have inferred from the title of the book, the house has some issues.
This isn't really a gory tale--there are no madmen with chainsaws or bleeding walls or be-tentacled monstrosities. Saw IV it is not. This is a story of anticipation, anxiety, fear, and destruction. Colquitt figures out pretty quickly that something isn't right, then must struggle for the length of the book to decide what she might be able to do about it, if anything.
I'm a little torn about this book. On one hand, there is a lot of great description, the main character's voice is really likable, and there are some genuinely spooky bits--I was annoyed every time I had to put the book down. On the other hand, there were also a few things that I really didn't like. First, there was a bit too much resistance from the secondary characters. It's a common flaw in horror books--the scientist insisting that zombies can't possibly exist as one shambles up behind her, the man is telling the curiously pale fellow who never shows his teeth when he smiles that vampires are an old wives' tale--but there comes a point where you just want the supporting characters to GET ON BOARD ALREADY AND LET'S MOVE ON! The other thing I didn't really like was that although there was some vague hint at the end of the book about the source of the trouble, it wasn't really explained. Some people like that vagueness, since it allows them to fill in their own explanations. I don't. One of my favorite parts of horror books is when the characters do the research and figure out exactly what's happening, and that didn't really occur here.
On the whole, this book was still more good than bad, and it's a great atmospheric horror story.
Bet you didn't see that coming, huh?
The House Next Door is the tale of Colquitt Kennedy and her husband Walter, a very WASPy, fairly average couple. They live in an upscale neighborhood in the South, the kind of place where everyone knows each other, and most know one another's business, though they're usually too polite to mention it. One day, someone buys the long-empty lot next to the Kennedys and begins to build a new house. As you may have inferred from the title of the book, the house has some issues.
This isn't really a gory tale--there are no madmen with chainsaws or bleeding walls or be-tentacled monstrosities. Saw IV it is not. This is a story of anticipation, anxiety, fear, and destruction. Colquitt figures out pretty quickly that something isn't right, then must struggle for the length of the book to decide what she might be able to do about it, if anything.
I'm a little torn about this book. On one hand, there is a lot of great description, the main character's voice is really likable, and there are some genuinely spooky bits--I was annoyed every time I had to put the book down. On the other hand, there were also a few things that I really didn't like. First, there was a bit too much resistance from the secondary characters. It's a common flaw in horror books--the scientist insisting that zombies can't possibly exist as one shambles up behind her, the man is telling the curiously pale fellow who never shows his teeth when he smiles that vampires are an old wives' tale--but there comes a point where you just want the supporting characters to GET ON BOARD ALREADY AND LET'S MOVE ON! The other thing I didn't really like was that although there was some vague hint at the end of the book about the source of the trouble, it wasn't really explained. Some people like that vagueness, since it allows them to fill in their own explanations. I don't. One of my favorite parts of horror books is when the characters do the research and figure out exactly what's happening, and that didn't really occur here.
On the whole, this book was still more good than bad, and it's a great atmospheric horror story.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
CBR5 #3: Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts
I wanted to like this book. I really did. In my attempts to read things that are not all dripping gore and supernatural monsters, I picked out a nice little selection from Oprah's book club. I figured that the story sounded slightly intriguing, and the reviews seemed pretty good.
By the time I got half-way through, I was praying that a zombie horde would crash through town, eating nearly all the characters and laying waste to the country-side.
Novalee Nation is seventeen years old and seven months pregnant when the novel opens, traveling west with her boyfriend Willy-Jack. They stop at a Wal-Mart in a small town in Oklahoma, and while Novalee is in the bathroom, Willy-Jack drives away. So what does Novalee decide to do? The only thing she can do--move into the Wal-Mart! She meets some quirky, lovable small-town residents who eventually become her friends. The book covers several years of her life, and all the wonderful, valuable lessons she learns about friendship and love and strength and independence. A few serious and/or sad things happen, but mostly they flash by quickly and are basically forgotten shortly after they're revealed. Then the book has the audacity not to tie everything together in a neat bow at the end. Really, you're going to lead me prancing through every cliche in the chick-lit genre, and then not bother to at least satisfy me with the traditional happy-ever-after cliche? That just seems mean and unnecessary.
