Fitzcarraldo
Well-known member
- Nov 12, 2010
- 973
Just finished American Gods by Neil Gaiman which I quite enjoyed. About to start In Europe: Travels through the Twentieth Century by Geert Mak
Have you read Fatherland?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, but that sounds like a recommendation. Cheers.
Mos def.
Premise is a murder investigation in the Third Reich post WW2, which was a score draw, and Hitler isn’t dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reading The Nix by Nathan Hill. Loving it, just over half way through.
"To The Limit - The Untold Story Of The Eagles" by Marc Eliot
I finished reading 'Ready Player One' a few days ago and being very unwell of late and stuck at home it's given me a lot of time to think about why I didn't much like it despite it getting a lot of rave reviews. A word of warning, there's a lot of plot spoilers in what follows and apologies for the length.
Starting with the positives, it's a very easy read, there's some good character development and it zooms along very briskly, there's no chance of getting bored and the author does a great job in not getting bogged down in too much geeky minutiae, no mean feat when the plot is pure geekery. There's some very clever concepts introduced about the future of online computing and the blurring between virtual and real worlds. Friendships based purely in the virtual world are shown to be every bit as real as those outside it - and writing this on an online forum, I think we can all relate to that.
None of that makes up for some pretty huge plot holes, mainly based around the character of the dead billionaire's business partner whose existence is required for the most obvious deus ex machina I've read in years. The explanation of the plot twist - to act as a moderator to ensure the spirit of the Egg Hunt is preserved opens up all sorts of questions such as why was there no intervention on the planet of Ludus when the Sixers prevented anyone else from getting the first crystal? Likewise the battle for the third crystal and the apparent disinterest beyond providing state of the art hardware to the gunters in ensuring that his friend's business didn't fall into the wrong hands. The Sixers even ruined his birthday party yet apart from kicking them out, he took no further action. Why not?
Talking of gunters, the author didn't do enough homework on British slang. He correctly picked up on the phrase 'anorak' but a simple google would have told him about the British pejorative: 'gunt'. The word 'gunter' which occurs frequently quickly becomes as irritating as a blister on the tongue.
Returning to the business partner there's the question of his ability to go anywhere. If he hated the Sixers so much then why did he not give himself access to their files to see what they were up to? We're told that he spied on the 2 main characters from their first meeting. But this was well before their significance became known. How did he know to pick them out of the millions of onliners? And why go to the trouble of inviting them to your birthday party and then ignore them? Aside from this, there's also the ability to be able to buy online usernames and passwords for the biggest corporations in the world and to access their most secure files anonymously. Did no-one have the idea to google parts of the first clue and spot the Dungeons and Dragons reference before Parzival? There's also the question of Aetch's real persona. Could they tick any more right-on boxes?
I saw on the IMDB site the news that Warner had bought the rights to the book before it was even published... and this is the author's first ever novel. It's not unheard of but it does rather suggest the author has friends in very high places or the book was written to order (or both) and it does explain a lot of things. Bear in mind that Hunger Games and Maze Runner film series are at an end and both have been incredibly successful. Also bear in mind, the way that Stranger Things tapped into 80s nostalgia in a way that few other shows/films has ever done. Film companies aren't stupid but neither are they likely to innovate when they can go with a successful formula. So we have the same tired old format: post-apocalyptic world, teenagers from the poor side fighting a faceless, all-powerful corporation seeking world domination, we have some sort of competition that provides the unlikely winner with untold wealth and they want it 80s style.
It also makes clear the purpose of the party/club scene. In the book it adds nothing to the story but we've seen it in The Matrix, we've seen it in TRON and therefore we need it in the film. God knows why but a techno club scene is obligatory in virtual world films.
There's a fair few unintentional ironies with this book/film. The characters in the book think they are on the side of liberty and neutrality but in order to gain any chance of winning the competition, they need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the 80s - music, fashion, films, TV shows, computer games - everything. The OASIS creators are suppressing the ability of people to influence their culture every bit as much as a corporation trying to monetise internet surfing.
