Over at Hammer and Anvil there is a thread dedicated to discussing books. Given that I heartily enjoy offering my opinion on things, love to read and desire motivation for doing so more often, I've decided to open up a thread here wot does the same thing. This is mostly so that I can have double the conversation of half the work- I type one book review (or in this case, about six or so) and can have two (or three if I post it on my blog as well) conversations about them.

Fun!

I only give short thumbnail length reviews here, but I'm happier to extend them if people want. I keep it short for reasons of my poor, overworked hands, and also because I know you lazy lot probably won't read anything longer anyway.

Here are today's lot, from a week or so worth of reading:

Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder, Richard Dawkins.
I'd actually read this before I went on holidays but hadn't gotten around to reviewing it yet. The short answer is that this book is absolutely brilliant. I'd never really read Dawkins before (only bits and pieces, and seen him In The Root of All Evil?), and this book was an excellent introduction to the man.

His argument is that science, while ridding the world of some 'mystery,' does not and shouldnot rid the world of wonder and beauty. He makes it point solidly, I feel, but with an occasional tendency to lapse into tangental rants. These don't really detract from his arguments, but are at best distracting from what his points should be focusing on. Similarly, I feel that his conclusion was somewhat weak. While undoubtedly a circumstance of the demands of publishing, he should have had an afterword or full chapter dedicated to rounding off the book, rather than relying on the end of the final chapter, which in itself offers some interesting arguments worthy of standing alone.

These aren't strong weaknesses, however, and the book is overall an excellent answer to the oft-repeated claim that science takes all the fun out of life. The section wherein he 'unweaves the rainbow,' detailing the advancemants that have come as a result of our better understanding of the rainbow and the sheer (if you'll pardon the metaphor) magic of how the rainbow works knocks such arguments down wholesale.

A fantastic book. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

----

H.P. Lovecraft and Others Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, ed. by August Derleth.
It should be pointed out that I didn't read all of this collection, only those stories that were pointed out as a good introduction to the Lovecraftian mythos. "The Call of Cthulhu" (H.P.Lovecraft), "The Hounds of Tindalos" (Frank Belknap Long), "The Haunter of the Dark" (H.P. Lovecraft), "Notebook found in a Deserted House" (Robert Bloch), "Cold Print" (Ramsey Campbell), and "Cement Surroundings" (Brian Lumley). I also read the Robert Bloch stories, "The Shambler from the Stars" and "The Shadow from the Steeple," because they were prequel and sequel to "The Haunter of the Dark," although they weren't part of the recommendations. I found them far inferior to "The Haunter of the Dark."

The first thing I noticed? Lovecraft was really, really racist. This isn't terribly surprising, but it was an interesting thing to note. His racism seems to know no bounds, as his presentation of Italians is scarcely kinder than some presentations of 'Negros.' At any rate, the notation of such a 1920s perspective hardly surprised me, given the dates that Lovecraft wrote his stories- it's just interesting to see.

I loved the stories. Most of them are not particularly terrifying to me, although "The Haunter of the Dark" came pretty close and I thoroughly enjoyed "Cold Print" for its portrayal of an almost Unknown-Armies style bibliophile. I'm difficult to scare, and some of the stories seemed to focus overmuch on the 'gribbly gigantic thing' rather than 'humanity is small and pale and insignificant aside these great terrors from beyond the stars,' which is what makes Lovecraftian works 'scary.'

What is most fascinating is the combination of scientific thought, mysticism and theophism that blend together (particularly in "The Hounds of Tindalos") in the stories to produce a startlingly original kind of fantasy/sci-fi/horror. It's brilliant stuff and really a must-read for those of you interested in fantasy and such things. It's easy to see how these works have become so terribly influential on later generations.

---

H.P. Lovecraft Omnibus 1: At the Mountains of Madness, H.P. Lovecraft.
The second volume of my 'CTLU1001: Introduction of Lovecraft' course, as it were. This contains seven short fictions (ranging from short stories to novellas) including the titular At the Mountains of Madness. I read all seven of these and found each one of them excellent, far surpassing the short stories from the other collection.

At the Mountains of Madness is an exercise in giving some depth to Lovecrafts mythos and also providing strangely compelling alien figures. It's also highly entertaining for those of you who have had some experience with biology and/or palaeontology.

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is high on the list for this collection, being a combination detective and horror story. You'll all see the ending a mile off, probably (I didn't, but I thought something much worse had happened, heh), but it's an excellent read and somewhat more terrifying than At the Mountains.

The Dreams in the Witch House is another example of a tale that expands the mythos considerably, while also incorporating the new sciences of the time. Fluffy bunny wiccans who believe in the 'Burning Times' myth will not enjoy this; I loved it.

