I'm a pretty big fan of Clive Cussler, and think the guy can tell one hell of a story, but it seems that as he advances in years he has become increasingly more sentimental. I know it's very difficult not to become attached to your characters, especially the ones you have been writing about since the 70s, but enough is enough. The books I'm mainly talking about are those that make up the Dirk Pitt series.
First off you should know that the God awful movie Sahara was based on one of these books, but I'm comfortable saying that the failure of this movie was more Matthew Mcconaughey's fault than anyone's. Maybe we can throw the whole cast in there, I'm not sure I only made it halfway through. The next time Hollywood makes a film adaptation of a book they need to make sure that the screenplay writer has actually read the book. (Atlas Shrugged Part I anyone?)
Let's move on to my point. Throughout Clive's work he has always added himself as a character named...you guessed it Clive Cussler. Seriously in one book he tells Dirk to call him dad. I could kind of let this slide if his fictional alter ego was the same character every time, but nope he changes. Dirk Pitt has probably met "Clive Cussler" at least 10 times and every time it seems to be in a different scenario. Like I said, Cussler is one hell of a story teller, but come on. Let's get a little separation. Let's just stay out of it. It seems that every time his character appears he comes into the story to provide a little help to Dirk, and this is always in some minor way. Cussler- you are the author. You don't need to be in the story to save Dirk. You are writing the damn thing so technically you save him every time he gets into a scrape.
Whether he considers my recommendation or not (because I know most famous authors read this) doesn't matter, I will continue to read his books. Like Patterson's Cross series I have become attached to the characters, but unlike Patterson Cussler still dedicates enough time to his books that make them good reads. If you have never read these they are worth picking up. If you don't find them particularly interesting you can always turn it into a game of "Where's Cussler?"
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
We're back (hopefully)
So it has definitely been a bit, and I would like to blame this on life being busy, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that I am pretty lazy and kind of forgot about the blog. My bad. I would like to apologize to the one or two people who have actually taken the time to open my little musings (Thanks Mom!) and am now wholly dedicated to keeping up with this fine literary tool. That's right...tool.
So here we go.
I finally finished War and Peace and will ultimately have a long and boring in-depth post for it, but for now I'd like to bring up something that has been bothering me. Patricia Cornwell.
If you have never read any of her books I would highly recommend them, although her main character can come across as a raging Man-Hater every once in awhile. I'm OK with this to a certain extent (we can be dicks sometimes, and I accept that), but what I cannot accept is the fact that Cornwell decided to change the way her books were written.
The first books in the Kay Scarpetta series were written in the First person, and for some unknown reason she decided to switch to third. This may seem like a trivial detail, but remember how I mentioned her character can come across as a Man-Hater? Well now she is a Cold-hearted-Man-Hating-She-Beast from Medical School Hell. Whatever reason Cornwell had in making this switch better have been a good one because Kay Scarpetta is kind of a bitch now. I now understand why Marino was always telling her this. I do have a theory about this swtich...can we say GHOST-WRITER? I hope that is not the case, but you never know. Why else would you F-up a formula that has worked for some twenty or so books.
All the series authors out there...STOP CHANGING MY CHARACTERS!
So here we go.
I finally finished War and Peace and will ultimately have a long and boring in-depth post for it, but for now I'd like to bring up something that has been bothering me. Patricia Cornwell.
If you have never read any of her books I would highly recommend them, although her main character can come across as a raging Man-Hater every once in awhile. I'm OK with this to a certain extent (we can be dicks sometimes, and I accept that), but what I cannot accept is the fact that Cornwell decided to change the way her books were written.
The first books in the Kay Scarpetta series were written in the First person, and for some unknown reason she decided to switch to third. This may seem like a trivial detail, but remember how I mentioned her character can come across as a Man-Hater? Well now she is a Cold-hearted-Man-Hating-She-Beast from Medical School Hell. Whatever reason Cornwell had in making this switch better have been a good one because Kay Scarpetta is kind of a bitch now. I now understand why Marino was always telling her this. I do have a theory about this swtich...can we say GHOST-WRITER? I hope that is not the case, but you never know. Why else would you F-up a formula that has worked for some twenty or so books.
All the series authors out there...STOP CHANGING MY CHARACTERS!
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Something to Think About
Possessing potential for Greatness,
yet wrought with inner fear.
I teeter on the edge of action,
but fall complacently back to here.
It is the change of life that scares me,
the thought of failing too great to bear.
It makes me wonder if my mentors
were as easily prone to scare.
This seemed appropriate after reading Steinbeck's journals. Apparently the greats "were as easily prone to scare." Something to think about.
yet wrought with inner fear.
