ThunderPeel2001

Books, books, books...

Recommended Posts

After reading Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, I have read (almost entirely by coincidence) four other very dissimilar books that, in the reviews at least, have still been compared to Chandler's detective stories: William Gibson's Neuromancer, Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union, Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice and Hakuri Murakami's A Wild Sheep Chase.

Of those, Inherent Vice is by far my favourite. Having read The Crying of Lot 49, I was positively surprised how easy and smooth reading the story of a dope smoking private detective turned out to be – I even laughed out loud. It painted an interesting picture of 60s turning 70s Los Angeles in shadow of the Manson trial. Maybe some day I will have the courage to tackle Gravity's Rainbow which I have long dreamed of reading but whose sheer length and alleged complexity has always warded me off.

A Wild Sheep Chase had its moments but it didn't quite do it for me as a whole. It may well be because of the disconnect between me and Japanese culture and tradition: "oh so you have been calm the entire time, then smashed a guitar, and now you are calm again."

Neuromancer was as entertaining as everybody has been saying. The setting was intriguing to say the least. I assume it's a safe bet to read the rest of the Sprawl trilogy as well, right?

The Yiddish Policemen's Union was somewhat of a disappointment and I often felt bored reading it. Glimpses of Chabon's alleged literary prowess where definitely there though, so I might not give up on him just yet. The insight on Jewish and Yiddish tradition was most interesting thing this novel had to offer. That and this sentence: "There is not a beard to be found on the chins of any of the men in his maternal family, reaching back all the way, no doubt, to the time when Raven created everything (apart from the sun, which he stole)."

The second book is Karl Popper's The Logic Of Scientific Discovery, which I'm reading purely for it's entertainment value to me.

I take it was Kuhn then whose writing is so dense that our lecturer warned us against trying to read his books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like A Wild Sheep Chase, though it felt too random and weird. I ended up loving South of the Border, West of the Sun, though. I want to read Inherent Vice at some point in the future. Neuromancer I plan on reading very soon.

The Yiddish Policemen's Union was somewhat of a disappointment and I often felt bored reading it. Glimpses of Chabon's alleged literary prowess where definitely there though, so I might not give up on him just yet. The insight on Jewish and Yiddish tradition was most interesting thing this novel had to offer. That and this sentence: "There is not a beard to be found on the chins of any of the men in his maternal family, reaching back all the way, no doubt, to the time when Raven created everything (apart from the sun, which he stole)."

This I have to disagree with, though. I thought Yiddish was excellent, a crime novel of ideas. Chess, Judaism, noir, alternate history. The characters are interesting, even Landsman, who is cut from the same fabric as other detectives, but ends-up being woven into something different.

Some things I liked:

- The story structure. It's really quite good at blending plot, story and backstory together in a way that makes it all seamless. Like the whole thing with

Landsman's sister

, which is only brought up midway through the book but hinted at throughout. It made it into a richer experience.

- The motive. I say this as a Middle-Easterner, but the whole backstory that leads to the body being found at the hotel in the first place rang very true to me. It's exactly the way insane religious fundamentalism works.

- The lack of easy answers. I don't know whether or not

Mendel Shpilman really was a Messiah, though characters say he is,

but it's pretty awesome that this becomes irrelevant.

To the terrorists at the end, this is an excuse, not a motive, to invade the Holy Lands

.

- You don't need to have any sort of grasp on Judaism or Hebrew or Yiddish for you to enjoy the book. It helps, but most of it is stuff you pick-up as you go along. It helps if you know some things ("Sholem", which means "peace", being a word used for "gun", which made me laugh a lot), but it's not a requirement. It's more akin to an author making an in-joke to previous books. You'll laugh if you know about it, but it'll just seem like another thing in the book if you don't.

- I'd kill to write prose that good.

Things I didn't like:

- The way the actual crime is solved. Though it's not that relevant in the grand scheme of things, you could honestly write the crime as a crime in a short story collection and people would ignore it. As a police procedural, it's not that great.

- Sometimes there'd be large amounts of prose in the middle of a conversation. You know, Shemets would say something like, "Ah geez, Meyer, what are you calling me in the middle of the fucking night for?" and there's a whole page of Meyer thinking before he bothers responding. By that point, you've forgotten what Shemets said in the first place and have to go back, which kind of harms the suspension of disbelief.

I'm sure I had a lot more to say about the novel, but it's been around eight months since I finished it. All in all, it's a greatgreatgreat book though. One of my favorite crime novels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I've always thought the best ones were the early Rincewind novels (maybe because I remember as a wee lad my friend handing me The Colour of Magic and being besotted). Others that I enjoyed were Eric, Mort. the first Granny Weatherwax one and the one where Carrott(sp?) comes to Ankh-Morpork. The latter ones I can take or leave. Guess I just got bored of his style.

