Wednesday, June 29, 2016

#41: The Fellowship of the Ring Review

 
    
     I have a whole lot of nostalgia for these books, having been read them by my dad when I couldn't read, and having watched the movies a good hundred times (especially the 1977 Hobbit, which, incidentally, remains the best Tolkien adaptation ever). So after a fair gap of time, I felt I was ready to revisit the classic series which changed much of how fantasy literature is written. Does it remain the ultimate epic of the genre, or is it overrated?
     The plot is one most everyone knows: a hobbit named Frodo is given a magical ring that must be cast into the fire of Mt. Doom to defeat the dark lord Sauron, whose life force is held within the ring. assisting him in his efforts are Gandalf the wizard, Aragorn the ranger/king, Legolas the elf, Gimli the dwarf, Boromir the fighting man of Gondor, Sam the gardener, and Merry & Pippin, comedic hobbit duo. They go through many adventures and whatnot while slowly making their way to Morodor. Now that is a desperately condensed summary, but if you want to know more, go read the Wikipedia page, or, heaven forbid, the book.
     What I feel has always separated Tolkien from the other great fantasy writers (Zelazny, Vance, Leiber, Ashton Smith) is his world building. No one before or since has ever matched this. Essentially, what Tolkien does here is not create a book, but create an entire mythology which runs this world. He does this through the tales, the songs, the characters, and the settings; in no other work of fantasy I have read has their been this much effort into creating a believable world, and Tolkien pulls this feat off quite well.
    Unfortunately, this is a quality of Tolkien I can appreciate more than I actually like. I can see the monumental work he has done and I am quite impressed by it, but I do not fell I really needed to know the history of every race. It is neat stuff, but any time there is a long and lengthy explanation of some aspect of the world, it just bogs down the story. While things such as the Shire,  the Council of Elrond and Tom Bombadil are interesting, they bring the story to a screeching halt and seem like an unnecessary detour.
     I will say this is more my preference than anything. Some people regard this world building as being the most important aspect of a story, whereas I think the most important things are character and story. The reason The Dying Earth and Lord of Light remain my favorite works in the genre is because they have edge of your seat storytelling and characters that you can root for and enjoy. While Tolkien's story and characters are good, they feel almost incidental, more of a vehicle for him to show off his world than anything else. The former two works are certainly not as detailed about their world as Tolkien is, but they provide enough detail to give the reader a good sense of place and then use that as a way to tell interesting and compelling stories.
     From all of this, it may sound as though I do not like the book, which would be quite a false impression. I do enjoy the book as the parts of the story that work do work quite well. The trip through the Mines of Moria remains one of the best sequences in all of Fantasy Literature and the characters do play off one another nicely, even if they are a tad simplistic at times. The language is beautiful and descriptive, working splendidly as the steed through which we are shown the world.
     The Fellowship of the Ring is a hard book for me to review. For my taste it has major story telling problems, such as spending far to much time in the Shire at the beginning, to many strange and pointless detours. The world building is phenomenal, but a lot of it is unnecessary in my opinion. Yet the whole thing still rather works in spite of these flaws and it remains a good book. Perhaps undeserving of its title of greatest fantasy book ever written, yet nevertheless, good. This opinion might not be popular, but then again, neither am I.
Note: I listened to the audiobook version of this read by Rob Ingles. It was competently done, though nothing spectacular. Then again I was measuring him against Christopher Lee's version of Children of Hurin, so that was a hard standard.
Overall:     6/10
-Captain Joshua
Next Time: The Two Towers

Friday, June 24, 2016

Signs You Might be an English Major #27

When you are reading an assignment from your Literature Professor and you start to circle all the grammar errors she made.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Don Juan Reaction Part 3


 
"Who's the 18th century poet whose a love to all the chicks?"
Byron!
"Ya Darn Right!"

     I just completed the fifth canto. Byron probably has the best way with descriptions, as when he is talking about a beautiful lady, he decides to basically say, "This lady was so hot that if I could perfectly write about her, you would all go blind! So thank goodness I am not very talented".
     He also introduces a great side character, who when Juan complains about how they are slaves, (long story) he replies, "Aren't we, like, all slaves man? Just to, like, different masters?"
      Sadly there were no insults at Wordsworth in this one, but hopefully that muse shall speak to Byron again.
Side note: I found out there is a book about Byron and his pet bear solving crime while at college. I must have this.

In Other News...



Nixon celebrates another victory as it took those Dirty Russian Commies 44 years to catch up to him when it came to spying on the DNC.
-Captain Joshua

Monday, June 13, 2016

Words to Live by:

"Don't become just another vending machine death statistic"
Captain Joshua

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Life Goal 37

I get a job at Kellogg Cereal, and slowly work my way up the ladder until I become President. I then have Grape flavored Frosted Flakes produced, and in the ad for them, Tony says, "They're Grape!"
Many Apologies,
-Captain Joshua

Monday, June 6, 2016

A Terrible Joke

Why did nuns start wearing the dark outfits?

