Last Book You Read....

[scottsdad]

Stephen King is, to me, like quite a few authors that lost it a bit as the years went by. Try reading some late era Tom Clancy or Alistair MacLean and you'll see what I mean. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Stephen King is, to me, like quite a few authors that lost it a bit as the years went by. Try reading some late era Tom Clancy or Alistair MacLean and you'll see what I mean. 

Tbh, I never really enjoyed Clancy - he had a habit of regurgitating his research unfiltered. I think, as well, he was an early adopter (and McLean certainly was) of the tactic of lending his name to work by lesser writers who simpy got a "co-author" credit*. Quite a few later "mcLean" books weren't written when he died. The coincidence of McNeill being very like McLean, especially on the front of a paperback thriller, can't have done sales any harm. The current champion of this exciting opportunity for aspiring authors (or "fucking scam" as i call it) is James Patterson, who has lent his name to an incredible number of putative "collaborations". You'd struggle to read all the books carrying his name, let alone write them.

* can't work out what "created by, but not written by" actually means in terms of something which consists of words which are written, but hey ho..

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

1 hour ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

The latest Stephen King - Billy Summers - is worth a look. As with most King in recent years, the quality goes up in inverse proportion to the supernatural element, so you'll be glad to hear there's not so much as a haunted tricycle present. Not his best*, but a good yarn nonetheless.

*He has given us The Body, The Green Mile, The Long Walk, Misery, and so many others, so this is not a major criticism.

Love a bit of King. Have been building uo my 1st edt hardcovers from him the last few years, replacing all the soft covers I have. Got probably most(ish) of his from the last 20 years on 1st edt as they came out for gifts for my late mum, she was a big fan who got me into him when I was about 9 or 10.

[scottsdad]

1 minute ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Tbh, I never really enjoyed Clancy - he had a habit of regurgitating his research unfiltered. I think, as well, he was an early adopter (and McLean certainly was) of the tactic of lending his name to work by lesser writers who simpy got a "co-author" credit*. Quite a few later "mcLean" books weren't written when he died. The coincidence of McNeill being very like McLean, especially on the front of a paperback thriller, can't have done sales any harm. The current champion of this exciting opportunity for aspiring authors (or "fucking scam" as i call it) is James Patterson, who has lent his name to an incredible number of putative "collaborations". You'd struggle to read all the books carrying his name, let alone write them.

* can't work out what "created by, but not written by" actually means in terms of something which consists of words which are written, but hey ho..

I enjoyed the Jack Ryan books and the Rainbow Six books, but by the time we're getting to Jack Ryan Junior that was too much. His dialogue went down the tubes 

"Hey man, we made it."

"You can hang a roger on that, bro." and so on.

Totally agree about the authors "with". Wilbur Smith has been at it for years also:

David Churchill is actually a very good author in his own right. But clearly there is more money to be made by doing it this way.

The only books I thought were improved by this kind of collaboration were the Rama books by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. Here, they were up front in the afterword of the books about how they were written, and that collaboration worked well as Clarke was great with the sci fi stuff but rubbish at characters, and Lee was good with characters. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

I enjoyed the Jack Ryan books and the Rainbow Six books, but by the time we're getting to Jack Ryan Junior that was too much. His dialogue went down the tubes 

"Hey man, we made it."

"You can hang a roger on that, bro." and so on.

Totally agree about the authors "with". Wilbur Smith has been at it for years also:

David Churchill is actually a very good author in his own right. But clearly there is more money to be made by doing it this way.

The only books I thought were improved by this kind of collaboration were the Rama books by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. Here, they were up front in the afterword of the books about how they were written, and that collaboration worked well as Clarke was great with the sci fi stuff but rubbish at characters, and Lee was good with characters. 

I can think only of one where the end result could stand comparison with BOTH authors, and that was "Good Omens". I know there's a lot of Terry Pratchett fans out there (and he's not undersold in this), but for those who haven't sampled Neil Gaiman elsewhere, he's a prodigious talent - not so much a Fantasy author, just a writer who doesn't let reality get in the way of a good story. This, for me, was also a rare example of a TV adaptation getting it right for a change (Tennant and Sheen being mates helped, I think). I spent months wandering around muttering, "don't f**k it up, Amazon. Just don't f**k it up" before it finally landed.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

On Wibur Smith, I had a feeling his name had been used by others for a while, but to be honest I stopped reading him when I realised what a colonialist, right wing sexual pervert he actually was. Good storyteller, but when you go back and re-read some of his stuff when you're aware more of actual African History...

[scottsdad]

I really enjoyed Smith's books first time around. The depth of the stories, the characters and the research all came through. But after a while you realise that much of it has the same premise. 

Handsome adventurer seeking to become rich. A black stereotype as his sidekick, who adores the main character and would do anything for him. A fantastically gorgeous woman or two for the handsome man to plough through. A lucky turn, wealth, power and often some kind of gunfight with groups of natives or communists, or both. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

I really enjoyed Smith's books first time around. The depth of the stories, the characters and the research all came through. But after a while you realise that much of it has the same premise. 