The Randolph Carter 'quartet' were my favourite books of the collection, particularly The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, which was absolutely incredible. A very 'old school' kind of fantasy tale that was vaguely reminiscent of C.S. Lewis as if viewed through the warped lens of Lovecraft. Or something like that, as Lewis is a successor, nor a precursor. If anyone of you out there likes fantasy of any kind, read The Dream-Quest. You must.

On the contrary, I found The Silver Key somewhat trite, even as it set up Through the Gates of the Silver Key. Whereas Through the Gates felt like pure wish fulfilment, The Silver Key was an unabashed stab at science, the kind of stab that Dawkins's Unweaving the Rainbow debunks. Nonetheless, both stories were eminently enjoyable, if not as excellent as The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.

An excellent collection and one that made me determined to continue my education in Lovecraft. If the secondhand bookstore I visited on holiday had had any Lovecraft in store, I would have bought the lot of it and smiled while doing so.

---

City of Saints and Madmen, Jeff VanderMeer. [Deluxe edition, 2004]
The book starts with a vignette on the covers. How many novels can any of you name that do the same? This book is crazy awesome. It's fantasy, but not as you know it. There are no Tolkien dwarfs. There are no fair elves or heroic soldiers or mysterious wizards. It is not an idealised medieval setting. Instead you have insane missionaries, murderous dwarfs (in the real-world sense, as far as I can tell), strangely intelligent squid and strange (human?) grey-capped mushroom dwellers.

This book will challenge everything you hold dear about fantasy. I can't go into more detail, not even to analyse particular short stories of vignettes or 'histories,' because to do so would detract from your enjoyment of it. You must read it. You must.

---

The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. [Second edition, 2006]
Ahaha. This book is great. I loved the first Science of Discworld and this expands on that. It doesn't have nearly as much Pratchett -the scientific chapters are slightly longer- but the Pratchett is in itself everthing you've come to expect from him. I loved the portrayal of Darwin and you also re-encounter the God of Evolution, always a fan favourite.

If you didn't like the original Science, don't bother with this. If you believe in 6-day creation, don't bother with this (unless you want some actual, y'know, information). If you already have a solid grasp of biology, read it for the physics and the Pratchett, but you can probably skip the bits on biology (unless you just enjoy reading that sort of thing, like I do). But if you've not a terribly solid grasp of biology (i.e, have only done it to a high school level), don't know much about Einsteinean physics and love Pratchett, read this.

Cool thread. ;)

I have nothing to post right now, but I will probably write book reviews soon. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to read these days, except books for school (most of which are boring as hell). At Christmas, though, I expect to receive some novels of the Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan. And the two last Artemis Fowl's, by Eoin Colfer. And the three last of the Dune series, by Frank Herbert.

Oh, and I'm also thinking about reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Marx. I'm not a commie, but I'm quite left-leaning, and this is a very important book.

Well why dont i post my latest english assignment, a book review on Jekyll and Hyde!

Review of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is set sometime in the 1800’s (Robert Louis Stevenson doesn’t say a specific year in the tale) in London. It is told through the eyes of Mr. Utterson, a prosperous lawyer. He has recently been worried about the conduct of his friend Dr. Jekyll, who has become familiar with a very unpopular Mr. Hyde. He decides to investigate further, and can’t find anything about him, until one night, when the complete story becomes known to Mr. Utterson in a series of twists.
This book is a classic, as it has even become a part of our language. In the horror sense, it is not too scary, so that fact that it is horror shouldn’t deter the more timid who read this.
Because the tale is set in the 1800’s, the language is a bit old fashioned, laden with “the later said” and adjectives that aren’t so scary any more, such as in the title. Strange doesn’t have the same power and connotation that it did in that time period.
One negative about reading this book now, is that I already knew most of the story. This came from watching Hollywood movies such as League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Although this movie was good in my opinion, it was slightly untrue to the nature Dr. Jekyll’s predicament. If anyone has not seen this movie, I heartily suggest reading the book first, so as not to get the wrong opinion of Dr. Jekyll. If you have seen the movie, still read the book, and you can see how Hollywood has changed the image.
In summation, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a great book, very much worth the time to read (80 pages only!), it has everything you would want. Excitement, adventure, and a secret that (as it says on the book itself) “can drive men mad.”

Maybe a bit long, but "I'm a Participator!"

Burro Boskov

I am reading; A Confederacy of Dunces. By some guy who killed himself in the 60's very funny book chritisizing the Southern States.

Burro: You do realize that League of Extraordinary Gentleman was based on the graphic novels by Alan Moore, yes? Hollywood did change the image of Master Moore's books, but he had already slightly altered the imagery of The Strange Case. I've only read snippets of League, but what I've seen indicates excellence.

@ztech: I liked the Artemis Fowl books well enough, but they are very young.