The saddest thing about all this is that the 80s was truly a decade of innovation where risks were taken and people looked forward, not back. I can't help but feel that this book was devised in a board room purely to cash in on short-term nostalgia using a tried and tested film template.
I finished reading 'Ready Player One' a few days ago and being very unwell of late and stuck at home it's given me a lot of time to think about why I didn't much like it despite it getting a lot of rave reviews. A word of warning, there's a lot of plot spoilers in what follows and apologies for the length.
Starting with the positives, it's a very easy read, there's some good character development and it zooms along very briskly, there's no chance of getting bored and the author does a great job in not getting bogged down in too much geeky minutiae, no mean feat when the plot is pure geekery. There's some very clever concepts introduced about the future of online computing and the blurring between virtual and real worlds. Friendships based purely in the virtual world are shown to be every bit as real as those outside it - and writing this on an online forum, I think we can all relate to that.
None of that makes up for some pretty huge plot holes, mainly based around the character of the dead billionaire's business partner whose existence is required for the most obvious deus ex machina I've read in years. The explanation of the plot twist - to act as a moderator to ensure the spirit of the Egg Hunt is preserved opens up all sorts of questions such as why was there no intervention on the planet of Ludus when the Sixers prevented anyone else from getting the first crystal? Likewise the battle for the third crystal and the apparent disinterest beyond providing state of the art hardware to the gunters in ensuring that his friend's business didn't fall into the wrong hands. The Sixers even ruined his birthday party yet apart from kicking them out, he took no further action. Why not?
Talking of gunters, the author didn't do enough homework on British slang. He correctly picked up on the phrase 'anorak' but a simple google would have told him about the British pejorative: 'gunt'. The word 'gunter' which occurs frequently quickly becomes as irritating as a blister on the tongue.
Returning to the business partner there's the question of his ability to go anywhere. If he hated the Sixers so much then why did he not give himself access to their files to see what they were up to? We're told that he spied on the 2 main characters from their first meeting. But this was well before their significance became known. How did he know to pick them out of the millions of onliners? And why go to the trouble of inviting them to your birthday party and then ignore them? Aside from this, there's also the ability to be able to buy online usernames and passwords for the biggest corporations in the world and to access their most secure files anonymously. Did no-one have the idea to google parts of the first clue and spot the Dungeons and Dragons reference before Parzival? There's also the question of Aetch's real persona. Could they tick any more right-on boxes?
I saw on the IMDB site the news that Warner had bought the rights to the book before it was even published... and this is the author's first ever novel. It's not unheard of but it does rather suggest the author has friends in very high places or the book was written to order (or both) and it does explain a lot of things. Bear in mind that Hunger Games and Maze Runner film series are at an end and both have been incredibly successful. Also bear in mind, the way that Stranger Things tapped into 80s nostalgia in a way that few other shows/films has ever done. Film companies aren't stupid but neither are they likely to innovate when they can go with a successful formula. So we have the same tired old format: post-apocalyptic world, teenagers from the poor side fighting a faceless, all-powerful corporation seeking world domination, we have some sort of competition that provides the unlikely winner with untold wealth and they want it 80s style.
It also makes clear the purpose of the party/club scene. In the book it adds nothing to the story but we've seen it in The Matrix, we've seen it in TRON and therefore we need it in the film. God knows why but a techno club scene is obligatory in virtual world films.
There's a fair few unintentional ironies with this book/film. The characters in the book think they are on the side of liberty and neutrality but in order to gain any chance of winning the competition, they need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the 80s - music, fashion, films, TV shows, computer games - everything. The OASIS creators are suppressing the ability of people to influence their culture every bit as much as a corporation trying to monetise internet surfing.
The saddest thing about all this is that the 80s was truly a decade of innovation where risks were taken and people looked forward, not back. I can't help but feel that this book was devised in a board room purely to cash in on short-term nostalgia using a tried and tested film template.