What Are You Reading 4
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
So, right now I'm reading "The Black-eyed Blonde" by John Banville, which is a fairly good Philip Marlowe mystery. 
No one can do Philip Marlowe like Raymond Chandler but Banville does a credible job. His Marlowe is older, slower, more flawed and more tolerant than Chandler's. He's also more vulnerable to being seduced, but still a knight in sour armor.
I dislike the call-backs to Chandler books, especially The Long Good-bye. It shows that Banville is a little bit afraid of writing Marlowe without telling us about Terry Lennox and his gimlets, a cocktail he invented in the book: half gin and half lime juice over crushed ice, and nothing else. For anyone who hasn't read The Long Good-bye, this might be necessary. But for anyone who has read it (and let's face it, what kind of Raymond Chandler fan are you if you haven't?), it's irritating.
Haven't finished yet (just about), but I'll give it three-and-a-half stars. It'd be higher if it wasn't for all those call-backs to The Long Good-bye.
No one can do Philip Marlowe like Raymond Chandler but Banville does a credible job. His Marlowe is older, slower, more flawed and more tolerant than Chandler's. He's also more vulnerable to being seduced, but still a knight in sour armor.
I dislike the call-backs to Chandler books, especially The Long Good-bye. It shows that Banville is a little bit afraid of writing Marlowe without telling us about Terry Lennox and his gimlets, a cocktail he invented in the book: half gin and half lime juice over crushed ice, and nothing else. For anyone who hasn't read The Long Good-bye, this might be necessary. But for anyone who has read it (and let's face it, what kind of Raymond Chandler fan are you if you haven't?), it's irritating.
Haven't finished yet (just about), but I'll give it three-and-a-half stars. It'd be higher if it wasn't for all those call-backs to The Long Good-bye.
Likes:
SpideyGirl and Tonyblack
Done with "The Black-eyed Blonde", and my opinion hasn't changed: it's a fairly good Marlowe mystery, but can't compare to Ray Chandler. ;-p
I've just started reading Hercule Poirot's Silent Night, by Sophie Hannah -- an author who was authorised (sorry) by the Christie Estate to write new Poirot novels.
Unfortunately, I can't find much to recommend here. I've gone through the first six chapters, and so far, I am finding this book utterly tedious and baffling. Inspector Catchpool (Hannah's equivalent of Captain Hastings) is a non-entity whose sole duty is to be tortured by his domineering mother -- really, for a Scotland Yard Inspector, he seems positively stupid -- and Poirot does not show either his usual eccentricity or energy.
The pacing is also incredibly slow. One of the characters is about to give Poirot the two 'leads' that he thought of, only to start complaining about how education in this country has gone downhill, and how Inspector Mackle of the local police is following up the wrong suspects, and so on and so forth. It drove me to distraction, and made me want to bang my head on the table and shout "Get on with it!!!" ... and then, just as things started moving, the suspect's wife entered and muttered something about how she's giving up on him and went away, and Poirot abandoned the idea of the "two leads" and went off after her.
If I hadn't paid for this book, I would seriously consider throwing it into the fire. It doesn't seem worth it.
Have you read Sophie Hannah's Poirot books? What did you think?
I've just started reading Hercule Poirot's Silent Night, by Sophie Hannah -- an author who was authorised (sorry) by the Christie Estate to write new Poirot novels.
Unfortunately, I can't find much to recommend here. I've gone through the first six chapters, and so far, I am finding this book utterly tedious and baffling. Inspector Catchpool (Hannah's equivalent of Captain Hastings) is a non-entity whose sole duty is to be tortured by his domineering mother -- really, for a Scotland Yard Inspector, he seems positively stupid -- and Poirot does not show either his usual eccentricity or energy.
The pacing is also incredibly slow. One of the characters is about to give Poirot the two 'leads' that he thought of, only to start complaining about how education in this country has gone downhill, and how Inspector Mackle of the local police is following up the wrong suspects, and so on and so forth. It drove me to distraction, and made me want to bang my head on the table and shout "Get on with it!!!" ... and then, just as things started moving, the suspect's wife entered and muttered something about how she's giving up on him and went away, and Poirot abandoned the idea of the "two leads" and went off after her.
If I hadn't paid for this book, I would seriously consider throwing it into the fire. It doesn't seem worth it.
Have you read Sophie Hannah's Poirot books? What did you think?
So, I've decided to ditch my review blog system, possibly for good, for various reasons. So, I'll be commenting on books here. I'll probably be discussing graphic novels and manga more than full-on books for the most part. Then again, I have one hell of a backlog of those...
My latest book is the second graphic novel adaptation of Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. On the one hand, it's not a bad adaptation, and the character designs in many ways are truer to the books. On the other hand, as with Michael Moreci and Stephen Gilpin's adaptation of the first book, the art style is more childish and scribbly, and they leave out a few key plot points, including one vital one during the rescue of Artemis Fowl Senior.
While the previous adaptations by Andrew Donkin and Giovanni Rigano weren't as accurate to the original novels in terms of character portrayal and other appearances (for example, Holly is portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, rather than with the nut brown skin and red hair from the original book, and the LEPRecon uniforms aren't green), I feel that both the artwork and the layout was far better. It felt more mature, and there were even easter eggs for older readers (there's a sequence that's a homage to Watchmen in their adaptation of The Arctic Incident), not to mention it felt more like a real science fantasy world.
Honestly, I blame Disney. They were the ones who bankrolled the second graphic novel adaptations, apparently, and while I have heard bad things about the film, which makes these adaptations look stellar by comparison, well, they should know when not to diddle with stuff too much. In theory. Then again, this IS the same company that keeps remaking its old animated films as live action, and then acting surprised when most of them turn out sh** or mediocre.
My latest book is the second graphic novel adaptation of Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. On the one hand, it's not a bad adaptation, and the character designs in many ways are truer to the books. On the other hand, as with Michael Moreci and Stephen Gilpin's adaptation of the first book, the art style is more childish and scribbly, and they leave out a few key plot points, including one vital one during the rescue of Artemis Fowl Senior.
While the previous adaptations by Andrew Donkin and Giovanni Rigano weren't as accurate to the original novels in terms of character portrayal and other appearances (for example, Holly is portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, rather than with the nut brown skin and red hair from the original book, and the LEPRecon uniforms aren't green), I feel that both the artwork and the layout was far better. It felt more mature, and there were even easter eggs for older readers (there's a sequence that's a homage to Watchmen in their adaptation of The Arctic Incident), not to mention it felt more like a real science fantasy world.
Honestly, I blame Disney. They were the ones who bankrolled the second graphic novel adaptations, apparently, and while I have heard bad things about the film, which makes these adaptations look stellar by comparison, well, they should know when not to diddle with stuff too much. In theory. Then again, this IS the same company that keeps remaking its old animated films as live action, and then acting surprised when most of them turn out sh** or mediocre.