In the 1940's a young girl named Betty Short was murdered, being cut in half, her organs removed and a smiley (which is a gash ear to ear) cut into her face. This is the extent to which the real story of the Black Dahlia and the novel by James Ellroy are similar.
Ellroy's novel follows the rise of Bucky Bleichert to Warrant's Officer in the Los Angeles police department. While teamed up with Lee Blanchard, they discover the mutliated body. Although trying to discover who murdered the Black Dahlia is a major issue during the novel, it is not the primary focus of the story. Bucky and Lee's relationship, as well as Bucky's relationship with Kay Lake (who lives with Lee). It is very much a character driven story that plays itself out through the Black Dahlia murder case.
While the case of the Black Dahlia does play an integral part of the story, the journey to discover the killer is not the entire story. In fact, I wouldn't even consider the main plot. In my opinion, Bucky's development as a character, his figuring out who he is in light of everything that is going on around him, his character development. That's what's really important.
Overall I enjoyed the story. It was a bit gruesome when it described the young girl's mutilated body, and while I would have preferred to not read that part of it, I guess that it is pretty pivotal to the story. What I think that I enjoyed the most about this entire book was the fact that everything ties together. There are small details that are mentioned that seemingly have no connection to the entire story other than develop a charater trait. But by the end, all of those small details are some how tied to everything.
Moral of the Story: Historical fictions get the reader to research the real event and then become obsessed with it...if only for a short period of time.
January 28, 2008
January 16, 2008
I, Robot
When Issac Asimov created robots he gave them three laws that they must follow:
Now I've seen about five and a half minutes of the movie starring the seemingly ubiquitous Will Smith, and let me tell you, that five and a half minutes was more exciting than the whole of the book.
Rather than being an exciting story about how robots have managed to manuever themselves around the three above stated laws, I, Robot follows robopsychologist (he seems to love making up branches of psychology) Dr. Susan Calvin and her experiences of using the three laws of robotics to figure out what is going on with various robots that seem to have broken the laws. It is actually nine short stories that have been strung together as Calvin's memories and reflections.
The book is, by no means, exciting. It deals with the characterization of these robots and how they have managed to explain to themselves their behavior. It is fascinating to have Dr. Calvin explain why the robots are behaving the way they are behaving. It is an exploration of human behavior on the most basic level. Unlike the complicated emotions that go into human decisions, robots "think" on a much more basic existence. In that respect, Asimov is able to consider what, to a human would be a complex human desicion, but to a robot is a matter of what was said to him and how it was said. Which is something that as humans, we deal with the same issue. Obviously we have many more emotions and thoughts occuring within our brains that are not felt or considered by robots. But removing those, we're able to examine how a human might consider basic conflicts of interest at the most basic point.
I'm not 100% sure that I would consider this a great science fiction novel. It seems to me to be an exploration of humanity with a science fiction spin on it. Had I not seen any commercials for the movie, and basing my decision solely on the book, I don't think I would have seen the movie. I just don't think it would have been an interesting movie...at all. So if you are expecting the movie to be anything like the book, don't. Given, I haven't actually seen the movie, but in the five and a half minutes I have seen, it's already superly different, which could be a good thing, I guess.
Moral of the Story: Be careful about what you say, and how you say it...you have no idea the conflict it will cause in a robot's mind...
1) No robot may hurt a human being
2) Obey the orders given you by a human unless it violates Law Number 1
3) Self preservation, providing it does not violate Laws number 1 or 2
Now I've seen about five and a half minutes of the movie starring the seemingly ubiquitous Will Smith, and let me tell you, that five and a half minutes was more exciting than the whole of the book.
Rather than being an exciting story about how robots have managed to manuever themselves around the three above stated laws, I, Robot follows robopsychologist (he seems to love making up branches of psychology) Dr. Susan Calvin and her experiences of using the three laws of robotics to figure out what is going on with various robots that seem to have broken the laws. It is actually nine short stories that have been strung together as Calvin's memories and reflections.
The book is, by no means, exciting. It deals with the characterization of these robots and how they have managed to explain to themselves their behavior. It is fascinating to have Dr. Calvin explain why the robots are behaving the way they are behaving. It is an exploration of human behavior on the most basic level. Unlike the complicated emotions that go into human decisions, robots "think" on a much more basic existence. In that respect, Asimov is able to consider what, to a human would be a complex human desicion, but to a robot is a matter of what was said to him and how it was said. Which is something that as humans, we deal with the same issue. Obviously we have many more emotions and thoughts occuring within our brains that are not felt or considered by robots. But removing those, we're able to examine how a human might consider basic conflicts of interest at the most basic point.