I actually mostly agree with you, so my original post wasn't very well written. I think I'm talking almost exclusively about the Colour of Magic and the Light Fantastic. Their basic concepts are entertaining but I found them very difficult to actually get through and enjoy when I originally read them. Perhaps it would be different now, but I think the books that came after, such as Eric, Mort and Pyramids, were leaps and bounds better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This I have to disagree with, though. I thought Yiddish was excellent, a crime novel of ideas. Chess, Judaism, noir, alternate history. The characters are interesting, even Landsman, who is cut from the same fabric as other detectives, but ends-up being woven into something different.

Can't recommend Inherent Vice enough (although I have no idea if you will like it).

Yeah, it's still a good book, maybe just not as good as I expected from all the nice things that have been said about it (by you among others). Landsman was indeed a very interesting crime novel character with his little phobias and deep affection for his sister.*

I was actually quite shocked to find the back cover to contain spoilers from the latter half of the book, namely that

Landsman's sister was murdered

. Very odd decision.

Like I said, I was occasionally quite bored by the long-winded descriptions and the plot that took it very slow for the most parts. A big part of the problem was that I read the book between Neuromancer and Inherent Vice at the time when I needed a quick 20 page fix of interesting things before going to bed after a long day of studies and work (and no play).

I had missed the "sholem" thing although I should be familiar with the word. Thanks! I wasn't aware of the Eruv before I read the book. Such a silly and interesting habit.

*I actually haven't read enough crime novels to know if he is at all interesting character in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, Landsman's unique. He's clearly influenced by Philip Marlowe but he stands out on his own.

Also, yeah, too bad you read the synopsis. I avoid them for that very reason. 90% of the time I pick up a novel I have no idea what it's about - just how I like it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, yeah, too bad you read the synopsis. I avoid them for that very reason. 90% of the time I pick up a novel I have no idea what it's about - just how I like it. :)

This is becoming quite a problem for me. Usually the back cover texts don't give away too much (I generally don't mind first 20 pages or so being spoiled) but as I buy most of the books online I have to find information about the contents from other sources. I'm quite slow reader (one book in a bit less than a month on average) so I feel like I can't afford to just pick a book without knowing anything about its setting or theme – I don't want to spend my month reading about wedding planning or(and) torture.

Wikipedia is often quite good at giving only very general information in the first part and having the plot summary in its own section, but that is not always the case. Amazon and other shopping sites, on the other hand, are often very poor ways of discovering new books. Furthermore, my friends have yet to earn my trust when it comes to taste, and I wouldn't snatch a book solely by their recommendation.

This reminds me that I forgot to comment on the books everyone should read visualization I posted. This one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/information-beautiful-books-read-100#zoomed-picture

I have read 10 of those. Many of the other ones, especially the old classics, I have no intention of reading. That Oliver Twist quote from a couple of pages ago is a good example of what puts me off in many of the older novels. I quit listening to the audiobooks available at Project Gutenberg website after realizing that more often than not, I was just boring myself*. I even left Around the World in 80 Days unfinished with two chapters remaining because I simply didn't give a fuck what happens to the cold, hollow (and strangely, lion-headed) man, Phileas Fogg and his manservant of whose intelligence is conveniently in accord with his lower social class.

*Sherlock Holmes audiobooks are excellent, though, and not only because of the excellent narrator whose voice has shaped my image of the Real Sherlock Holmes™ irreversibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sherlock Holmes audiobooks are excellent, though, and not only because of the excellent narrator whose voice has shaped my image of the Real Sherlock Holmes™ irreversibly.

Ohhhh, must try those some time. I can honestly say Sherlock Holmes is probably my second or third favorite character ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohhhh, must try those some time. I can honestly say Sherlock Holmes is probably my second or third favorite character ever.

Be sure to pick the right one since there might be two or more versions of some of them. You will know which one is the right one (hint: he is not a computer or suffering from painful puberty).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who know what I'm talking about:

What the hell is Bast's angle? The ending of Day 2 has had me mighty confused/worried for a while now. Speculate, go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't remember that much about Bast, I always forget details soon after reading. I also enjoyed Name of the Wind quite a bit. Other recent fantasy stuff I've liked is The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie, or at least the first two books (The Blade Itself, Before They Are Hanged). I was lucky picking both that series and Name of the Wind from bookstores, as they were good, but I almost never finish mediocre* novels so I have a hard time finding new stuff to read just by browsing bookstores. There used to be a great local review site, but new books just don't get added to it often nowadays and people can't submit reviews :(

I guess I should read this thread more :) Also, I've read 20 books from that cloud, guess I should read more. Second the notion that Monte Cristo should be on that list.