Novalee has a voice very similar to that of Sookie Stackhouse, though Sookie (while not especially bright) seems like a Fulbright scholar compared to Novalee. I get the whole "simple southern girl" thing, but there are several occasions when Novalee is just plain stupid. Poor and southern does not equal stupid, dammit. I did like a few of the supporting characters, though most of them were basically animated caricatures. Friend who is always dieting, and always getting knocked up and then abandoned! Noble elderly black man who points Novalee on the path to her future! Feisty grandma figure! I actually would have liked to a see a lot more of those characters, and find out what made them tick, instead of focusing on how they served Novalee's life. But no! And periodically,without warning, we drop in on Willy-Jack (a character I could happily have left in chapter one, never to be seen again) just to see how life is gut-punching him as a karmic punishment for the way he treated Novalee.
I hope Wal-Mart paid the author a nice chunk of change for all the favorable product placement. The Wal-Mart in my home town would not be nearly as friendly as this fictional one (also, it'd be hard to live in because where I'm from, Wal-Mart doesn't close at night.)
And the damn woman names her daughter Americus. Americus Nation. I almost through the book across the bus at that point, but I didn't because those other bus passengers didn't deserve to be punished for a fictional character's poor decisions.
Once again, I wish I could like this. It's not an offensive book. It's just good-heartedly dumb. I'll probably watch the movie if I see it available on Netflix Streaming or OnDemand because I am a glutton for punishment.
By the time I got half-way through, I was praying that a zombie horde would crash through town, eating nearly all the characters and laying waste to the country-side.
Novalee Nation is seventeen years old and seven months pregnant when the novel opens, traveling west with her boyfriend Willy-Jack. They stop at a Wal-Mart in a small town in Oklahoma, and while Novalee is in the bathroom, Willy-Jack drives away. So what does Novalee decide to do? The only thing she can do--move into the Wal-Mart! She meets some quirky, lovable small-town residents who eventually become her friends. The book covers several years of her life, and all the wonderful, valuable lessons she learns about friendship and love and strength and independence. A few serious and/or sad things happen, but mostly they flash by quickly and are basically forgotten shortly after they're revealed. Then the book has the audacity not to tie everything together in a neat bow at the end. Really, you're going to lead me prancing through every cliche in the chick-lit genre, and then not bother to at least satisfy me with the traditional happy-ever-after cliche? That just seems mean and unnecessary.
Novalee has a voice very similar to that of Sookie Stackhouse, though Sookie (while not especially bright) seems like a Fulbright scholar compared to Novalee. I get the whole "simple southern girl" thing, but there are several occasions when Novalee is just plain stupid. Poor and southern does not equal stupid, dammit. I did like a few of the supporting characters, though most of them were basically animated caricatures. Friend who is always dieting, and always getting knocked up and then abandoned! Noble elderly black man who points Novalee on the path to her future! Feisty grandma figure! I actually would have liked to a see a lot more of those characters, and find out what made them tick, instead of focusing on how they served Novalee's life. But no! And periodically,without warning, we drop in on Willy-Jack (a character I could happily have left in chapter one, never to be seen again) just to see how life is gut-punching him as a karmic punishment for the way he treated Novalee.
I hope Wal-Mart paid the author a nice chunk of change for all the favorable product placement. The Wal-Mart in my home town would not be nearly as friendly as this fictional one (also, it'd be hard to live in because where I'm from, Wal-Mart doesn't close at night.)
And the damn woman names her daughter Americus. Americus Nation. I almost through the book across the bus at that point, but I didn't because those other bus passengers didn't deserve to be punished for a fictional character's poor decisions.
Once again, I wish I could like this. It's not an offensive book. It's just good-heartedly dumb. I'll probably watch the movie if I see it available on Netflix Streaming or OnDemand because I am a glutton for punishment.
Friday, January 25, 2013
CBR5 #2: The World According to Garp by John Irving
While my obsession with horror books is not over (sorry Mum!) there will be a brief respite from them for a while.