Why are you reading Jordan? Until he completes the series, it's an exercise in frustration. I strongly recommend waiting another year- supposedly he'll have released the final book or two by then. Although...I suppose, it will take you a year or so to read all eleven books currently published, so never mind.

Downloaded: What's the author's name?

Well, I read The God Delusion (quite) recently, so that can be my contribution for now.

For those not familiar with this (bestselling) title - it is written by Richard Dawkins, the same chap who wrote Unweaving the Rainbow, and one of the most prominent atheist intellectuals in Britain. He is an evolutionary biologist, and Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He wrote The Selfish Gene and coined the term 'meme', among other claims to fame.

The book begins with the following Douglas Adams quote, which I think sums up both Dawkins' and my view exceptionally well:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Systematically, he then demolishes practically every single pro-religious argument in existence, each case leading in a well-thought-out progression to the next so that you can follow his argument clearly. He lays out his objectives and defines his playing field, first dealing with the subject of whether he should be allowed to deal with the subject at all, tackling the undue respect religion is supposed to receive and showing why this should not be the case before progressing to his main argument. He forcefully debunks the case for belief in the existence of a god, cuts down the case for agnosticism, then shreds the case for religion being a positive influence on society regardless of whether or not it is true, and for an encore illuminates the negative influences of religion that we see all around us but never think to condemn. He anticipates counter-points and deals with them in advance, but avoids erecting straw men in the process: the result is a comprehensive catalogue of atheist arguments and the flaws in theist rebuttal of those arguments, laid out in his usual lucid and logical style.

He states at the beginning that the book is a consciousness-raising exercise, and follows this agenda throughout, giving it a second, almost political edge: equal rights for atheists, and religious independence for individuals. I don't want to regurgitate the whole book, but the main points he tackles are the unfair social stigma and prejudice attached to atheism, using extensive research to produce some quite shocking pictures of society's attitude towards atheists at large, and tries to encourage atheists to 'come out' and secure equal treatment for themselves in the same way that feminists and homosexuals have done before. He also argues strongly against classing children by their parents' religion, aiming to make the words "Muslim child" and "Christian child" sound as wrong as "Marxist child" or "Conservative child." More to his credit, he manages to integrate this into the main structure of his central argument, and does not detract from either thread in doing so.

In all, it does exactly what it says on the tin: if you are the kind of religious believer who places more value in faith and personal revelation than in reason, then this is the kind of book that will upset you, and I don't recommend you read it - if I did, I doubt you would anyway. But if *cough@ztechcough* you harbour any convictions about your religious belief being the result of a rational chain of thought, this is definitely the book for you. After all, if you do have an argument to beat Dawkins, you probably have another bestseller waiting to be written!

(Biased? Moi?)

Right now, I'm reading The Infinite Book, by John Barrow... quite a contrast, as Barrow's won the Templeton Prize that Dawkins reviles so much. Still, it's pretty good... when I finish it, perchance I shall write about it too.

I'm torn between shelling out the money for The God Delusion and waiting for it to appear in my university library (it's currently on order, but books often take some time to arrive). Chili's review, while good, hasn't helped me sway either way as it essentially says the same thing other reviewers say: It's good, logical and has been a long time coming.

Decisions, decisions. I can't really afford it, but that never really matters to me.

I´ve read a couple of good books in my sociology class that I´ve just finished.

Symbolic interactionism by Charon. J and Social contructionism by Burr. Really intresting reading, especially Burrs book. Sociological perspectives that critisize a lot of the "take for granted" knowledge out there. Hard to accept at first but she makes her point quite clear in a very good way. Both books focus on the importance of language and how that is pretty much the foundation to our social life. If you are not intrested in this type of science, then it will surely be very dull and hard to read, if you are - I recommend these strongly :).

@ Benedictus: I never said that atheists were b***ards. I never meant or thought it, either.


Books, now...

The Catcher in the Rye, by Salinger, was a book I loved. I didn't find it particularly exciting, but I'll never forget it. Just a note, though: this book has absolutely no element of sci-fi or fantasy, and no character is ever in danger. The source of interest in this book is not the story in itself, but the fascinating personality of the main character.

Y'know, it's funny - the tangential conversation has in fact persuaded me to read both The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow. I must look out for them now ...

To Books!

Although I'd have to read it again to give a proper review, following Chili's example earlier, I have to say that I heartily enjoyed Yann Martel's Life of Pi. This is the (true, as far as I can tell) story of a boy called Pi, how he was shipwrecked on a liferaft with a zebra, hyena, orangutan and tiger, and the events that passed over the months before he was, uh, blown, or whatever, to land. It's told in a simple, engaging style, almost as though the author is talking to you, and it allows you to get a clear picture of the events without sort of trapping you in them. It just makes you smile, and although usually I would never say such a thing, I truthfully could hardly put it down from start to finish.