* what I personally consider mediocre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The First Law books are great, Joe Abercrombie has also written a couple of stand alone novels within the same world, entitled Best Served Cold and the Heroes. I have read both and recommend them wholeheartedly, with the caveat that the Heroes does deal with events that sprung from the First Law trilogy so you're probably better off reading those first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fair for them to spoil it like that! My friend loves Penny Arcade and the Patrick Rothfuss novels. Why should he have the series spoiled because the book won't arrive here for another few months? :( Shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can stop reading at "A Day In The Life Of Kvothe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This blog post [edit: d'oh, fixed link] by Roger Ebert is relevant and interesting. Kind of makes you wonder about all the great writers you don't know about.

I'll name two unjustly overlooked writers: Frank Norris (McTeague, The Pit; incidentally, available on Gutenberg) and Charles Willeford (Miami Blues, Cockfighter).

Edited by Kroms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll name two unjustly overlooked writers: Frank Norris (McTeague, The Pit; incidentally, available on Gutenberg) and Charles Willeford (Miami Blues, Cockfighter).

I don't want to pick a fight but you should probably mention why you think they deserve to be examined more carefully!

For the last week or so I've been reading Ray Monk's excellent The Duty of a Genius, a biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein that aims to bridge the life of Wittgenstein with his philosophical thinking. The narrative is mesmerizing but I have to confess that I don't fully understand all the philosophical concepts Monk tries to explain. I believe that I lack the philosophical training, or perhaps I just should have kept hitting my head against the wall until something broke. I'd recommend it to anyone in a heartbeat though.

?SWBMDA5OTg4MzcwOA==

Now I've got V and Viceland by Pynchon lined up, along with a collection of W. H. Auden's late poetry and the last two "books" of Bolano's 2666. So many things to read and so little time!

Oh, and I'm 2 down out of 52 so far... Figure I should keep record somewhere to make it somewhat official!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished Neuromancer. I liked it, and I am able to see how important it was for its time, but honestly it was a bit hard to get through. Someone, anyone, should've told William Gibson about exposition, and maybe cut out a few dozen of the prevalent, unnecessary, annoying adjectives that riddle the prose so much. Overall, it's a pretty good book.

Are the sequels any good? (Thunderpeel, I believe you're a fan! :))

I don't want to pick a fight but you should probably mention why you think they deserve to be examined more carefully!

Heh, why fight? It's 1. the internet, and 2. a perfectly valid question.

I suggested Frank Norris for the fact that he wrote, made people angry and didn't care - he broke the rules and that was that. His stories are also compelling in the same way that Jonathan Franzen's books are: examining characters in an interesting way, providing insight, but with a feeling of plot. If it'll help you decide, the excellent 1924 film Greed was an adaptation of McTeague. The books are out of copyright and for free on Gutenberg, so why not try reading a bit and seeing what you like?

As for Charles Willeford, he was a man whose misgivings about humans were put into his work. His early stuff is a lot more brooding and brutal, his later books - especially the Hoke Moseley stuff - more humourous, but interesting characters and rich, complex plots. Miami Blues is one of the greatgreatgreat crime novels, and hardly anyone's ever read it. I have the sequels on my bookshelf, and will get around to reading them soon.

Edited by Kroms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone, anyone, should've told William Gibson about exposition

What do you mean by this, that there wasn't enough of it or too much of it? I didn't feel either to be the case with Neuromancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently reading William Gibson's Pattern Recognition. Very interesting and fresh setting and I'm enjoying it quite a lot. My biggest problem reading it in English is that every once in a while there is a strange term that I don't know and have to look for someplace, only to find out that it's explained a couple of sentences or paragraphs later. To some extend, the same goes for character backgrounds and things like that. Mildly annoying but I can live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by this, that there wasn't enough of it or too much of it? I didn't feel either to be the case with Neuromancer.

The book kind of chucks you into this sci-fi setting without bothering to explain who did what to whom and why. There's topics ranging from programming and Asian geography to Rastafarianism, Alan Turing and drug-related street rips. The book also occasionally jumps ahead in time mid-paragraph - sometimes to emphasize the surprise characters are experiencing (like when

the gardening robot kills the three Turing police

), but in others just to seem hip or edgy in a way that comes off as hokey and reads as confusing (like when

Case first sees meets Molly, and she tells him his Hitachi was stolen by Linda Lee; I had to read that page three times to understand it

).