I'm not 100% sure that I would consider this a great science fiction novel. It seems to me to be an exploration of humanity with a science fiction spin on it. Had I not seen any commercials for the movie, and basing my decision solely on the book, I don't think I would have seen the movie. I just don't think it would have been an interesting movie...at all. So if you are expecting the movie to be anything like the book, don't. Given, I haven't actually seen the movie, but in the five and a half minutes I have seen, it's already superly different, which could be a good thing, I guess.
Moral of the Story: Be careful about what you say, and how you say it...you have no idea the conflict it will cause in a robot's mind...
January 04, 2008
The Brothers Karamazov
I was excited to read "The Brothers K" because I had once read a quote from Kurt Vonnegut somewhat along the lines of "All you need to know about life is within The Brothers K". The book is basically a story of patricide and how Fydor Karamazov's three legitimate sons and rumoured bastard child behave up to and after the murder. The plot pretty much touches on every topic it can, religion, sex, love, murder, family, and about a million more.
I really enjoyed this book. Each of the characters had their own flaws and shortcomings, but they attempted to love each other as best they could in their own way, despite jealousy, treachery, and having quite possibly the world's worst father. They did things to infuriate and screw each other over, but I like to think that underneath it all, if you get right down to it, they did really truly care for each other.
So, in some sense, Vonnegut was right. What you need to know is that people in this world are incredibly flawed, but it's the struggle between trying to overcome ones self and doing the right thing that makes life interesting and worth living.
I really enjoyed this book. Each of the characters had their own flaws and shortcomings, but they attempted to love each other as best they could in their own way, despite jealousy, treachery, and having quite possibly the world's worst father. They did things to infuriate and screw each other over, but I like to think that underneath it all, if you get right down to it, they did really truly care for each other.
So, in some sense, Vonnegut was right. What you need to know is that people in this world are incredibly flawed, but it's the struggle between trying to overcome ones self and doing the right thing that makes life interesting and worth living.
January 03, 2008
Midnights Children
Midnight's Children is a loose allegory for events in India both before and, primarily, after the independence and partition of India, which took place at midnight on 15 August 1947. The protagonist and narrator of the story is Saleem Sinai, a telepath with a nasal defect, who is born at the exact moment that India becomes independent. Saleem Sinai's life then parallels the changing fortunes of the country after independence.
The story continues on how young Saleem uses his special midnight given telepathic power to bring the Midnights Children together. And as you can expect, children with varying degrees of special powers will try to overpower each other and there is conflict. In the meantime, outside of his head, Saleem's family moves to neighboring Pakistan and young Saleem goes through the struggles of youth with an inflated sense of self importance.
I think that my real issue with the novel is that you couldn't help but think that Rushde is a very self serving author. You get the impression that he is a hero in his own mind. He's not a particularly likeable protagonist, or very heroic, although his prose is written in such a way that it is constantly demanding that the reader sympathize with him and his big ugly nose with drippy nasal passages.
And then of course, outside the novel, you have all of the protests that this book caused when published because Arab's found it offensive. Granted it's no teddy bear named Muhammad, but I could see how it subtly paint's Pakistan in a less than favorable light.
It's really too bad that we don't have a label that is "eh" because that's how I sort of felt about this book. I didn't particularly like any of the characters or reading about boogers for pages on end, the plot wasn't thrilling, but at the same time, I wouldn't necessary say that this book was "bad". It was interesting to read, but nothing that you need to run right out and read this instant.
The story continues on how young Saleem uses his special midnight given telepathic power to bring the Midnights Children together. And as you can expect, children with varying degrees of special powers will try to overpower each other and there is conflict. In the meantime, outside of his head, Saleem's family moves to neighboring Pakistan and young Saleem goes through the struggles of youth with an inflated sense of self importance.
I think that my real issue with the novel is that you couldn't help but think that Rushde is a very self serving author. You get the impression that he is a hero in his own mind. He's not a particularly likeable protagonist, or very heroic, although his prose is written in such a way that it is constantly demanding that the reader sympathize with him and his big ugly nose with drippy nasal passages.
And then of course, outside the novel, you have all of the protests that this book caused when published because Arab's found it offensive. Granted it's no teddy bear named Muhammad, but I could see how it subtly paint's Pakistan in a less than favorable light.