"Mr Ambassador, I never said the French were monkeys. I did make certain assertions about their consumption of cheese and their military prowess, but at no point did I call them monkeys."

Anyhow, @ztech, do we have your permission to delete the rambly posts?

Yeah, sure.

Do the "rambly posts" also include your posts?

But of course.

EDIT: There we go.

Thragka: Well, that's the point of the thread. But I could see what was going to happen if I let that 'debate' continue- let's just be calm that it's over and we can go back to discussing things. If you read said books, post up a review here, will you? As for acquiring them, Unweaving the Rainbow should be available from your local library, while The God Delusion would (at least) be on order, but libraries take some time to get things in. I'd at least enquire about it.

@ztech: 'Cold, heartless b***ards' is a figure of speech. And you did call us the first two.

Tyrion: I'm not a big fan of sociology (it's interesting, but I prefer the 'narrative' of history), but those books sound interesting. However, are they really that groundbreaking? I was under the impression language had long been regarded as the root of culture.

The word "cold" was about the world people without hope live in, not those people themselves. And I never used the world "heartless".


Let's get away from this thorny topic, shall we?


About Artemis Fowl: Yes, those books are for the young, as you said. But I was young when I started reading them, and I'm still addicted. (Anyway, Artemis Fowl is in my Top 5 of coolest characters of all the books I've read.)

Like the Harry Potter series... I'm perhaps a little too old for that now, but I will read the seventh anyway. Just because I can't stop now.

And I'm sure many of us will read it, too.

The Harry Potter books are not nearly so young as the Artemis Fowl books. Artemis Fowl tends to have everything wonderful happen to him- while he has setbacks, they are rarely so serious and detrimental as for Potter. Potter loses a beloved uncle figure, grows up in an abusive and terrible household and endures all sorts of horrible things. Fowl is...um...ridiculously intelligent and fabulously wealthy. Oh, and he has a manservant/bodyguard who nearly dies. Woo.

That's what I mean by 'young;' the character lacks depth and realism. A contrast with Harry Potter, while clear enough on the surface because both characters are young and the books are aimed at the young, shows a striking difference.

Well, social contructionism is pretty groundbreaking because of it´s critizising nature. They go against the fact that humans should have some kind of pre-programmed essence, a "soul", like that would explain why people behave the way they do. Symbolic interactionism is really about just that, how we use symbols (language) to interact with other aswell as ourselves. It´s about perspectives of different kinds. All this with how all things are culturally and historycally relevant and with society. All these things go hand in hand. Im no expert since I´ve only done A levels on sociology this far, but social contructionism was hard to accept at first. A good read :). It´s hard to say whats groundbreaking and whats not since all there is, is peoples different "point of views" :D .

My friends will think im nuts when im done with university :lol: .

Or, to use a more realistic word...

"Genes"

I agree with you here. I like both series, the Artemis Fowl series because I simply enjoy Colfer's style, regardless of his characters, and the Harry Potter books because - well, just because Rowling seems to put the effort in, and it pays off. Or something.

:blink:

As for actually getting Unweaving the Rainbow and The God Delusion, I'll see about having them be given to me for Christmas (the irony).

Exactly. Surely they can affect looks and so on. But personality is a whole different matter B) .

Except that recent advances in genetics indicate that what we call 'human nature' may be deeply embedded in our genes.

After all, behavioural strategies undeniably have an impact on individuals' chances of survival, and thus are subject to the pressures of natural selection.

There is a 'public understanding of science' (sort of thing) series of lectures here in Brisbane, sponsored in part by the University of Queensland and also by the ministry for knowledge, or whatever it's called in official parlance. They're not bad little lectures, presumably, and I'm always in favour of increasing public knowledge. So, yay.

I went to the first of these lectures, cunningly entitled to get my attention: "Can Science and Religion Learn to Live Together." It was pretty decent, for the most part, analysing old cosmologies (Dante, Music of the Spheres, etc, etc) and showing how scientific thought progressed and annihilated them. The lecturer then moved on to discuss human actions, etc- soul/gene debate, essentially. And then, SOMEHOW, she came to the conclusion that science had no business investigating the role of genes in determining psychology and sociology, that that was a place science 'shouldn't go.'

I was astounded. So were people standing around us. She got applause, of course, because Australians are nothing if not polite. But myself, my girlfriend (doing Hons. in Palaeontology) and a chap sitting in front of us who overheard by less-than-polite mumbling were all flabbergasted that she essentially said scientific thought 'wasn't allowed' to examine genetic programming for human emotion.

