Brig Berthold
Despite the occasional flaw in grammar or the narrator's pronunciation (i.e. expetially), this was a neat little book.
The principles shared here were true no matter how you shake it. That alone deserves three stars. A fourth star was awarded due to the clever and smooth presentation of the information. Allegorical lessons are some of my favorite nonfiction delivery methods and this Gordon did a swell job.
Loved it. 4.5 Stars, no question.
Excellent, flawed characters.
Wild, twisting plot.
Visceral, primal reactions for the reader.
Fascinating, compelling research by the author.
Series is better!
While it is almost lock-step the same as season 1 of the series (starring Gary Oldman) the differences were critical. This was fun but you stand to miss nothing by watching the series, instead if that's your question.
DNF
It is not often that a story is genuinely too dark for my taste. This one did it almosy immediately. I never made it beyond the first story. In a way, it's a kind of compliment to King for being so adept. I'm sure he hit his mark. It was simply not for me.
This book averages nearly four stars, at over 300,000 ratings, because the final (roughly) seventh of the book was quite good. Portions one through six however, were less than special.
Marie falls in love with a man she only knows as a killer who saved her from a hideous experience. She constantly tells herself to leave Jason behind but never does. The relationship between the two characters is frankly contrived. It merely serves to give the author, and Bourne, answers neither have to work terribly hard to develop. As she becomes fundamental to the narrative, the entire story is fraught with ‘fantastic' garbage.
The use of flashbacks are also pivotal. In my opinion, the author plugged them into the narration oddly, almost forcefully. While the abrupt flashbacks aren't universally jarring, though that was likely the desired effect, the result was regular confusion rather than visceral immersion.
The film is far superior storytelling. Though, I am grateful Ludlum gave the world such an interesting premise.
I wanted to like this book. I have read excerpts from some of Joan's more academic papers and loved them. I was hoping to find similarities in this highly acclaimed and widely popular memoir. I will say, the language itself did not disappoint. It is written in her easily identifiable voice; this detail being one of the few saving graces.
For a person going through their own period of bereavement, this may bring an instant relief. I see this relief manifesting itself in one of two ways. It is possible that reading, rather than, say, hearing about another's grief and mourning could be comforting. When you need someone to relate to, you pick up the book. When you need that person to be done, you put down the book. This logic makes sense to me.
I also foresee this helping those in mourning quickly determine they refuse to mourn the way Joan had. While the clinical, if not sterile, viewpoint we are presented with has its place. This point Didion grants herself the permission for quite early in the book. She quotes some scholarly source, opining that some respond to the death of a loved one with a cold, calculating response. The point made, Didion goes on to explain how she did just that. Those in mourning may well benefit from comparing their thoughts and experiences with Didion's, and determining to never be as pretentious.
The title is also perplexing. The use of the term “magical thinking” in this context seems a self-important euphemism for “denial with a side of academic reasoning.” I found nothing magical about this journey I took through the grieving process. There was little I found profound, inspiring, or moderately uplifting. Half of the book is a re-telling of her, appropriately termed, “magical past.” A past she shares with us as we are paraded around to meet the famous people she knew, the exotic places she lived or visited, and the disbelief that her life must change.
Finally, as I purchased this book from Audible.com, I must ask what the heck was up with the odd piano music? It came at the most awkward moments and seemed to have no clear purpose. It was a further distraction to an already bewildering use of my time.
Interesting characters, compelling plot line, and total brain candy. This was, like many others', my first Jack Reacher experience. On the whole, I enjoyed myself. The main issue I took with the storyline was the plot twist in the end. While it was foreseeable from the beginning, not to mention woven into the dialogue as the plot unfolded, that illusive tenth person was disappointing. I had hoped to see a different reveal. I waited the whole book to discover Roscoe was the decoy, the silent insider, only to have my hopes dashed when Picard assumed the role. Cliché as it may have been, Roscoe's role as the “spider woman,” if well written, would have been way more satisfying than Picard. Especially as we embark on more and more Reacher novels, I would have preferred Child had developed the humanness of Reacher through that vulnerability.
Better than I thought it would be but then the end seemed to trail off...into false endings that only developed into additional false endings, rather than a ramp up into more. It was interesting. Not a deal breaker but it took off .25 stars.
How the heck did it take me this long to read this?! So good. So fun. So intense. Great pace. Great characters.
Somehow, I can't wait to read this to my kids. I really enjoyed this little read. It was short but had depth. It was packed with adult themes but wrapped in a child's packaging. Laced with truth, rapt with adventure, and entertaining to the last word. Well worth my time and, I dare say, if delivered/taken with a bit of an open mind, would be worth yours.