Handsome adventurer seeking to become rich. A black stereotype as his sidekick, who adores the main character and would do anything for him. A fantastically gorgeous woman or two for the handsome man to plough through. A lucky turn, wealth, power and often some kind of gunfight with groups of natives or communists, or both. 

Yep, kinda sums it up for me. Whether female, black, communist, or any other type of protagonist, most supporting parts could have been played in the movie by their own cardboard cut-out. Writing something with the complexity of a Gary Jennings or (shudder) James Clavell would have been beyond him. I reckon Clavell depicted the contemporary attitudes towards women and minorities - Smith actually endorsed them (or mourned their passing. Or that's the way it felt. 

[Ya Bezzer!]

On 13/10/2021 at 20:13, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I finished Rabbit is Rich by John Updike the other night. Was recommended the Rabbit novels by someone on here after finishing the Frank Bascombe series (@YaBezzer maybe?).

Wisnae me mate!

I try and read 20 novels per year and we are quite far into October and so far I've read.....eh.....2.

Shocking stuff but I've had a lot of other things on the go this year.  

1. 'The Peregrine' by J. A. Baker.

This probably isn't for everyone as there is no real story and it focuses on a man's obsessive and repetitive raptor spotting lifestyle (in a sense it kind of reminded me of Huysman's 'Against Nature', although the actual topic is completely different). However I loved it.  Amazing descriptions of wildlife and landscape.  And the end  was surprisingly emotional.  It won't draw everyone in, a lot of it seems the same but I think makes more sense over the span of the book as the different seasons drift by, but if you like non traditional novels this might be up your alley, or perhaps more fittingly, down your hedgerow.

2. 'Moth To The Flame' by Stig Dagermann

I tend to read bleak literature, so that wasn't the problem, but this was a tough read.  Just didn't like the style of the writing and since everyone in Scandinavia loves Dagermann and it was obvious there was some real philosophical depth behind the writing, I think this was an example of a failed translation.  The kind of book where you could pull all sorts of great quotes, even passages out of it but as a whole it just didn't click with me and to be honest despite being just over 200 pages it was a bit of a slog. 

Currently reading 'Darkness At Noon' by Arthur Koestler which means I'm reading 2 suicidal authors in a row!  

And obviously I'm not going to hit 20 novels this year but 10 maybe?  Want to get back into the swing of things.  So many books, so little life.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Ya Bezzer!

[Craig fae the Vale]

On 13/10/2021 at 22:12, Oystercatcher said:

Do audiobooks count?

At work, I've went from listening to the radio to podcasts and now onto audiobooks.

Love it, especially when it's the person that wrote the book, reading it.

In the last 2 months I've listened to

Shuggie Bain

At home, a short history of everything by Bill Bryson

Kidnapped, Robert Louis Stevenson ( he wasn't reading it)

The midnight library by Matt Haig

And away Bob Mortimer

The templars Dan Jones

 

Currently listening to 

The story teller by Dave grohl, thoroughly enjoying it

About half of what I read is on audio. I have a bit of a commute and listen in the car. Also currently got Dave Grohl on the go. He just radiates joy.

[Clockwork]

Just started Mayflies by Andrew O’Hagan set in Ayrshire in 1986. A couple of chapters in, but finding it a little slow and waiting for it to ignite. Any other P&B’ ers read it, is it worth persevering with?

[NotThePars]

On 13/10/2021 at 20:13, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

What do you make of Conversations with Friends so far? I had mixed thoughts tbh - on the one hand there were some memorable moments and good turns of phrase etc but on the other, and maybe it's shallow of me, I found it very difficult to enjoy a book when all of the characters were so unlikeable - poseurs and ponces as you say. Haven't read Normal People yet but other folk have told me it is better, will no doubt get to it at some point.

I finished Rabbit is Rich by John Updike the other night. Was recommended the Rabbit novels by someone on here after finishing the Frank Bascombe series (@YaBezzer maybe?) and they have steadily improved. Big fan of how Rabbit is just objectively a really unpleasant guy but it's possible to wind up sympathising with him. Finally thinking he's getting his opportunity to shag his pal's younger wife before his exasperating adult son fucks it up for him and he has to go home to sort the situation out was quite a good moment. Best thing I've read for quite a long time tbh, looking forward to the next in the series.

I finished Conversations just there. I think it's definitely a more well-written and better structured novel than Normal people but I dunno if I could say I preferred it. I know what you mean about the characters being unlikeable. They were, as ever, very relatable but I just thought Marianne and Connell hit much harder. 

Both very enjoyable though. Will pick up the next one after I finish Roadside Picnic. It's Stalktober, baby!

[NotThePars]

15 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Good shout to move on to. The film is on my to watch list but found the ending in particular of the book quite affecting. Don't know how similar they are, hope you enjoy it.