Anyway, the point of this is that while recent advances are pointing in that direction, people are bloody stupid and refuse to accept the evidence. I don't even see the problem for religionists, as they can shrug and say "this is what God meant by 'soul.'" What makes this woman all the more entertaining is that she OPPOSES the sort of 'God in the Gaps' argument so many religionists use.

Bizarre.

---

Thragka: My girlfriend and I call it "Atheimass." Not in front of her Catholic mother, of course, but still. It's funny.

Tyrion: I don't find the contention that humans aren't pre-programmed, but instead are built up on a foundation of symbols and language and memetic cultural structure at all surprising. Maybe I'm just older, more cynical and a born atheist. Ahah.

Maybe so :lol: . then again I´ve just started my university studies half a year ago so it´s pretty groundbreaking for me atleast. People that dont study these things dont go around thinking how fantastic it is with symbols, culture and society. Language is something we take for granted, we dont reflect over it. But ask me again in a couple of years and maybe I´ll have a different view B) .

This sounds very stupd to say the least, not finding a better word for it right now :) .

I call it 'Xmas', like those chaps on Futurama.

Now I just have to go and build a robot Santa to bring gift-wrapped death to the populace once a year...

I had to read that slowly a few times before I understood it. :lol: I'm not slow ... possibly it's because I would have spelt it "Atheismass", but then it's your holiday.

Heheh - nice one though.

(and I'm not easily amused either ^_^ )

I know many people around here don't like Stephen King's books, but I strongly recommend reading The Stand. Right now I don't have the time to write a review, unfortunately.

Benedictus, will you give us a review of The View from the Mirror when you're done with it? According to the reviews I found on the 'Net, it looks pretty good.

...

I already told you I'll give a review of the quartet when I'm done. Besides, that's half the point of the thread: to give reviews of stuff I'm reading.

So, yes.

[Aha, double post joy.]

I just this minute finished The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. An utterly brilliant book. It outlines many arguments I've made myself against religions, but it also brings a few new ones to bear and more importantly it does both far more lucidly than myself. This is nothing unusual -indeed, it is to be expected- from Richard Dawkins, but it makes the purchase all the more delightful for all that.

I echo Chili's words above and moreover heartily recommend the book to everyone, devout believer or not. No matter what proofs your religious indoctrinators teachers have given you, no matter what basis you have for your beliefs, this book shall utterly change your perception.

Or, you shall ignore it after the first few pages and dismiss it as the work of Satan, if you prefer that sort of thing to rational debate.

I've got another review. Sorry about the triple-post. Surely someone else in this Palace is reading. Right? Anyway, this is cross-posted to my blog and Hammer and Anvil. It's also rather long.

Today we review Watchmen, by Alan Moore, illustrated by Dave Gibbons and coloured by John Higgins.

"Wait," I hear you say. "That Watchmen? But everyone's read that. What, were you born yesterday? That's one of the greatest graphic novels of all time!"

Well, no. Not everyone's read it. I hadn't, at least not until Monday. Presumably others amongst my acquaintance haven't. Perhaps I should point out that Watchmen premiered in 1986. My sister was born in 1986. I'm only two years older than her. Now, I was very precocious as a child, but I would have had to be the smartest man in the world in order to have read Watchmen at that age.

Moreover, I live in Australia. You might have heard of us- it's a small country on a large continent (also called Australia) in the Southern Hemisphere. We don't really have a big comic book thing down here. I didn't really get into comics (I dabbled, here and there) until I discovered PvP and Penny Arcade, back in the early millennium. So I had no one to teach me of the wonders and joys that would have been my birthright had I been born in the seventies and overseas.

So now I'll review Watchmen so those of you (us) who haven't read it can know what it's like. I mean, it's probably brilliant -it's won awards, after all¹- but brilliant is not the same as good.

Is it good?

Yes.

Overwhelmingly, positively, yes.

Don't rush out and buy a copy just yet, though. This is a superhero story and some of the key elements of superheroism are there. A small band of heroes, an overarching megaplot (several, actually) with terrible consequences. There is a lack of superpowers, something I'll get to in a moment, but there is still a fair amount of belief-suspension required. If you don't like these sorts of things, you probably still won't like Watchmen.²

Part of what makes Watchmen so thoroughly wonderful is that it's a superhero story without any superheroes. I don't just mean that most of Our Heroes lack superpowers, because that's not entirely unusual. Batman lacks special powers, after all. No, the fact that Rorschach is just driven and single-minded isn't unusual. What is unusual is that Rorschach is almost utterly insane. Remember Christian Bale in Batman Begins? His hard edges, his brooding aspect? Now imagine if Ra's al Ghul had succeeded in convincing him that murdering criminals was okay. You will begin to get an impression of Rorschach. The man is utterly ruthless and completely without mercy.