The World According to Garp is the story of T. S. Garp. It begins with the life of his mother Jenny Fields, and the way that she became a feminist icon, and continues to follow Garp's life through the twists and turns of becoming a husband, father, writer, and unwilling icon in his own right. I thought I might like this, since I fell in love with Irving's Hotel New Hampshire, but instead it was a struggle just to finish it. I hated dogmatic matron Jenny Fields. I hated whiny, indecisive, anxiety-ridden Garp. I hated Garp's puling, dissatisfied wife Helen. I hated the Ellen Jamesians (a group of women who cut their own tongues out to represent the struggle of young rape victim Ellen James). I did like Ellen James herself (partly due to her own hatred of the Ellen Jamesians), though my favorite character was Garp's friend Roberta Muldoon, transgendered former football player.
In general, I felt like the book dragged on forever, detailing the often melodramatic lives of a bunch of people I didn't like. Unlike Hotel New Hampshire, which I wished were a thousand pages longer, I kept looking at Garp and thinking "Still? There are still SO MANY pages left?" The parts I liked the most were the bits of Garp's "writing," and his short story about the family who travel the world rating hotels brought a flicker of recognition and enjoyment (the family might as well have been the Berrys, though instead of running hotels they visit them) it all went back to Garp eventually. Unfortunately.
I suspect that this is one of those books that people either love or hate. I'm sure there are a lot of people who adore it--several of my friends seem to be quite fond of it--but it left me completely cold.
The World According to Garp is the story of T. S. Garp. It begins with the life of his mother Jenny Fields, and the way that she became a feminist icon, and continues to follow Garp's life through the twists and turns of becoming a husband, father, writer, and unwilling icon in his own right. I thought I might like this, since I fell in love with Irving's Hotel New Hampshire, but instead it was a struggle just to finish it. I hated dogmatic matron Jenny Fields. I hated whiny, indecisive, anxiety-ridden Garp. I hated Garp's puling, dissatisfied wife Helen. I hated the Ellen Jamesians (a group of women who cut their own tongues out to represent the struggle of young rape victim Ellen James). I did like Ellen James herself (partly due to her own hatred of the Ellen Jamesians), though my favorite character was Garp's friend Roberta Muldoon, transgendered former football player.
In general, I felt like the book dragged on forever, detailing the often melodramatic lives of a bunch of people I didn't like. Unlike Hotel New Hampshire, which I wished were a thousand pages longer, I kept looking at Garp and thinking "Still? There are still SO MANY pages left?" The parts I liked the most were the bits of Garp's "writing," and his short story about the family who travel the world rating hotels brought a flicker of recognition and enjoyment (the family might as well have been the Berrys, though instead of running hotels they visit them) it all went back to Garp eventually. Unfortunately.
I suspect that this is one of those books that people either love or hate. I'm sure there are a lot of people who adore it--several of my friends seem to be quite fond of it--but it left me completely cold.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why Comparing the Danger of Cars to That of Guns is Stupid
I do not usually post about political things, but today is just one of those days that has pushed me to a point where it's either write a blog about my irritation or start yelling at people on Facebook who are ostensibly my friends. Since I like my friends (despite their occasionally ill-informed opinions) I thought it would be better for me to vent here, to my "tens" of readers.
I grew up in place where guns are fairly common. While my parents don't own any, nor do they have any interest in them, my grandfather is an avid hunter and target shooter, and his wife is also a gun enthusiast. I have been taught the basics of gun safety and have shot some of the smaller weapons. I do not have a problem with people owning guns in general. Rifles for hunting, hand guns for protection or target shooting seem perfectly reasonable to me. I am not one of those people who believes that no one should have guns.
I DO however feel that NO ONE (aside from active duty military personnel in a war zone) needs to own a semi- or automatic assault rifle. I don't think that anyone needs a magazine that holds more than ten rounds (if you can't "protect yourself" with ten rounds, then either you are a VERY bad shot who probably shouldn't be firing a gun in the first place, or you are trying to take down a rhino, which happens very rarely in North America). I believe very strongly that a thorough background check should be run on anyone who wants to buy a gun, a check that includes both criminal history and documented mental health issues, and I believe that this should be done ANYWHERE a person buys a gun (thus closing the "gun-show loophole"). I believe that there should be a limit on how many guns a person can buy in a given space of time. What possible reason could a person have for needing to buy more than one hand gun in a month?
