Kenneth McMahon
A very good overview of Dublin's history. Not quite sure the framing device of reviewing history building by building quite works as it obviously leads to the story being told out of chronological order and tends to lead to some repetitiveness (here's what happened during 1916 at Dublin Castle; here's what happened in 1916 at Kilmainham, and so on) In addition, there is some poor editing in places though. There are quite a few typos and repetition of phrases that could've been tided up. Still, overall it's a recommended read.
I wanted to like this book so much, but in the end I was annoyed that I had to continue reading it. The author constantly goes off on tangents, some of which are admittedly interesting, but actually have very little to do with the subject matter at hand. At one point, he spends 7 pages telling us the story of Cola di Rienzo only to then say at the end that di Rienzo was safely out of the city when the plague actually hits. So what was the point of telling us about him? I feel like the writer spent a lot of time just telling us somewhat interesting little tidbits about Middle Ages Europe because he came across them on his research.
He constantly applies modern cultural references to the Middle Ages stating that Petrarch wouldn't have been out of place on the cover of People magazine and that loosely clothed women were the Middle Ages equivalent of the Spice Girls. Awful stuff.
Most egregious of all though is his tendency to just make up stuff. Early on, he describes, in great detail, the excruciating last few days of a dying couple Kutluk and Magnu-Kelka. None of this is of course known at all. The only known information about this couple is that their headstone mentions they died of the plague. Kelly uses this “to suggest the following scenario” and spends more than a page making up a story.
I mostly hated this book, but I'm giving it 2 stars because the subject matter itself was interesting.
I should probably dock marks for two things that bugged me - one major (are we really supposed to believe that a man had completely forgotten a large, important chunk of his life? Namely, how he made his money) and one minor (the author's laughable depiction of how 25 year olds speak) but I won't because the book itself was exquisitely well written with perfectly created characters. I loved this book and was pleasantly surprised because it was a random pick up at the library in advance of a vacation to Palm Springs (I'm one of those people who likes to read books set in the locale I'm visiting!)
A childhood favourite, however I have to point out an error I noticed this time around. The North Pole section shows a map which the writers claim to be by an English monk, Nicholas of Lynn, in the 14th Century. The map however shows North America on it and that can't be right obviously. It turns out the map is a 1595 creation by Mercator, based on ideas of the Arctic purportedly by the former.
I thought this was mostly average going and then with about 30 pages left I thought I twigged what the twist was going to be, or at least I came up with a twist and hoped that the book was leading that way (Geoffrey Paradine and Amanda contrive to murder Roger for revenge and his money but make it look like Roger has faked his own death. The body in the water is actually Roger but they had Hubert break into the dentist office in Australia and put Rider's dental charts in Summers' file and make some other paperwork disappear. The police are lead to believe that Roger is on the run after faking his death and go down that investigation, leaving Geoffrey and Amanda to get away scot free.)
There are some scenes that wouldn't make sense with that twist - Amanda breaking up with Geoffrey for one - but I liked my idea better. The reveal of the culprit was disappointing in the end.
Who knew that Terry Venables co-authored some detective novels in the 70s? I had no idea, so picked this up immediately when I found it at charity book sale. It's a very slight story that holds some interest for its 1970s east end London setting, but the protagonist himself is fairly intolerable. Constantly interjecting himself into conversations with unfunny witticisms, the other characters just ignore him while he thinks he's the smartest kid on the block.
Also contains this bizarre paragraph:
” A beautiful, half-naked girl opened the door. She had black hair, deep brown eyes and the kind of smile that would corrupt an archbishop.
The top half of her white bikini was missing and the bottom half wasn't hiding anything but essentials. Her exquisitely smooth shoulders and boyishly-firm breasts glistened with drops of water.
Unfortunately she was about eight years old. “
Near the very end of the novel, Rendell mentions schadenfreude and I wondered if she wasn't having a playful dig at the reader. I for one was taking pleasure in Gray's slow realisation of what was happening to him. Taking pleasure only because it was obvious that he was being played and his cringeworthy lovesick thoughts had become insufferable. Many times I wanted to reach into the book and shout “Wake up, you idiot!” Still, the punishment did seem spectacularly harsh.
The quite dull first two thirds had me wondering when the mystery might begin, but the final third did win me over in the end. It was well done, however I felt there were a number of plot holes which dragged it down.
- I've read enough detective stories to know that the copper should be asking himself one question after a murder – “Who stands to benefit the most from this?” and so I found it pretty unbelievable that the blame would fall on Gray and the cop wasn't willing to entertain any notions of the wife being involved.
- Wouldn't a perennially broke Gray just phone the vet to give him permission to operate on the dog rather than travelling over from France just to say “go ahead”?
- Potentially not a plot hole, but it wasn't really explained... the letter Gray wrote to Tiny was from June 6th in the previous year. Did Drusilla plan this that far in advance and hope that Gray would contact her a year later, or did she just see her opportunity when he happened to call her again after so many months?
Balderdash and Piffle, the TV show mentioned late in the book, was my first introduction to the OED and the concept of antedating. I became enamoured right away with the thought of trying to find the earliest occurrence of a word, and have long since thought “That'd be an interesting job” Turns out after reading this book that it probably wouldn't be my dream job. It still interests me for the detective/research elements but sounds quite tedious in ways that I hadn't considered.
I mistakenly thought the book would deal more with the hunting down of words and meanings (the title does kind of lean that way) but found it somewhat disappointing to discover much of it was about the history of an office department and how their ways of doing things involved through the years. I much preferred the asides where the author talked about this histories and changing meanings of certain words and would've enjoyed more of that.