I teeter on the edge of action,
but fall complacently back to here.
It is the change of life that scares me,
the thought of failing too great to bear.
It makes me wonder if my mentors
were as easily prone to scare.
This seemed appropriate after reading Steinbeck's journals. Apparently the greats "were as easily prone to scare." Something to think about.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Steinbeck's Journals
A couple of days ago I read the journals of John Steinbeck that he kept while he was writing The Grapes of Wrath, and it was great. I couldn't believe some of the entries. It is no secret that I am a huge Steinbeck fan and I was looking forward to reading his daily journals as he was writing one of the best American novels of all time. The interesting part about his entries was how little self-confidence he had. He constantly said things like, "This isn't any good", "I'm not a writer", "Nobody is going to read this", it was unbelievable. Apparently nobody told him he was John-Freakin-Steinbeck. Some would argue that this was as he was starting out, but in actuality this was during one of the busiest times of his life.
As he was writing The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men was in the middle of its run as a play, and was being met with critical acclaim. Hollywood was making the movie, he had offers to turn another one of his books In Dubious Battle into a play as wel. He was also buying a ranch and building a house. So the entire time he was writing one of his greatest works he was overloaded with other things going on in his life. He had given himself five months to finish the book, and surprisingly he was able to meet his goal. He had told himself that he would write 2,000 words everyday, and he was able to do it. Some days he would get ahead and then be able to go into town and get drunk with Charlie Chaplin, and other days he would fall behind, but in the end he was able to finish in the time frame that he had given himself.
It was great to be able to read his daily personal accounts of his working strategy, and talk about writing some of the best scenes in American Literary history. He would explain what his plan for the day was and say things like, "Today the Joads must make it across the desert", and I would say to myself "I READ THAT!!!"
It made me feel like in some way I was helping. He would write about how it wouldn't be any good, and I would reassure him that it would be great. It was a team effort. So if you have ever read The Grapes of Wrath...You're welcome.
As he was writing The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men was in the middle of its run as a play, and was being met with critical acclaim. Hollywood was making the movie, he had offers to turn another one of his books In Dubious Battle into a play as wel. He was also buying a ranch and building a house. So the entire time he was writing one of his greatest works he was overloaded with other things going on in his life. He had given himself five months to finish the book, and surprisingly he was able to meet his goal. He had told himself that he would write 2,000 words everyday, and he was able to do it. Some days he would get ahead and then be able to go into town and get drunk with Charlie Chaplin, and other days he would fall behind, but in the end he was able to finish in the time frame that he had given himself.
It was great to be able to read his daily personal accounts of his working strategy, and talk about writing some of the best scenes in American Literary history. He would explain what his plan for the day was and say things like, "Today the Joads must make it across the desert", and I would say to myself "I READ THAT!!!"
It made me feel like in some way I was helping. He would write about how it wouldn't be any good, and I would reassure him that it would be great. It was a team effort. So if you have ever read The Grapes of Wrath...You're welcome.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tarzan of the Apes
At the urging of someone at work I read Tarzan of the Apes the other day. You know the book that all of those movies were based on with the man in the loin clothe yelling some kind of throaty battle cry (which in the book seemed to be much more bad ass). Well I have never watched a Tarzan movie in its entirety but I have to say from what little of them I have seen they looked a tad cheesy. In the book Tarzan was this hardcore borderline demi-god that kicked some monkey ass and caught lions with a rope.He was hardcore. I am thinking that there needs to be a reboot with a little CGI action. I mean imagine what we could do with the new Planet of the Apes special effects.
I know I would enjoy watching a ripped jungle man in a loin clothe wrestling a giant ape in defense of a southern bells honor (in a completely heterosexual way of course).The story itself is cool and if you can get over the somewhat cheesy dialogue it is a good read. Of course the actual book is a little different from the Hollywood version. Some of the characters are the same and his love interest is the well known Jane, but there is no conversation where he says in broken English "Me Tarzan, you Jane" which I found to be a little disappointing, but he did learn to speak French. Who would have thought that Tarzan spoke French...whatever.
I would like to say that I was soooooooo disappointed with the ending, but will not divulge why in case anyone actually wants to read the book, but I will say that Tarzan gets dumped on.
All in all it was a good book, and a quick read. I enjoyed it and it is one of those books that everyone should read simply because it made such a lasting impression on our culture. Hell even Disney made a Tarzan movie. I don't think I saw that one either, although I vaguely remember Rosie O'Donnell being a monkey, which seems appropriate (maybe she could be recast in a live action role as his ape mother).