A podcast I listen to a lot are doing them all so it's a good excuse to finally get through them. I have been thinking a lot about them recently in the context of adaptations and I think they're good examples of what I personally want from an adaptation namely not being an exact replica. I think that's why I'm so fond of the Annihilation movie for example. Just read the source material and go wild with it, imo. I think Stalker and Roadside are the same. Apart from The Zone everything else seems changed.

[Game of throw-ins]

29 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

Just started Mayflies by Andrew O’Hagan set in Ayrshire in 1986. A couple of chapters in, but finding it a little slow and waiting for it to ignite. Any other P&B’ ers read it, is it worth persevering with?

It's very much a book of two halves.  The first half is about the establishment of a friendship, the second about the effect on it of a diagnosis of terminal illness. 

I think how you respond to the first half depends a lot on whether you were in your late teens or early 20s at around the same time as the characters in the novel, and whether you can identify with them, or at least recognise them as being like people you knew.  Folk I know who come into that category have loved the first half of the book, because it's so evocative of being a music obsessed/slightly alternative/arty youngster leading a full-on social life in the Scotland of that era.

There's a real switch in the second half as the book becomes a lot more serious. 

I know people who absolutely loved the first half but thought the second half, though well done, was a bit too bleak to be enjoyable;  also people who thought the first half was a bit so-what but the second half was deeply moving.

I've recommended it to some people and would suggest you persevere, but it does seem to be one of those books that different people can have very different reactions to.

[Clockwork]

It's very much a book of two halves.  The first half is about the establishment of a friendship, the second about the effect on it of a diagnosis of terminal illness. 
I think how you respond to the first half depends a lot on whether you were in your late teens or early 20s at around the same time as the characters in the novel, and whether you can identify with them, or at least recognise them as being like people you knew.  Folk I know who come into that category have loved the first half of the book, because it's so evocative of being a music obsessed/slightly alternative/arty youngster leading a full-on social life in the Scotland of that era.
There's a real switch in the second half as the book becomes a lot more serious. 
I know people who absolutely loved the first half but thought the second half, though well done, was a bit too bleak to be enjoyable;  also people who thought the first half was a bit so-what but the second half was deeply moving.
I've recommended it to some people and would suggest you persevere, but it does seem to be one of those books that different people can have very different reactions to.

Many thanks, think I’ll stick with it. Cheers

[Antlion]

Finishing Ken Follett’s mammoth “Fall of Giants”, set around and during the First World War. Like all of his big epics, it’s a story of various characters and families whose paths cross (too conveniently, in this case) against a big, glossy historical backdrop.

I have to say, it was, like his others, a really easy read. However, I can’t see why he is so lauded as a historical novelist. Throughout, the characters (fun and cartoonish as they were) felt and spoke in ways that never made it *feel* like you were watching folk in the 1910s. It felt more like a soapy, softcore Downton Abbey - lots of references to historical events but “modern” characters who felt more like they were acting against a backdrop rather than authentically part of a historical world.

Does anyone have suggestions for novels set in this period that capture the feeling of it (and its people) more authentically? Interesting era but I’d like something more immersive than superficial.

[Cosmic Joe]

Re-reading Only a Game by Eamonn Dunphy. 

Still the best football book, although The Footballer who could Fly runs it close. 

[Richey Edwards]

On 14/10/2021 at 14:37, WhiteRoseKillie said:

The latest Stephen King - Billy Summers - is worth a look. As with most King in recent years, the quality goes up in inverse proportion to the supernatural element, so you'll be glad to hear there's not so much as a haunted tricycle present. Not his best*, but a good yarn nonetheless.

*He has given us The Body, The Green Mile, The Long Walk, Misery, and so many others, so this is not a major criticism.

I like Stephen King but some of his books get very strange.

[scottsdad]

14 hours ago, Antlion said:

Finishing Ken Follett’s mammoth “Fall of Giants”, set around and during the First World War. Like all of his big epics, it’s a story of various characters and families whose paths cross (too conveniently, in this case) against a big, glossy historical backdrop.

I have to say, it was, like his others, a really easy read. However, I can’t see why he is so lauded as a historical novelist. Throughout, the characters (fun and cartoonish as they were) felt and spoke in ways that never made it *feel* like you were watching folk in the 1910s. It felt more like a soapy, softcore Downton Abbey - lots of references to historical events but “modern” characters who felt more like they were acting against a backdrop rather than authentically part of a historical world.

Does anyone have suggestions for novels set in this period that capture the feeling of it (and its people) more authentically? Interesting era but I’d like something more immersive than superficial.

I read these books too and got the exact same feeling. 

A better series on a similar vein would the the Tears series by Paul Henke. It goes from the 1880s to World War 2, and like Follett's books starts in a Welsh mining village but for me these were much deeper, richer and better written. 

 

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

I read these books too and got the exact same feeling. 

A better series on a similar vein would the the Tears series by Paul Henke. It goes from the 1880s to World War 2, and like Follett's books starts in a Welsh mining village but for me these were much deeper, richer and better written. 

 

Superb - will look them up. Cheers!