2017-07-31

"Lexicon" by Max Barry

Lexicon


Publisher:New York : Penguin Group (USA), 2013.
ISBN:9781594205385 
Characteristics:390 pages

Overall this is a very good novel, but the characters in the beginning are somewhat one-dimensional (but not for too long). The author weaves two story lines together to explain what in happening, however at first you aren't aware they are two story lines, so this tends to be a little confusing.


I read some on Mr. Barry's book “Jennifer: Government” some time ago and found it to be not to my liking (so never finished it), but this one while it was the opposite and it was very hard to put down. Well written and is worth your time.

2017-07-24

"My Word is My Bond: A Memoir" by Roger Moore

My Word is My Bond: A Memoir



Publisher:New York : Collins, 2008.
Edition:First Collins edition.
ISBN:9780061673887 
Characteristics:336 pages, 32 unnumbered pages of plates :,illustrations ;,24 cm

An insightful look into the career of a well known actor. He is definitely more than "James Bond" and his long history of work for UNICEF shows this well. In fact he is way more famous throughout Europe as "The Saint" which ran for quite a number of years.


This memoire takes the reader through Sir Roger's early life and his struggles to find work in the theatre, and movies.

2017-07-17

"Norse Mythology" by Neil Gaiman

Norse Mythology


Publisher:New York : W.W. Norton & Company, [2017]
ISBN:9780393609097 
Characteristics:293 pages

A very good retelling of Norse Mythology. The author covers the stories in sequence, which is something that is not frequently done. Most authors emphasize certain stories, and exclude other entirely but this volume was fairly complete. 
The majority of what we know about Norse Mythology / religion has been related to us in "The Prose Edda" by Snori Sturluson, these stories aren't the easiest to read as they are translations from Icelandic, but are quite enjoyable. Mr. Gaiman has adapted them and brings them to life with his typical writing style.
I would like to see companion volumes on Greek & Roman Mythology from Mr. Gaiman as well as I believe this would be invaluable.

2017-07-13

"On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" by Timothy Snyder

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century



Publisher:New York : Tim Duggan Books, [2017]
Edition:First edition.

ISBN:9780804190114 
Characteristics:126 pages


A very good overview of humans passion for inflicting suffering on other humans. Timothy Snyder is a professor of History at Yale, and this book is geared specifically at all the fun and games the American people are being put through by their new president. When Dr. Snyder writes it is really obvious about whom he is speaking about. The links he makes to other historical figures are quite chilling to say the least.

While this book may seem small (it's only 128 pages) each story is packed with references to all the bad stuff you learned in your world history courses in school. Most of which you have probably forgotten or suppressed if you've been out of school for any length of time.

The parallels that Mr. Snyder draws between the Trump administration, and some of his predecessors in other countries such as WW II Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc.

Many people might dismiss the comparisons that Mr. Snyder uses for his examples, but I personally find them chilling and having studied a fair amount of history (as well as taught it in school) I find them quite accurate.

Mr Snyder gives his readers 20 important lessons, that are easy to implement and designed to prevent or at the very least open the minds of the American public how the freedom they famously boast about  could easily be taken from them.

This is a book that I believe all peoples should read (especially those living in the United States). Here's hoping that what could happen, never does!


2017-07-10

Create You Writer Platform by Chuck Sambuchino

I recently stumbled upon a book by Chuck Sambuchino, who works for Writers' Digest.


This is an excellent book that will help you get on your way to promoting your book. It is mainly geared towards non-fiction writing, but with a little adaptation all the information is completely transferrable to fiction.

Publisher:    Writer's Digest Books 2012
ISBN:          9781599635750

The review on the Edmonton Public Library website says:

"Creating a platform isn't just beneficial--it's essential ! In today's world of blogging, websites, Twitter feeds, and Facebook updates, building a writer platform from the ground up can seem a daunting task. Never fear--author and editor Chuck Sambuchino provides expert, practical advice for increasing your visibility, selling more books, and launching a successful career. In Create Your Writer Platform , you'll learn: The definition of a platform--and why you should start building one now . How to harness the 12 Fundamental Principles of Platform. "Old School" and "New School" approaches to platform, from article writing and conference speaking to website development, blog posts, and social media avenues. How to develop a platform for nonfiction, fiction, and memoir. In addition to Chuck's invaluable insights, you'll also find 12 case studies from authors with effective platforms, as well as professional advice from literary agents. If you're serious about building a platform tailored to you and your writing --a platform that's going to help you succeed as a writer--look no further than Create Your Writer Platform ."

I found this to be a very helpful book, and can't wait to implement some of Mr. Sambuchino's suggestion when I redesign my website.