So pick up Tarzan of the Apes and get in touch with your inner primate.
I know I would enjoy watching a ripped jungle man in a loin clothe wrestling a giant ape in defense of a southern bells honor (in a completely heterosexual way of course).The story itself is cool and if you can get over the somewhat cheesy dialogue it is a good read. Of course the actual book is a little different from the Hollywood version. Some of the characters are the same and his love interest is the well known Jane, but there is no conversation where he says in broken English "Me Tarzan, you Jane" which I found to be a little disappointing, but he did learn to speak French. Who would have thought that Tarzan spoke French...whatever.
I would like to say that I was soooooooo disappointed with the ending, but will not divulge why in case anyone actually wants to read the book, but I will say that Tarzan gets dumped on.
All in all it was a good book, and a quick read. I enjoyed it and it is one of those books that everyone should read simply because it made such a lasting impression on our culture. Hell even Disney made a Tarzan movie. I don't think I saw that one either, although I vaguely remember Rosie O'Donnell being a monkey, which seems appropriate (maybe she could be recast in a live action role as his ape mother).
So pick up Tarzan of the Apes and get in touch with your inner primate.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar...
This is one of the best philosophy books I have ever read. Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... explains philosophical concepts with clear definitions and through the evaluation of jokes. These guys are freaking hilarious. They provide just about every concept with a joke that corresponds with what they are teaching, such as explaining British Empiricist Philosophy with this:
Morty comes home to find his wife and best friend, Lou, naked in bed. Just as Morty is about to open his mouth, Lou jumps out of the bed and says, "Before you say anything, old pal, what are you going to believe, me or your eyes?
Of course they explain the correlation between the joke and Empiricism, which is basically the belief that senses are the primary path to knowledge, and questions what sort of information we can rely on. It's amazing that they take this philosophical argument, rationalism vs. empiricism, and give an example that is humorous and easily understandable. It is much easier to grasp the different sides of the argument in this example as opposed to trying to explain the idea of First Creation to someone with no previous background in philosophy. For a slow learner such as myself this is perfect.
My personal favorite example from the book is how they explain Illogical Reasoning.
An Irishman walks into a Dublin bar, orders three pints of Guinness, and drinks them down, taking a sip from one, then a sip from the next, until they're gone. He then orders three more. The bartender says, "You know, they'd be less likely to go flat if you bought them one at a time." The man says, "Yeah, I know, but I have two brothers, one in the States, one in Australia. When we all went our separate ways, we promised each other that we'd all drink this way in memory of the days when we drank together. Each of these is for one of my brothers and the third is for me."
The bartender is touched, and says, "What a great custom!"
The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar and always orders the same way.
One day he comes in and orders two pints. The other regulars notice, and silence falls over the bar.
When he comes to the bar for his second round, the bartender says, "Please aceppt my condolences, pal."
The Irishman says, "Oh, no, everyone's fine. I just joined the Mormon Church , and I had to quit drinking."
HAHA...Mormon Church...get it?
Yeah so the entire book is filled with great stuff like that. If you are even remotely interested in Western philosophy (they don't really get into much Eastern stuff) then you should definitely check this book out. Even if you aren't that interested in philosophy the book is filled with great jokes.
You can buy the book here. Trust me it is worth it, and as an added bonus I guarantee that you will retain some of the information you read. So the next time you are sitting around discussing Existentialist theories with someone at work, you can through in your two cents worth.
I leave you with this, an example of a Paradox:
Pinocchio says: "My nose will now grow..."
Morty comes home to find his wife and best friend, Lou, naked in bed. Just as Morty is about to open his mouth, Lou jumps out of the bed and says, "Before you say anything, old pal, what are you going to believe, me or your eyes?
Of course they explain the correlation between the joke and Empiricism, which is basically the belief that senses are the primary path to knowledge, and questions what sort of information we can rely on. It's amazing that they take this philosophical argument, rationalism vs. empiricism, and give an example that is humorous and easily understandable. It is much easier to grasp the different sides of the argument in this example as opposed to trying to explain the idea of First Creation to someone with no previous background in philosophy. For a slow learner such as myself this is perfect.
My personal favorite example from the book is how they explain Illogical Reasoning.
An Irishman walks into a Dublin bar, orders three pints of Guinness, and drinks them down, taking a sip from one, then a sip from the next, until they're gone. He then orders three more. The bartender says, "You know, they'd be less likely to go flat if you bought them one at a time." The man says, "Yeah, I know, but I have two brothers, one in the States, one in Australia. When we all went our separate ways, we promised each other that we'd all drink this way in memory of the days when we drank together. Each of these is for one of my brothers and the third is for me."