It's really too bad that we don't have a label that is "eh" because that's how I sort of felt about this book. I didn't particularly like any of the characters or reading about boogers for pages on end, the plot wasn't thrilling, but at the same time, I wouldn't necessary say that this book was "bad". It was interesting to read, but nothing that you need to run right out and read this instant.
January 02, 2008
Oliver Twist
When I was in intermediate school, as that's what it was called at the time, I performed in a little musical that you might have heard of called Oliver. While in Oliver (I played the part of the Second Bobby something...it was a cop, which became a part I played frequently) I read a little kid's version of Oliver Twist. So going into this book, not only did I know the basics of the story, as I think many people know the basic story of Oliver Twist, but I thought that I had a pretty good handle of what was going to happen.
Well, let's just put it this way, the musical is wrong and the kid's book leaves some stuff out. Well, the musical also leaves stuff out. The basic story is that a child is born, his mother dies, he is named Oliver Twist, put in an orphanage that treats him (and all the children) badly, he takes a job at an undertaker's (and by takes read: is forced), he runs away to London, falls into a band of thieves, escapes, gets dragged back in, escapes again, all the while trying to discover who his family is, although we have already managed to figure out who he is related to.
Along the way he runs into many different characters, some good, some questionable. Now if you are familiar with the musical, he meets many of the same characters, though they are treated and introduced quite differently. For instance, Fagin is this happy character who we love in the musical. However, in the book he is this evil coneiving character that we hate. Likewise is the Artful Dodger, who is a not quite as questionable as Fagin, but not exactly the nicest character, though by no means evil. Nancy, a member of Fagin's gang, much to her distaste, is about the same, as is Bill Sykes, the bully and spiteful character of the book. There are also a couple of new characters that are introduced and many that are introduced considerably earlier. Unlike the musical, which has a deux ex machina at the end (if I remember properly), the book all leads up to a nice and clean ending in which the fate of all the characters of the story is explained so you are left with no questions as to what happens to who.
In the terms of a story, it's interesting, if a little repetitive to hear Oliver constantly complain, whine and cry his way through the novel. My biggest complaint is that it suffers the same problem that all serial novels from the 1800s suffers. There is too much that is really unimportant to the overall plot of Oliver. It's written in terms of a biographer and Dickens more than once references the reader as the biographer. Would I suggest that someone read it? Absolutely. Not only is it a classic and Dickens a master of the English language, but it's just one of those books that you should have under you belt.
Moral of the Story: Don't be an orphan, it sucks. And if you are an orphan, stop crying, and find your, undoubtedly, rich relatives.
Well, let's just put it this way, the musical is wrong and the kid's book leaves some stuff out. Well, the musical also leaves stuff out. The basic story is that a child is born, his mother dies, he is named Oliver Twist, put in an orphanage that treats him (and all the children) badly, he takes a job at an undertaker's (and by takes read: is forced), he runs away to London, falls into a band of thieves, escapes, gets dragged back in, escapes again, all the while trying to discover who his family is, although we have already managed to figure out who he is related to.
Along the way he runs into many different characters, some good, some questionable. Now if you are familiar with the musical, he meets many of the same characters, though they are treated and introduced quite differently. For instance, Fagin is this happy character who we love in the musical. However, in the book he is this evil coneiving character that we hate. Likewise is the Artful Dodger, who is a not quite as questionable as Fagin, but not exactly the nicest character, though by no means evil. Nancy, a member of Fagin's gang, much to her distaste, is about the same, as is Bill Sykes, the bully and spiteful character of the book. There are also a couple of new characters that are introduced and many that are introduced considerably earlier. Unlike the musical, which has a deux ex machina at the end (if I remember properly), the book all leads up to a nice and clean ending in which the fate of all the characters of the story is explained so you are left with no questions as to what happens to who.
In the terms of a story, it's interesting, if a little repetitive to hear Oliver constantly complain, whine and cry his way through the novel. My biggest complaint is that it suffers the same problem that all serial novels from the 1800s suffers. There is too much that is really unimportant to the overall plot of Oliver. It's written in terms of a biographer and Dickens more than once references the reader as the biographer. Would I suggest that someone read it? Absolutely. Not only is it a classic and Dickens a master of the English language, but it's just one of those books that you should have under you belt.
Moral of the Story: Don't be an orphan, it sucks. And if you are an orphan, stop crying, and find your, undoubtedly, rich relatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)