Homage to Catalonia Review

George Orwell with his master (Orwell was really a dog)


     I started this book last winter, but had to return it to the library before I could finish it and thus have been in suspense for about six months as to who would win the Spanish Civil War. If you are looking for a deep account of that conflict, this is probably not for you. It is half a journal by Orwell about his time in the war and the other half is some commentary about the events of the war, with his putting great focus on how the war and the socialist party were distorted by the press of other countries.
     One of Orwell's key distinctions as a writer has always been a very journalistic form of description. This serves him well here, as he is able to make even the seemingly mundane conditions of trench warfare fascinating. It also works quite well when he is writing his commentary on the situation as it makes his complaints seem well founded and not petulant.
     The story is most interesting when Orwell writes of the inter-workings of the three sides of the resistance. The Spanish Civil War was such an odd conflict, with Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists teaming up to try and stop Franco and his fascist army, yet the conflict among the three groups of resistance seems to overshadow the actual war, with the Communists slowly wresting power away from the others before turning on them while soldiers from all three were still at the front seeking to halt Franco.
     Some of Orwell's opinion pieces do get a bit long however. They are certainly interesting, but always seem to be interrupting the actual plot and I frequently found myself skimming over these parts. They are not bad, but are just lesser.
    The book is a pretty good account of both war and politics, though not history. Orwell's style works well here, and the book reads quite well, though occasionally it gets a tad boring. Probably not worth waiting six months for, but a good book nevertheless. Overall: 7/10
-Captain Joshua

Big Recap of my Reading so far...

     Some of you (Yes I know no one is reading) may have noted I listed my first book review as being #39. This is because I read 38 books previously this year (duh) but of course I was not blogging at that time. However, I do keep records, so I will give you a quick recap of them all for your informative pleasure:
1. Hot Lunch-Alex "John Hughes" Bradley: This was a fun school drama from the modern master of such fare. 7.5/10
2. The Rithian Terror-Damon "the critic" Knight: This was a rather boring science-fiction mystery. Knight is an obviously brilliant fellow as his essays demonstrate, but this was certainly not a good outing for him.
3. The Making of the President 1972-Theodore "Ted" H. White: I loved the '68 volume of this series, but this was rather dull due to the fact that the outcome is so obvious that it just loses steam after McGovern wins the nomination. 6/10
4. The Illustrated Man-Ray "how bizarre" Bradbury: This is a classic. It deserves that label. 8.5/10
5. The Golden Helix (anthology): Theodore " how bizarre" Sturgeon: It's Sturgeon, so its really weird. 5.4/10
6. Great Cases of the Thinking Machine-Jacques "Titanic" Futrelle: Not bad, but a bit predictable. 6/10
7. To Seek a Newer World-Robert F. Kennedy: Basically, RFK on "the issues". Still rather timely, sadly. 6.5/10
8. Twelfth Night-William "the bard" Shakespeare: I know its beloved, but I didn't find it all that funny, nor the characters all that likeable. 4/10
9. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn-Mark "jumping frog" Twain: Classic. 9/10
10: Julius Caesar-William "That's not a word? well it is now!" Shakespeare: Good drama with some lovely speeches. 8/10
11. The Making of the President 1960-Theodore H. "No I'm not T.H. White" White: Better and is evenly represented between the two condidates. 7/10
12, The Night Land-William "bodybuilder" Hope Hodgson: I got this on a whim and it was an intense, arcane, bizarre, Clark Ashton Smith esq rollercoaster. 9/10.
13. In a Glass Darkly-Joseph Sheridan "Carmilla" Le Fanu: A nice little horror collection. 6/10
14. The Monk-Matthew "The Monk" Lewis: Very uneven, with the stuff with the actual Monk being terrific, but the lengthy sub-plot about being forced into a life of nunnery, yawn inducing. 6.5/10
15: The Winter's Tale-William "I don't really care what you think" Shakespeare: Good, if a bit odd. 6/10.
16: T.E. Lawrence-Peter "No nickname" Brent: A good account of the life of Lawrence of Arabia. 7.5/10,
17: Selected Poems of Byron-Lord "Wordsworth stinks" Byron: A tremendous collection of poetry that is probably the best I have ever read, with "Darkness" being the big standout. 9/10
18. Pygmalion-George "I'm Shakespeare in the flesh" Bernard Shaw: A neat little play, but not a whole lot to it. 6/10.
19. The Picture of Dorian Gray-Oscar "the grouch" Wilde: Less horror than I thought, but a great book of social commentary. 8/10
20. Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography-Theodore "rage against the machine" Roosevelt: A neat biography about one of the most fascinating presidents we had. It loses steam near the end, but still good. 7.5/10
21. The Odd Number-Guy "I am so French" De Maupassant: A nice collection of mostly realistic stories, often with a neat punch line. 7/10.
22. Kefauver: A Political Biography-Joseph "I don't know" Gorman: A neat book about one of the neatest senators to have held the office. 7/10,
23. The Eye of Osiris-R. Austin Freeman: I like Dr. Thorndyke, but this one was kind of boring and I guessed the solution half way through. But there was a nice romance in it, so 5/10.
24. The Big Jump-Leigh "I married up" Brackett: A disappointing entry from Brackett, though that might be partially my bias against hard boiled type mysteries. 5/10
25. The Moonlit Road-Ambrose "I mock you" Bierce: A collection of ghost tales. Sadly, these lack the trademark Bierce wit. 6/10
26. The Immortals-James "still alive" Gunn: Its a sci-fi patch up novel with great social commentary and engaging characters and plot, that is my jam. 9/10
27. Where the Evil Dwells-Clifford "My most famous book is actually about dogs" Simak: A travelogue fantasy that falls into the pitfall of that sub-genre, being dull and feeling like the characters are just being led around until Simak gets bored and decides to finish it. 3/10.
28. Big Planet-Jack "The Dying Earth" Vance: A good travelogue fantasy with neat characters and an amazing setting. 7/10.
29. The Best of Cordwainer Smith-Cordwainer "freakin weird": This is a sci-fi collection wholly unlike anything else I have ever read. The stories are vivid, bizarre, and usually good. It is weighed down by a few clunkers, but still good stuff. Overall 7.25/10
30. A Case of Conscience- James "The jagged blade" Blish: The first 80 pages are some of the best science fiction I have ever read. The last 120 pages are dull and uninspired. 6/10
31. The Journey of Joenes-Robert "bwa-ha-ha" Sheckley: This is the funniest thing I have read in a long while. 9.5/10
32. City at Worlds End-Edmond "The greatest science fiction writer of all time" Hamilton: This is the most Hamilton novel I have read with all his themes on full display. It is this familiarity that made me enjoy it a bit less, but if this was the first time I reading Hamilton, I would probably have given it the full ten. 8/10.
33. The Circus of Dr. Lao-Charles "not the son of a preacher man" G. Finny: Its a circus. 7/10
34: The SFWA Grandmasters vol. 1-Robert Heinlein, Jack Williamson, Clifford Simak, L. Sprague De Camp, and Fritz Leiber; ed. Frederik Pohl: Not the best of these guys stories, and the collection was really lopsided in terms of page count, but still good. 6/10
35: Tor Double 5-Poul Anderson and Fritz Leiber: Anderson's story is pretty dull, but Leiber's is one of his best. 6.5/10
36: The Sargasso Ogre-Kenneth "Doc Savage" Robeson: Good, light adventure novel. 7/10.
37: The Changing Land-Roger "I am a god!" Zelazny: This is apparently a sequel to something I have not read. whoops. Still pretty great though. 8/10
38: The Midwich Cuckoos-John Wyndham: Neat idea, but really dry. 5/10.
So there you have it, you who are not reading this.
-Captain Joshua