The rest of Our Heroes aren't much better. Nazi sympathisers, amoral killers and dispassionate scientists. In spite of the essential un-likeableness of these people, you grow to sympathise with them. Rorschach agrees with everything I oppose, but he's definitely (and defiantly) my favourite character of the book. That takes a great deal of skill to write and is worthy of a tremendous amount of respect. It's easy to make a you care about a likeable character- everyone mourns the death of Mufasa in Disney's The Lion King. It's significantly more difficult to make someone care about the death of an arsehole.³

The main plotline isn't terribly convoluted, although it twists enough to satisfy. I'm not going to summarise it here, partly for reasons of avoiding Spoilers, partly because I can't do it justice. Wikipedia has a decent enough summary, for those interested. Suffice to say that the world is very similar to our 1985, except for a few differences related to the existence of superheoes. The Vietnam War ended in an allied victory, for example. The Soviet Union and the United States are a little more inclined to engage in nuclear war.

The backstory of the setting is revealed with flashbacks that intertwine amongst the main thread of the plot, virtually seamlessly weaving the entire book together. These scenes also build the characters themselves, revealing even the hopelessly fractured Rorschach to be a startlingly fragile human character. The most significant and subtle effect of the multi-twined storyline is the effect of enlarging the small character of Bernard, a newspaper stand operator.

He serves little purpose for the plot, selling newspapers to several characters and standing next to a kid who reads a comic. But because pieces of the setting are revealed through his newspaper and his commentary (which winds from "nuke 'em all" to "folk gotta look after each other" sentiments), he becomes a remarkable figure of depth. Which makes the climax of the story, Chapter XI, all the more chilling.

Realistic human superheroes. Intertwining stories (including some wonderful metafiction in the guise of Tales of the Black Freighter, a comic-within-the-comic). A fascinating, twisting plotline. Combined with an array of complex and powerful themes (the nature of morality- absolutist or relativist?), Watchmen is an amazing piece of literary work. I don't need to tell you that- the awards speak for themselves. The awards and the writing and the artwork.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. What makes a book good is wanting to know what happens next. Being unwilling to put it down. Watchmen succeeds in that, most admirably. I was the last person to my gaming session on Monday because I was reading Watchmen. The characters are real, sympathetic even if not necessarily admirable. You care about them, you want to know what happens next.⁴

And the climax, the big reveal is devastating in it's emotional power. You are left wondering how you would react, what you would do. How absolute is your morality? Do you have grey areas, or not?

Questions, questions.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.



---
¹From the Wikipedia article:

In 2005, Time magazine placed Watchmen on its list of the 100 Greatest English Language Novels from 1923 to the Present...[it] was the only graphic novel to be listed. Watchmen has also received several awards spanning different categories and genres including: for Best Finite Series, Best New Series, Best Writer, and Best Writer/Artist, for Best Finite Series, Best Graphic Album, Best Writer, and Best Writer/Artist, and a Hugo Award for Special Achievement.

²You probably also don't like Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings or Shakespeare at all and are probably one of those people that think Bridget Jones's Diary was thrilling.

³For normal people, anyhow. I know a lot of you guys love the bad guy, but most of you aren't all that normal.

⁴ You can go rush out and buy a copy now. Or get one from your local university- I did.

I haven't. In fact, I had never even heard of it. Do I still deserve to live?

I might decide to read it: it sounds pretty good. Thanks for this excellent review.

Yeah, I hadn't heard of it either. But it sounds good.

I'd just like to say, however, that I like Tolkien and Shakespeare and, while I didn't think Bridget Jones's Diary was thrilling, it was humourous. Ish. Kinda? No? Alright, then.

Humorous, maybe. Thrilling? No.

The odds of anyone here knowing of Watchmen are significantly reduced when compared to those who read my blog. I liked the lead-in well enough not to change it anyway.

[Yeah, it's a double post. My understanding is that this isn't really something you should just 'edit in.' As always, cross-posted in my blog.]

Usagi Yojimbo: Grasscutter, Stan Sakai.

Technically I'm reviewing two graphic novels today, both part of the Usagi Yojimbo epic series. However, the second book (Grasscutter II: Journey to Atsuta Shrine) is a continuation of the story of the first, so I'll review them together.

I got interested in Usagi Yojimbo after reading the Director's Cut of Penny Arcade's Cardboard Tube Samurai series, which I've always loved. It turns out that Gabe began writing the CTS sequences to pay homage to Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo. Naturally enough, I had to read it. While searching the catalogues at university the other day, I decided to see if they had any Alan Moore. They did (Watchmen), but I also noted that they had some Usagi.

By such coincidences are history made. Or in this case, so are dodgy book reviews made.