Wow. Having never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I was surprised I stumbled into this title. Lists of algorithm-generated recommendations are hit-or-miss at best, yet in this case, I was pleasantly surprised.
I did not foresee agreeing with so many details of Bonhoeffer's theology. The fact that I did continues to please me. Here is a man, born into a world of religious ambiguity, who finds himself compelled toward religious and theological pursuit. In his pursuit, he obtains a Doctorate of Theology before he is 30 years old. He breaks from rhetorical tradition. And he introduces the idea that God is very real rather than merely axiomatic.
This is but the beginning of what the book offers. As far as biographies go, it was well researched, well organized, and well presented. The author has succeeded, as my next thought is to find an English translation of Bonhoeffer's “Ethics”.
Don't miss this. Especially if you read it, don't miss it.
All I can say is this was magnificent, in the end.
Remember that time you read “Life of Pi”? The laborious feelings of confusion and a beleagred obligation to learn what the fuss was about...only to be brought into understanding the way a cat of ninetails bites into the meaty part of your soul...remember that? This book does just that.
The writing was superb and nuanced. The characters were dense and relatable. The storyline both lulled you to sleep and moved you to near weeping in cycles.
I don't know what else to say. It's a journey not to be taken lightly. It's a pathway not to be walked by the shallow and nearsighted. Rather this story should be taken by those who will unravel its complexity and bathe in its subtleties. Certainly, this does not describe me. I was merely able to witness the limits of my depth through this brilliant tale.
Okay, full disclosure, I hated a lot of things about this book. And yet, there were a lot of things I found important. So without getting into the weeds about why I've decided I (in all likelihood) universally dislike Russian literature, I will simply state that:
A) I think this book is important for what it teaches about the human condition and mankind's relationship to moral crime. While fiction is limited to an expression of the author's perspective, Dostoyevsky lands pretty cleanly in line with my personal viewpoints.
B) The narrative was maddening. I don't often struggle with a meandering narrative—even in novels from the same period don't bother me—unless they're Russian. I'm not sure why that is and my opinion has little bearing on how “good” a story was. A good friend of mine is a Russian scholar, he speaks the language, mingles comfortably in that country and with Russian people, and he loved this book. Perhaps my limitation comes from an ignorance of the Russian psyche and I'm not opposed to owning that truth. That being said, it would take a lot of prodding to get me to read another Russian work of fiction moving forward.
This is easily the darkest of Flynn's first three novels. Despite my self-proclaimed affinity for dark and raw prose, bits of this prompted the occasional cringe. It was a holistic storyline, covering the necessary details and leaving little to truly criticize. Flynn has a knack for taking reality, imposing the fantastic and seemingly improbable, while inspiring a sense of commonplace in the reader. While I read this book, I became entrenched in the life of Libby Day. When I was not reading, I contemplated the absurdity of the world Flynn illustrated. Especially... well, I guess you would have to read it.
It's amazing to say, but the film is better.
I did apreciate the realistic ending in this version of the story, however.
In an effort to be brief, I will state two main characteristics about this story. First, the storyline was sufficient. Second, the characters were fantastic. Without such dynamic personalities, this story would not have been worth three stars.
Interesting history.
This is a quintessential case of the truth being stranger than fiction. As the author notes in his epilogue, no work of fiction seems to have rivaled the level of intricacy, the depth of the intrigue, or the patently absurd realities of Chapman's story. Overall, this was an enjoyable read. Nothing about this book will give you much juicy insight into the world of international espionage. It does, however, shed a bit of light into the fiction of Flemming, le Carré, et. all.
Presumably well researched and professionally delivered.
This book was fascinating. What's more? It was not nearly as dry as I thought it would be.
Hazleton delivers the information with a narrative arc while chronicling the events that lead to the split between Sunni and Shia Islam.
I fully appreciated the light biographical references to the prophet Muhammad, substituted instead for a more robust illustration of Aisha and Ali. The author's description of her as a coquettish, capricious and impetuous teenager is brilliant. If the research is pure, the descriptions are altogether plausible. This added a level of detail and interest I did not foresee.
Many people I have questioned about this topic often simplify the circumstances and the history. I now know why they do that. This is a complicated story and it is not easy to simplify once you begin to understand the history. I won't spoil it for you, as Hazleton's description is too well done.
Well this is brain candy. And I'm not sure I was ever “hooked” or invested in the tale. I'm pretty disappointed in that. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, necessarily. It just didn't live up to the hype.
How does this story not have an epilogue? The narration suffered frequently but the tale is engaging. I really enjoyed the parts of the story the author chose to let us puzzle out versus the explicitly detailed elements. I felt respected as a reader but guided in my understanding of the complexities of chess. The brilliance of this story is the parallels between Beth's character and how she plays chess.