"Lanval" summary

"Lanval" was a mid-12th century romance poem by Marie de France about one of Arthur's knights. I decided, for educational purposes, to compose a concise summary of what it is about:

Knights: "Boo! We all hate you Lanval!
Lanval: "Why?"
Knights: "Because you're so perfect!"
Lanval (sobbing) "Wah! No one likes me!"
Faerie Queen: "Hay Lanval, you are totally hot, you can totally make out with me and I'll give you free stuff if you promise not to tell anyone, sound good?"
Lanval: "Uh, heck yeah!"
[Make out session]
Lanval: "Hey knights, I am rich now, for uh reasons, you guys want stuff?"
Knights: "Oh heck yeah Lanval, you're like, our favorite person...ever."
Guinevere: "Hey Lanval, we should totally make out."
Lanval: "What? no! you're married to Arthur"
Guinevere: (accusingly): "Ugh! do you not want to because you're gay?"
Lanval: (defiant) "No, its cause I have a sugar momma whose way hotter than you, in fact her servants are hotter than you!"
Guinevere: "Arthur, Lanval totally just hit on me!
Arthur: (enraged)"What the heck Lanval?"
Lanval: "What, no, I only said that my girlfriend was hotter than her, darn it! I mentioned her! I am forsaken!" (goes into intense depression)
Arthur: "Knights, give Lanval a trial!"
Knights: "Darn it, if we kill Lanval, we won't get anymore free stuff, but if we don't Arthur will kill us, we need proof of what he says!"
Faerie Queen (showing up): "Sup, you guys good with releasing Lanval?"
Knights: "Well, she is hotter than Guinevere, so I guess Lanval is innocent".
[Lanval and Faerie Queen ride off together].
The End
The moral of the story is that if you make out with hot people and get lots of stuff, you will be successful in life.
-Captain Joshua