Usagi Yojimbo is an anthropomorphic tale. The titular character is a ronin, a masterless samurai, and also a rabbit.¹ The entire cast are similarly animal featured, such as the greedy bounter hunter Murakami Gennosuke, who is a rhinoceros. Similarly to other anthropomorphic comics, the animal features of the characters help give a feel for the personalities of the characters- Gennosuke is a bluff, rough-tempered character, for example. I'm not entirely sure if this is intentional, but it certainly worked for me. Unlike Maus, there does not seem to be a total continuity amongst racial groups- not all samurai are rabbits.²

The story follows the sword Kusanagi, Grasscutter. As is usual for my reviews, I'm not going to go into depth on the plotline- the point is to encourage you to read the book, not spoil it for you! The sword is direct from the gods (specifically, it was given to Ameratsu by Susano-o) and has a long and convoluted history, which is presented through a series of prologues at the beginning of the book. Eventually the sword is lost under the sea at the conclusion of a civil war.

Grasscutter follows the attempts by a shadowy council which intends to overthrow the Shogunate (military dictatorship, more-or-less) and restore the Emperor.³ Naturally, this being a story, Usagi Yojimbo accidentally intercepts the weapon and we have Plot. There are several other plot threads throughout the story (some of which seem to draw from earlier stories, but no prior knowledge is required), which twine to make the story less one-dimensional than it would otherwise seem.

The plotline is rich with Japanese folklore/mythology and is beautifully rendered. I wouldn't call it simplistic, but it lacks the darkness of a modern psychological thriller. I consider this a good thing, and Grasscutter works all the better for not attempting to go beyond what it is- a retelling of myth. The characterisation is crisp and neat and while there is no great depth, this is only a small piece of a much longer and more involved tale. Usagi Yojimbo has been going for some time.

Sakai spends some time at the end of each book discussing the tales and sources he used to create the story, which is always a bonus to those of us with a more academic interest in such things. In general, he goes with the more reliable sources, or whichever looks the coolest. For example, the sources indicate the age of Emperor Antoku at the time of his death to be between six and ten. Sakai named his age as eight, because it is both the most consistent amongst researchers and because the number eight is of significance in Japanese folklore.

The artwork is crisp and clean, with enough detail to be immersive and yet simple enough not to be distracting. The requisite nature scenes, a must for any Samurai story, are beautiful and clean, while the ubiquitous fight scenes are easy to follow and even occasionally edge-of-your-seat inducing.

Despite being part of a longer series, Grasscutter is entirely self-contained and an intensely enjoyable read. Unlike Watchmen, which I would say is virtually required reading, Grasscutter merely comes highly recommended. For Japanophiles, I would increase that to required reading. If these books are anything to go by, Usagi Yojimbo is great fun.



---
¹ He appeared on a double episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, for those of you with long or encyclopaedic memories.

² There are exceptions, so maybe there is some species continuity. In Grasscutter II an entire ninja clan, the Komori, are bats. This is hella cool, because ninja bats.

³ How, I'm not sure. You never see them with an Emperor, so I'm not sure if they actually have one, or simply claim to.

Heh, I actually remember that samurai rabbit from TMNT - I can picture him even now.

...That's actually kinda sad, now that I think about it.

Prattchet. Prattchet. Prattchet. Prattchet. if i say it a fourth time will it support my thoughts further? no? ok.
I love every single discworld novel. haven't read the sciences. (will) and am also going to try and get my hands on the Dawkins Books. (despite being told he has said nothing new in them. SO what if he can argue?)

Pratchett is brilliant, yes. I just finished reading Monstrous Regiment the other day, actually. A thumbnail review will be forthcoming when I get around to it.

The Sciences are brilliant. Hard science facts interposed with highly entertaining fragments of Pratchett's mad genius. This essentially means that the books are both entertaining and enlightening to read.

Dawkins's books- well, which ones has he said 'nothing new' in? Given that The Selfish Gene was damn near revolutionary at the time of publication, saying that it offers nothing new means you are either misinformed or forgetting that it was published decades ago.

If the plural on 'books' was a typo and you are simply referring to the fact that The God Delusion adds little to the debate, you are correct. Dawkins does not add anything particularly new to the debate¹, but he does speak on all aspects of the debate at once. Moreover his argument is very clearly laid out and well-spoken, which makes it an excellent primer on the atheist/agnostic debate.

"So what if he can argue?" Shouldn't a decent argument be the foundation of all debate?


---
¹Except his child abuse theory. While not entirely new, it is the first time such a statement has been articulated so clearly.