Happy Reading!

2015-06-12

The Fantasy Dilemma - Is There A Solution?

I originally posted this on the Edmonton Writers' Group Blog way back in January 2012. And while a couple of members (Natasha and Simon) were kind enough to comment on it, I still believe it is a question that needs solving. I haven't posted to this blog in a year, as nothing much has happened, and  I find writing about day-to-day events rather boring, after all this is Twitter.

So anyway here is my question ...

Having just finished the fourth book in the series by Chris Paolini I must say it was an interesting read. I found the world to be fairly well designed, but for the most part the story was way too long. Which brings to mind a bit of a curious question, that has been bugging me for many years and that so far nobody has ever been able to adequately answer. So now that our group has this little blog running, I thought I try once again to solve this little mystery.

Now I realize we don't have a whole lot of fantasy authors in the group, and while this message is directed at this genre, I trust that others will chime in.

So here it is:

"Why is it that fantasy authors (in general) seem to feel the need to create multivolume stories when just about every other genre seems to be able to tell a story in one book?"

Now I know the first thing your going to say is "because they are creating a whole new world" - okay fair enough, but so does every science fiction author, most mystery, adventure, and romance authors. In fact with the exception of historically based novels every author creates a new world to some extent. So why aren't these all multivolume tomes? Are they all trying to emulate J.R.R. Tolkien, or is it something else?

I agree that the Asimov's Foundation Trilogy; A. C. Clarke's 2001, 2010, 2060, & 3001; as well as the series by Ben Bova (one book for each planet) exist. However these are the exception, and I'm not whining about books set in the same universe (like those I just mentioned), I'm talking about those 3+ book series that are essentially one continuous story, sometimes with little or no break between volumes. Virtually every fantasy author seems to churn out multivolume sets - some to ridiculous lengths such as those by David Eddings and his ilk.

So why? Is it a bad case of authorial diarrhea?

Anyway getting back to Chris P. there are numerous examples in this last book where he spent inordinate amounts of time (writing wise that is) detailing each and every movement, that each person made during a fight sequence. This was unnecessary, and at times downright boring to read. In fact it reminds me somewhat of when I used to play Dungeon and Dragons and the rules say that during a fight sequence each round is 10 seconds long - think of life going in slow motion.

So that's my question. Anybody got any words of wisdom that'll solve it?

TTFN

2012-02-21

More Science in Movies

I my last posting I tore a strip off Star Trek, and while I think in most respects it does deserve it there are other shows that are worse with respect to science. Now the reason I'm going soft on Star Trek is simply because under a number of different definitions of Science Fiction it doesn't fit. Why? Because dear reader many people who have gone and bothered to define Science Fiction say essentially that it is fiction where  science is a major necessity in the plot. Or as Theodore Sturgeon says: "A good science-fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its science content". And due to the lack of science content, or rather all the liberties taken in writing that have been disguised as science I don't believe it should qualify.

Now because I've given Star Trek a rather good beating, it's time to point out that this same problem exists with virtually every "science fiction" movie that has been made for many years. In fact this is the case with most movies and television shows that come out now-a-days (not just the science fiction ones). The lack of an understanding of basic science (either willfully, or simply through sheer laziness/ignorance) by the writers, directors, and many other technical staff that contribute is simply astounding. I'll go into these details in a later column, but for now I'd like to point out that this disregard for science is not wholly a problem with television and movies. Many books suffer from this same problem. And as a writer of Science Fiction stories I feel that this is important (otherwise I probably wouldn't be writing this - go figure).

So what's my beef?

Why do many science fiction authors seem to make no attempt (or very little at least) to incorporate science into their stories, and when they do why do they frequently get it wrong?

Okay, so the first thing you might say is "well it is fiction!". Okay point taken, but if you aren't going have any science you might as well call it a fairytale, and not science fiction. Back up in the first paragraph I quoted Theodore Sturgeon, here are a few other quotes that define science fiction:

Robert J. Sawyer: "Science fiction is the mainstream literature of a plausible alternative reality."

Barry N. Malzberg: "Science fiction is 'that branch of fiction that deals with the possible effects of an altered technology or social system on mankind in an imagined future, an altered present, or an alternative past'."

Sam Moskowitz: "Science fiction is a branch of fantasy identifiable by the fact that it eases the "willing suspension of disbelief" on the part of its readers by utilizing an atmosphere of scientific credibility for its imaginative speculations in physical science, space, time, social science, and philosophy."

John W. Campbell, Jr.: "The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along... The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."