I am personally on board with every one of the President's executive orders that were released yesterday, and I think that if even half of what was sent to Congress can get passed, it would be an improvement.
Yet there are some people who are reacting as though this means the Gubmint brownshirts will be showing up tomorrow to violently confiscate their .22 hunting rifles. The hysteria is astounding to me. And the worst is the terrible analogies. And the VERY WORST of those is the people who smugly say "Cars kill more people than guns. Maybe we should ban those, too."
First of all, NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN GUNS. (Okay, probably some people are, but that's not what the president is all about.)
Secondly there are many significant differences between cars and guns. For example:
1. In order to legally drive a car, one must pass a licensing test to prove that one understands the laws and is capable of operating that car in a safe manner.
2. In order to drive a car, one must have adequate vision, and be free of medical conditions that could impair--either physically or mentally--the ability to drive safely (i.e. epilepsy).
3. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal, and if caught you can go to jail.
4. In order to drive legally, one must purchase insurance to cover the possibility of damages you might incur or inflict to property or persons.
5. There are rules about operating a car in public -- speed limits, traffic laws, etc -- designed to protect both the driver and others who are sharing the road.
6. Cars must conform to certain criteria. While you may want to fly down the road in a car equipped with jet-fuel powered rocket boosters, you can't. Also, a car must be inspected on a regular basis to be sure it meets safety and operating standards.
7. If you are unable or unwilling to follow the laws of the road and operate your car in a safe manner, your license can be taken away. Do people who have their licenses revoked still drive? Yes, because some people aren't going to follow the rules no matter what. Do most of them still drive? No.
8. Cars were designed to transport people and goods from one place to another. Guns were designed to kill things.
The whole thing is just fucking ridiculous, and I am tired of people acting like this has become Nazi-controlled Germany because our government wants to impose some regulations on deadly weapons.
/rant.
I grew up in place where guns are fairly common. While my parents don't own any, nor do they have any interest in them, my grandfather is an avid hunter and target shooter, and his wife is also a gun enthusiast. I have been taught the basics of gun safety and have shot some of the smaller weapons. I do not have a problem with people owning guns in general. Rifles for hunting, hand guns for protection or target shooting seem perfectly reasonable to me. I am not one of those people who believes that no one should have guns.
I DO however feel that NO ONE (aside from active duty military personnel in a war zone) needs to own a semi- or automatic assault rifle. I don't think that anyone needs a magazine that holds more than ten rounds (if you can't "protect yourself" with ten rounds, then either you are a VERY bad shot who probably shouldn't be firing a gun in the first place, or you are trying to take down a rhino, which happens very rarely in North America). I believe very strongly that a thorough background check should be run on anyone who wants to buy a gun, a check that includes both criminal history and documented mental health issues, and I believe that this should be done ANYWHERE a person buys a gun (thus closing the "gun-show loophole"). I believe that there should be a limit on how many guns a person can buy in a given space of time. What possible reason could a person have for needing to buy more than one hand gun in a month?
I am personally on board with every one of the President's executive orders that were released yesterday, and I think that if even half of what was sent to Congress can get passed, it would be an improvement.
Yet there are some people who are reacting as though this means the Gubmint brownshirts will be showing up tomorrow to violently confiscate their .22 hunting rifles. The hysteria is astounding to me. And the worst is the terrible analogies. And the VERY WORST of those is the people who smugly say "Cars kill more people than guns. Maybe we should ban those, too."
First of all, NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN GUNS. (Okay, probably some people are, but that's not what the president is all about.)
Secondly there are many significant differences between cars and guns. For example:
1. In order to legally drive a car, one must pass a licensing test to prove that one understands the laws and is capable of operating that car in a safe manner.