Also, he's a crap dialogue writer. A lot of exposition is delivered by dialogue, but the stuff is so awkward it needs a couple of re-reads to start making sense. It's desperately wanting to be cool, but unfailingly coming short.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good book. It may have needed some work in the editing department, though.

Edited by Kroms
Fix'd them spoiler tags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The book kind of chucks you into this sci-fi setting without bothering to explain who did what to whom and why. There's topics ranging from programming and Asian geography to Rastafarianism, Alan Turing and drug-related street rips. The book also occasionally jumps ahead in time mid-paragraph - sometimes to emphasize the surprise characters are experiencing (like when [spoilers]the gardening robot kills the three Turing police[/spoilers]), but in others just to seem hip or edgy in a way that comes off as hokey and reads as confusing (like when [spoilers]Case first sees meets Molly, and she tells him his Hitachi was stolen by Linda Lee; I had to read that page three times to understand it[/spoilers]).

Also, he's a crap dialogue writer. A lot of exposition is delivered by dialogue, but the stuff is so awkward it needs a couple of re-reads to start making sense. It's desperately wanting to be cool, but unfailingly coming short.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good book. It may have needed some work in the editing department, though.

I think that was its kind of "beat" stylings (Burroughs, etc.), but I don't remember having those problems, to be honest. Although the book definitely dumps you into the middle of stuff with little or no explanation, I can only assume it was a very stylistic choice. (I remember wondering what the fuck a SimStim was when I read it at 18.) If anything I've always been disappointed by the lack of urgency (and maybe lack of style) in Gibson's other work. Also, I think he was well aware of his failings with characterisation, and so worked hard in other books to make them more "realistic", but I've always felt they just became bland when he tried to do that.

For all its flaws, there's a stunning energy running through Neuromancer that I loved, it can be a great world to visit.

As for sequels, I've never read any of the direct Sprawl continuations (different characters, same world) but I asked about them here:

http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6413&page=17#410

Which is the most relevant part of a Neuromancer discussion which started here:

http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6413&page=16#387

The Sprawl short story Burning Chrome is fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember wondering what the fuck a SimStim was when I read it at 18.

That I specifically DO remember and I thought it was a neat way to do things. In the same sense that you wouldn't expect a novel written and set in the present day to explain what a telephone or television is, it presents these bits of tech as commonplace and trusts the reader to pick up enough from context to keep on trucking. I think that lends the telling an immersiveness that you lose if you explain them.

That's just with regard to tech though, not to say anything about exposition/lack of exposition with regard to plot points which, frankly, I don't remember as clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although the book definitely dumps you into the middle of stuff with little or no explanation, I can only assume it was a very stylistic choice. (I remember wondering what the fuck a SimStim was when I read it at 18.)

It is a stylistic choice, and used well in some places. I appreciate that he doesn't explain every little thing and just kind of works up enough context throughout the book in the hopes you'll understand it, but there's large sections where you just don't know what's going on even in terms of plot. The major one is when Case meets Molly. You have no idea if Linda's there, not there, doing what and why. It's just happening and confusing and I can't help but think it's supposed to be mysterious but ends-up clumsy.

It's definitely a book that benefits from a re-read, but I've got too many others to pick up right now. Maybe at some point in the future. Still, it's a good book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm currently reading William Gibson's Pattern Recognition. Very interesting and fresh setting and I'm enjoying it quite a lot. My biggest problem reading it in English is that every once in a while there is a strange term that I don't know and have to look for someplace, only to find out that it's explained a couple of sentences or paragraphs later. To some extend, the same goes for character backgrounds and things like that. Mildly annoying but I can live with it.

Just finished reading that last month. I totally agree about the undefined terms.

CPU = Cayce Pollard Units = "cute" term for pieces of clothing stripped of brand labels and not the standard tech acronym for "Central Processing Unit"

confused the hell out of me until he actually explained it. And I got really sick of how many times he used "mirror world" by the end.

I appreciated a few of the things he was trying to do in the book, like show some of the negative effects of saturating the public in brands and advertising, making a cyber thriller that acknowledges the presence of apophenia in the world, and the whole F:F:F subplot rings very true with modern Alternate Reality Game culture and general nerd fandom. And I really like how he handles Boone Chu,

who at first seems to fit the stereotype of the suave, knowledgeable spy-partner-turned-love-interest, but then turns out to be such a complete poser and has absolutely no romantic contact with Cayce whatsoever.

The book tends to get into spurts where it narrates solely in sentence fragments, particularly when the protagonist is jetlagged, which is a neat effect, but not entirely smooth to read. Never really felt the stakes were that high until almost towards the end, which made the middle drag on a bit.

All-in-all I found it interesting. Not a classic, but I enjoyed it by the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now