The bartender is touched, and says, "What a great custom!"
The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar and always orders the same way.
One day he comes in and orders two pints. The other regulars notice, and silence falls over the bar.
When he comes to the bar for his second round, the bartender says, "Please aceppt my condolences, pal."
The Irishman says, "Oh, no, everyone's fine. I just joined the Mormon Church , and I had to quit drinking."
HAHA...Mormon Church...get it?
Yeah so the entire book is filled with great stuff like that. If you are even remotely interested in Western philosophy (they don't really get into much Eastern stuff) then you should definitely check this book out. Even if you aren't that interested in philosophy the book is filled with great jokes.
You can buy the book here. Trust me it is worth it, and as an added bonus I guarantee that you will retain some of the information you read. So the next time you are sitting around discussing Existentialist theories with someone at work, you can through in your two cents worth.
I leave you with this, an example of a Paradox:
Pinocchio says: "My nose will now grow..."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Works in Progress
OK so I took on the task of reading War and Peace, and like a pretentious jerk I said to myself "I'm going to read this with a guide so I can understand all of the social references..." Well it has been about a month and I am only 500 pages in. The problem with my original theory was the fact that there was soooooo much going on, and I have little to no knowledge regarding Russia at the turn of the 19th century. That's OK though. I will continue to muscle through this until it is done, maybe next time I will pick up the Bible.
Even though I am taking forever getting through this I have to say that it is a great book so far. I suppose Virginia Woolf was right when she regarded War and Peace as the greatest novel ever written (I will allow that comment considering she died before a lot of things had been written...Atlas Shrugged). But even so, this is a heavy read and I've found that I have read about 5 trash books since I started reading this. You know...Trash Books.
Like Dean Koontz's Frankenstein series. They are quick interesting reads, but there is not too much thinking required when having to read one. Perfect for when I am trying to give my overwhelmed brain a break from Tolstoy (it doesn't take much to overwhelm me). There are five books in this series and they are entertaining. The stories are cool, and guess what...involve Frankenstein!!! Holy Crap! Didn't see that coming, but they are worth checking out. I have read the first three in the past few weeks and really like them.
One thing that I also just finished reading was Into the Wild. This was an incredibly interesting story that involved the college grad that gave away everything and hobo-ed around the country before dying in the Alaska wilderness. Crazy story, and I did not see the movie but I heard it was pretty good. My only problem with the book was the way Jack Krakauer wrote the damn thing. It just was not enough to turn into a stand alone book. What Krakauer lacked in evidence and facts he had to make up for with filler stories that seemed to take away form the actual story. He just didn't have enough information to make a full length book, and it made reading the thing repetitive and boring. I imagine that if the makers of the movie had used a little bit of creative license the movie would have been great. I would recommend that you save yourselves some time though and either rent the movie or read his original 9,000 word article.
So in conclusion skip Krakauer, read Koontz. (that may sound shallow, but it is the truth)
Even though I am taking forever getting through this I have to say that it is a great book so far. I suppose Virginia Woolf was right when she regarded War and Peace as the greatest novel ever written (I will allow that comment considering she died before a lot of things had been written...Atlas Shrugged). But even so, this is a heavy read and I've found that I have read about 5 trash books since I started reading this. You know...Trash Books.
Like Dean Koontz's Frankenstein series. They are quick interesting reads, but there is not too much thinking required when having to read one. Perfect for when I am trying to give my overwhelmed brain a break from Tolstoy (it doesn't take much to overwhelm me). There are five books in this series and they are entertaining. The stories are cool, and guess what...involve Frankenstein!!! Holy Crap! Didn't see that coming, but they are worth checking out. I have read the first three in the past few weeks and really like them.
One thing that I also just finished reading was Into the Wild. This was an incredibly interesting story that involved the college grad that gave away everything and hobo-ed around the country before dying in the Alaska wilderness. Crazy story, and I did not see the movie but I heard it was pretty good. My only problem with the book was the way Jack Krakauer wrote the damn thing. It just was not enough to turn into a stand alone book. What Krakauer lacked in evidence and facts he had to make up for with filler stories that seemed to take away form the actual story. He just didn't have enough information to make a full length book, and it made reading the thing repetitive and boring. I imagine that if the makers of the movie had used a little bit of creative license the movie would have been great. I would recommend that you save yourselves some time though and either rent the movie or read his original 9,000 word article.
So in conclusion skip Krakauer, read Koontz. (that may sound shallow, but it is the truth)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)