2. In order to drive a car, one must have adequate vision, and be free of medical conditions that could impair--either physically or mentally--the ability to drive safely (i.e. epilepsy).
3. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal, and if caught you can go to jail.
4. In order to drive legally, one must purchase insurance to cover the possibility of damages you might incur or inflict to property or persons.
5. There are rules about operating a car in public -- speed limits, traffic laws, etc -- designed to protect both the driver and others who are sharing the road.
6. Cars must conform to certain criteria. While you may want to fly down the road in a car equipped with jet-fuel powered rocket boosters, you can't. Also, a car must be inspected on a regular basis to be sure it meets safety and operating standards.
7. If you are unable or unwilling to follow the laws of the road and operate your car in a safe manner, your license can be taken away. Do people who have their licenses revoked still drive? Yes, because some people aren't going to follow the rules no matter what. Do most of them still drive? No.
8. Cars were designed to transport people and goods from one place to another. Guns were designed to kill things.
The whole thing is just fucking ridiculous, and I am tired of people acting like this has become Nazi-controlled Germany because our government wants to impose some regulations on deadly weapons.
/rant.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
CBR5 #1: Jane Slayre by Sherri Browning Erwin (with Charlotte Bronte)
It's a new year and time for a new Cannonball Read! I didn't manage to finish last year--I got SO CLOSE and then somehow pooped out at the end--but I am getting back on the horse to try and complete all 52 reviews this year. For any of you who might be interested, learn about the CBR here. Although I haven't always been successful, the CBR is a great motivator to keep making blog entries. If my tags are to be believed, I have written reviews for 261 books since I started, which is not too shabby.
Anyway, enough with that and on to the first review!
I must first say that I really like the original Jane Eyre. It's a great story with an original and interesting heroine who was waaaay ahead of her time.
That said, the story is distinctly lacking in vampires.
Sherri Browning Erwin has solved that minor problem in Jane Slayre. Now, instead of just being terrible people, her aunt and cousins are vampires! And the school she goes to isn't just miserable and run by a cold-hearted Christian fundamentalist--it's also crawling with zombies! And let's not even discuss what Mr. Rochester has got hiding in his attic!
Although this could have become rather stupid, it was actually pretty well done. The horror elements were layered on to the original tale without overwhelming it. It was a bit like a hidden picture puzzle for me, watching where the elements of Bronte's story were woven in, and trying to predict how they would effect the story of the unloved-orphan-turned-vampire-slayer.
For purists, this is probably a book to avoid. Mind you, I don't think Jane Eyre attracts the same ravening fanboy following as--for example--Lord of the Rings. I'm sure there's people out there who might find the way Erwin has changed the story offensive. If you're one of those people...don't read it. You won't like it, and no one wants to hear you complain. If you are a person who can see the humor in the idea, and are willing to put aside the idea that this is a corruption of "lit-ra-toor," then you might just enjoy this.
Anyway, enough with that and on to the first review!
I must first say that I really like the original Jane Eyre. It's a great story with an original and interesting heroine who was waaaay ahead of her time.
That said, the story is distinctly lacking in vampires.
Sherri Browning Erwin has solved that minor problem in Jane Slayre. Now, instead of just being terrible people, her aunt and cousins are vampires! And the school she goes to isn't just miserable and run by a cold-hearted Christian fundamentalist--it's also crawling with zombies! And let's not even discuss what Mr. Rochester has got hiding in his attic!
Although this could have become rather stupid, it was actually pretty well done. The horror elements were layered on to the original tale without overwhelming it. It was a bit like a hidden picture puzzle for me, watching where the elements of Bronte's story were woven in, and trying to predict how they would effect the story of the unloved-orphan-turned-vampire-slayer.
For purists, this is probably a book to avoid. Mind you, I don't think Jane Eyre attracts the same ravening fanboy following as--for example--Lord of the Rings. I'm sure there's people out there who might find the way Erwin has changed the story offensive. If you're one of those people...don't read it. You won't like it, and no one wants to hear you complain. If you are a person who can see the humor in the idea, and are willing to put aside the idea that this is a corruption of "lit-ra-toor," then you might just enjoy this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)