Likely the best definition of those above is the one from Campbell, which seems pretty simple to me. Unfortunately it seems to slip the minds of many science fiction authors. Now granted there are various sub-genres of science fiction such as "hard-science fiction" which usually does a very good job of getting it right, but it's not these authors that I'm whining about. Its the author who says "I write science fiction", but who has no idea what science is.

I've already talked a lot about Hollywood and how it's famous for this and maybe this is where these authors get their ideas. Now if a person had never seen anything from NASA, had never read Scientific American, or seen Discovery Channel, etc., and was basing all their science on "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Jurassic Park", and any number of 1950s & 60s "B" movies you'd probably have to cut them some slack, but I doubt there are many of these people around. A couple of prime examples from this era are "Them" (1954) and "Attack of The Fifty Foot Woman" (1958). Sorry folks, but neither the ant's nor the lady's legs would have been able to support their respective bodies, bone simply isn't strong enough. In other words some of the science that is violated is so simple as to make the authors essentially look like fools (or worse).

The written word however is vastly different, after all how many times have you read a book, then seen the movie and thought it was crap? That's because the written page can contain so much more detail, and because of that the author has to do that much more research (or they should at least). Now granted compressing a couple of hundred pages of text into a movie is no mean feat, but still …

I'm going to continue on with this theme next time and give you some illustrations on some of the problems and maybe even how to fix them if you're interested.

TTFN

2012-02-19

Science in the Movies (and television).

So far we have covered two very important parts of why it is very unlikely we have ever been visited by extraterrestrials, namely: first was the distance, and second why would they bother to come here. There have been literally thousands of television programs and feature films that fit the very broad description of "Science-Fiction" (over 5000 in fact according to IMDB) however, how many of them are scientifically accurate? Most are nowhere even close, and a great number do science such a disservice that they should really be classified as something like pseudo-science fiction. There is no way of classifying all the errors that some of these shows make, but the majority are things that any junior-high school student (and likely some elementary ones as well) know are not correct.

One of the biggest blunders that is continuously made is the sounds in space. Very elementary problem here - in order to have sound propagate you need air, and there is none in space so therefore there can't be any sound. The only movie I can think of off hand that got this right is 2001: A Space Odyssey. This same thing goes for explosions. "Bang" is a sound and therefore if there's no air there's no bang. This is taken to absurd lengths in virtually all films, and now-a-days when every space film seemingly has to have a battle sequence. Okay, I assume you get the point so I won't harp on it any longer.

Another problem that is very common in these films is that every alien is a bilaterally symmetrical biped, with stereoscopic vision (two eyes, both facing forward), two arms, etc. With the exception of the Star Wars series - which admittedly still lots of those good ol' bipeds there was at least a number of other aliens present (Jabba the Hut comes to mind). Now you'd think that with the huge budgets that Hollywood has for their films that they could do something a little original. Probably the biggest violator of this is the Star Trek franchise in which not only are they virtually all bipedal, but in some cases the difference between alien races is simply a few bumps on the forehead. In fact I can only recall one alien in the original series that looked alien and that was the Horta (an acidic rock dissolver, that looked like a large pepperoni pizza with extra cheese). Now admittedly I am not a Trekkie, and I haven't seen any of the newer episodes but with seventy some episodes in the original series and only one alien-looking alien the odds aren't too good that they've had any original thoughts since.

I don't want to harp on the silliness of Star Trek too much more, but they take things to absurd limits by not only making virtually all the aliens look the same, but also allowing them to interbreed. Come on people this is really basic biology. The prime example of this silliness is Mr. Spock. Why is it silly? For starters he is supposedly an alien, whose bodily chemistry is based on copper (not iron like ours), his parent's Amanda & Sarek - yes I had to look this up - mated (with a little genetic help it is stated), and successfully conceived a child. Now the chances of this happening (even with significant genetic assistance) is about as likely as a human successfully mating with a rose and producing a either living person that would never have to use deodorant, or a flower that can do calculus. Why, after all they did say there was some genetic help? Simple the two races have a different body chemistry (copper vs. iron remember), different chromosome numbers (humans have 23 vs. Vulcans' have some other number), different gestational periods (nine months vs. who knows what), etc. etc. ad nauseum. It was stated at one point that all races in Star Trek evolved from an ancient one, but this is absurd as well as basic evolutionary law says that species that are isolated will eventually be incompatible mates with other species. So enough about Star Trek.

So come on Hollywood lets see some science in your science fiction! Mind you when it comes down to it there hasn't been much original work come out of Hollywood for many many years so I guess the chances of anything like this happening is pretty slim.

TTFN

Going on Hiatus

 Greetings, I have decided to put a hold on doing further book reviews for a while. In fact I'm not sure if I will resume doing reviews ...