In addition, I just couldn't warm to the author (outside of feeling sympathy for the issues with his daughter) As a reader, he seemed to speak down to me quite often - “If you didn't spot that, then you're not good enough to work here” (possibly, but I don't read books for criticism of my work ethic) and I'm surprised to see other reviewers describe him as funny, because I thought his attempts at humour were trying too hard.
Still, it was an enjoyable enough read, and I subscribed to the online OED afterwards (I still want to antedate words), so job done Mr. Simpson.
Excellent read, the first book in a long time that I've thought about at work all day wanting to get home and pick it up again.
A minor complaint is that I would've liked to read an epilogue detailing what each of the men got up to, how did they assimilate back into normal life, etc. I felt like I had grown to know them so it was sad to read in another polar exploration book afterwards that Tim McCarthy signed up for the war effort three weeks after he arrived back in England. He died a few months later when his ship was torpedoed by the Germans. I found it devastating to know he went through that incredible feat of survival, only to die not too long after.
As a teenager, I was a huge Michael Jackson fan. Not quite on the level of a camping outside his hotel type fan, but I absolutely devoured his music, his dance moves, his music videos and the liner notes and credits of all of his albums and bought numerous editions of his singles because of a different radio edit or remix. I thought he could do no wrong and defended him whenever I had to.
Despite my fandom, this was actually the first biography I'd ever read about him. So while I have nothing to compare it to, it felt even handed to me and thankfully wasn't the tabloidy nonsense I'd always steered clear of. Still, as other reviews have pointed out, with the title it has I expected a more thorough look at the musical side of the man. Even as the author does focus on his private life too, it's a little strange that there is zero mention of 1997's remix album Blood On The Dance Floor, particularly the track ‘Morphine' (an autobiographical song about painkiller addiction) There are also some minor (but glaring to a fan) errors. The author confuses Childhood with Little Susie, and the music video for Remember The Time with In The Closet, to name just two. Who's to say there aren't other minor errors elsewhere in some of the other details too?
By the time Unbreakable came out, I'd sadly grown out of the fandom. While I recognized him to be one of the world's greatest ever entertainers, I also realised that he was a highly flawed individual. This book did a good job of reminding me of both. I didn't pay Jackson much attention after 2001, and so it was a little disheartening to read of the painful, drug addled, divaesque and frankly somewhat pathetic existence he led for the last 8 years of his life, and of all the vultures and enablers he surrounded himself with.
I really enjoyed Leacock's Literary Lapses, but unfortunately this one was pretty disappointing. Had a couple of little laughs here and there. I was gonna say that I can't wrap my head around how much of a comedic classic it is considered to be in Canada, but actually I've lived here for 15 years and it's exactly the gentle, vanilla humour that Canadians love.
An intriguing subject, but I personally would've preferred more discussion of the historical events rather than the source accounts. While interesting to read, they get a little bit samey and dry to read after a while.
Unfortunately, I couldn't stand the editor's endnotes. At times, she came across as treating the reader like an idiot. One example, for instance, regarding the trial of a woman named Rachel mentions “I, this deponent, asked her whether she gave Rach[torn]* any pins and she said she gave Rachel about seven” At which point, I turned to the endnotes to read “Probably Rachel” Well, no shit. Unfortunately, too many instances of this type of worthless footnote turned me against the book, and I ended up disliking the entire reading experience.
The parts of this book related to the creation of dictionaries and the OED are hugely interesting and the stories of the two men are somewhat interesting to a lesser extent, but the author's conjecture and rampant speculation was infuriating. He suggests reasons for people behaving as they do without any hint of evidence, at one point positing a theory for why Minor commits a horrific act, but then immediately states that there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true! Then why even introduce the bizarre idea? A lack of footnotes/end notes crediting the sources for quotes he uses was also off-putting.
I also couldn't help thinking throughout that Minor's contribution and relationship with Murray were being exaggerated by the author for the purposes of a good yarn. Minor was just one of hundreds (thousands?) of contributors, and I suspect Murray corresponded and met with many of them over the years, not just the murderer.
Far too many characters populate this dark mystery novel. When the reveal comes, it's quite a letdown. It also doesn't make a ton of sense.
Early in the book, Darling visits the police station to advise that his accomplice in murder is missing and would like their assistance in tracking her down. Why on earth would a murderer make himself known to the police?
Otherwise, it was a a decent waste of time.
Like others have mentioned, this was a disappointing read. Based on the premise outlined in the blurb on the back I expected there to be some sort of more obvious connection between both narrators. Instead, it felt very disjointed and a lot of the time was difficult to follow who was actually speaking. In the end, the author's narration ended up adding very little to it.
One positive thing I'll say is that the book itself as a physical object is quite a nice thing to hold in your hands. A page at the back describes the paper used and the printing process and it paid off in my opinion.
A fun, clever story even if it does all seem quite coincidental in the end (The killer had no way of knowing if the final two murders would actually take place. And what would've happened if it was Lombard remaining? He seems unlikely to have just hung himself. For that matter, it seems silly that Vera would just go and hang herself after surviving the whole ordeal.)
A mixed bag of short stories. Admittedly, I was going into this book with the knowledge of Lopez as a nature writer, so was disappointed to find only a handful of the stories were in that vein. With that in mind, I'd recommend “Remembering Orchards”, “In The Great Bend of the Souris River” and “The Mappist” as favourites.