I have a great intrest in anything military, especially books that has to do with the british S.A.S (special air service for those of you that arent familiar with them). I´d like to read Soldier 5 written by Mike Coburn. This will again illustrate the disasterous Bravo Two Zero mission in the gulf war in the early 90´s. I´ve read both McNabs and Ryans accounts of the story and this is a third version of the story from the "kiwi" guys perspective. Anybody read this book? Or books in general about the SAS that they could recomend? :)

Benedictous: I have too read monsterous regiment and it was a cracking good read.
Now another thing What is the difference between a big good long comic book and a graphic novel?
What is so good about Graphic Novels?
Anyone (me) who wants to read one should start with a landmark, suggestions? I cant get them here in egypt but when i go to blighty for summer i plan to get at least one to add to my book library.

What is the difference between a big good long comic book and a graphic novel?

Well...nothing, really. "Graphic Novel" is a label usually applied to "Comic Books" which are more mature in tone and style. Watchmen, for example, or the famous Sandman series by Neil Gaiman. A trade paperback collection of Superman is still a graphic novel, given that it is a novel using graphics.

Generally speaking I prefer to apply the term to something which can be read as a stand-alone, even if it does fit into a series. So Watchmen is a graphic novel, as it is a stand-alone. Each book of the Sandman is a graphic novel, as they are (mostly) stand alone and fit into a limited series which has a beginning, a middle and an end. A collection of Superman or X-Men stories would not necessarily be a graphic novel as these series are mostly open-ended and usually don't stand alone. On the other hand Frank Miller's batman story, The Dark Knight Returns, would classify as a graphic novel because it is mostly stand alone.

Wikipedia has some articles on a fair amount of depth. It should be able to help you out more than I.

What's so good about Graphic Novels?

They are a different medium to a text-only novel. Let's get that straight from the start. They are not inferior, or superior to a traditional format. You would be comparing apples and tangerines.

Having said that, graphic novels/comic books do lend themselves easily to simple stories, as the action, descriptions and most events are depicted rather than written. This enables you to focus on dialogue, which allows some leeway in writing a simple story. This is probably why graphic novels and comic books have such a rap as being 'for kids:' many of them are.

That's also a good thing. If you don't particularly feel like slogging through a thick novel, a decent graphic novel can give you as much story and depth without needing to focus on so many words for so long. Due to university and a general apathy, I'm not able to read novels as much as I used to. Short stories and graphic novels are a way for me to get my fiction fix without needing to slog through epic novels constantly.

Because of the somewhat more subtle nature of drawing pictures rather than stating things as they lie, graphic novel/comic book artists have the luxury of being able to use rather more symbolism than in a traditional format. It also allows dream sequences to be suitably weird, or high-impact scenes to be higher impact, by altering the dimensions (or shape) of the panels, or forcing the reader to turn the book itself 90 degrees in order to read a mega-panel.

It's one thing to read the description of the Dream-King's keep as being tall and grandiose- it's quite another thing to see it.

Graphic novels aren't for everyone. I'm firmly of the opinion that everyone should give them a shot, nonetheless. There is quite a lot of mass produced garbage out there, but there are some shining, shining gems of books that would not be the same were they written in a traditional format.

Maus, by Art Spiegelman won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991. Watchmen as I mentioned above has won a string of awards, including being placed on Time magazine's list of the 100 Greatest English Language Novels from 1923 to 2005. One of the issues of the Sandman by Neil Gaiman won the Word Fantasy Award in 1991 for Best Short Fiction.

Now, you also asked where I would recommend for you to start. Unfortunately, that's like asking me to recommend the best place to start reading English literature: Do I start with critically acclaimed stuff? Recent stuff? Historic stuff? Fantasy stuff? Superhero stuff?

If you can get enough of them (there are nine books in the collection), I would recommend the Sandman series by Gaiman first and foremost. It's where I started and cannot be recommended enough. Absolutely wonderful fantasy, with distinctive mythological bent- it truly reads like the Mabinogion or King Arthur or Paradise Lost of our times. Very, very good.

But for stand-alone or near stand-alone books, I would recommend Watchmen (reviewed in detail above), as it's an excellently gritty book.

If neither of those look particularly appealing, I recommend you look at other books by Alan Moore, Grant Morrison and Frank Miller. Or, indeed, anything carried by DC's Vertigo line, as they stock a wonderful range of 'mature' graphic novels. You would undoubtedly have a comic book store in your area (I know you're in Egypt, but I've been informed that there are comic book stores in Cairo...and that's where you are, right?) so you could talk to the owner and he may be able to recommend a place to start. Failing that, I'd look around on Wikipedia. It's what I'm doing to built a list to read. As I read the books on said list, I'll review them here.

Finally, I'm sure you can get some graphic novels from libraries in Egypt. It's a pretty westernised nation from my understanding of the matter. Have you really looked?

ETA: I don't read stuff like that Tyrion, so I can't help you. I recommend doing a search on Amazon.co.uk and seeing what turns up. Some reviews there may help you.

Thank you i will check out AUC American University in Cairo's bookstore ASAP.