I've been pretty desperate lately to find a good book. I've been in the mood for something different than what I usually read. So, I combed the library's aisles and came across Madman: A Novel by Tracy Groot. The description read:
If there is a way into madness, logic says there is a way out. Logic says. Tallis, a philosopher’s servant, is sent to a Greek academy in Palestine only to discover that it has silently, ominously, disappeared. No one will tell him what happened, but he learns what has become of four of its scholars. One was murdered. One committed suicide. One worships in the temple of Dionysus. And one … one is a madman.Well, I thought that sounded interesting. I didn't really pay too much attention to the fact that Groot writes religious books and I'm actually hesitant to say it because for people who don't read religious novels, myself being one, it can be off-putting. This book, however, didn't read like a religious book, or what I think of when I think of religious novels.
Quite the contrary, I don't think that I would have even thought it was religious until very close to the end. I mean, yes, there is a lot of philosophical discussion about good and evil but you're so enthralled with the story, that it doesn't feel preachy whatsoever.
I just really liked the way Groot wrote. It was a story unlike anything I've read in the past. I was hooked right from the start and the rest did not disappoint. I'd highly recommend it.♦DiggIt! ♦Add to del.icio.us ♦Add to Technorati Faves
So, who's the best thriller writer? For me, it used to be a very clear cut answer--Koontz took the prize. Now, however, I'm at a different phase of my life and don't read much of either anymore. I did pick up a book by Koontz most recently though and I really wasn't impressed.
It made me question if he was ever a good writer, or if I was just an immature reader, easily impressed in my younger years. I don't know the answer. I will say that Koontz still wins in my book because Stephen King is just not a good writer. He has awesome ideas. I do like his stories, but I don't like the way he tells them. He's crass and isn't good at editing.
I'm not against sex scenes in books by any means, but they need to make sense and King's never do, like with It, for instance. They're just there to be there and frankly, he is not good at writing them. So that's what I mean when I say he could be better at editing.
Koontz's biggest fault, for me, is the believability factor. While King puts it straight out there, this is fiction, Koontz will make a storyline very plausible but then something ridiculous happens and you're like "what?". Hideaway is a good example. Of course, it's a stretch that you'd die and link with someone else on your way back to life; but I'll go along. The ending, on the other hand, didn't work. I say this as a huge fan of that movie. I also really loved Intensity. I think I read that straight through without putting it down once. The movie of that one sucked!
Okay, so it seems like a lot of negativity from someone who's read tons of both authors books. Thus, on the positive side, I can relate to the way Koontz describes things. I know he's described things that I have experienced (nothing crazy) and he described it perfectly. With King, like I said, he has great ideas; and although I don't love his execution, I respect that his style is his own.
If anything, I think both authors give people hope that anyone can be writers. I think it goes without saying, but I'll do it anyway. The quality of both author's work might improve if they weren't pumping out so many books so fast.
Finally, True Blood's 2nd season has started! I thought the premiere was good. I don't want to spoil anything though because I hate that sh*t.
When I watched last season I had yet to read the Twilight saga, but I was told it was similar. Now, I can truly compare.
First we have True Blood's "Bill" (left) compared to Twilight's "Edward" (right). These are our lead hunks, if you will. Now Edward's got it on this one I'm afraid, both the character and the actor. He's better looking, but it isn't just that. His character just makes more sense as the romantic, who'd possibly wait hundreds of years for a girl, type of guy. Bill is more rugged and I think he'd be too mature to put up with his leading lady, Sookie's games.
And man, Sookie plays games like no other. Every episode she throws herself at him only to be pissed at him by the end. No way some hundred year old man would put up with that.
Then we have True Blood's "Sam" (left) compared to Twilight's "Jacob" (right). In some ways these guys are even worse romantics because they're the guys waiting in the wings. They also happen to have some pretty similar qualities about them, though they are not vampires.
While the character Jacob is most my type, the actor who plays Sam (Sam Trammell) wins this one for me.
Speaking of Taylor Lautner aka Jacob, I'll never understand why they didn't have Steven Strait play the part. He just fits more what I pictured when I read the books. He is built, looks good with short or long hair. What was the problem?
Absolutely nothing against Taylor Lautner except that he does look so young that it feels wrong to like him. Yes, I realize the characters are in their teens but let's be real, the reach of these books has went way beyond. I know people in their 50's who's read them.
Aside from the characters, I like that True Blood isn't just a huge tease, but they could almost stand to pull back a little with some of the sex scenes. Twilight, however, could stand to have more. Of course, that's not going to happen, but a little balance would be good. Basically, one shows a slut and the other's a tease. I don't know which is better. I know that True Blood could stand to have Sam get a little more screen time. That's all I'm saying on that.
Oh yeah, and there's some girl characters in the two as well, but they're nothing to rave about in my opinion.
Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister is my favorite. I liked this book alot better than Gregory Maguire's "Mirror Mirror". Once you get used to the way that he writes, it flows really nicely. I thought the imagery was nice. In some places it reads alot like poetry to me and I like that as well.
As with all of Maguire's books, it was done from a new perspective and it actually made me dislike Cinderella, which I didn't expect. Finally, there was resolution at the end and I didn't walk away disappointed. What more can you ask for?
Other Reviews:
Mirror Mirror. This was the first Gregory Maguire book that I read. I almost didn't get past the first chapter of this book because it read too much like Shakespeare to me. However, I pushed on and I was glad that I did because it didn't take long to catch on.
True, the story took some bizarre turns, but I actually fell in love with the way that Maguire writes. I liked the different perspectives that he told the story from. I thought it was an interesting take on the story of Snow White. The only thing that I would warn against is that it isn't child-friendly and I didn't feel any real resolution in the end.
True, the story took some bizarre turns, but I actually fell in love with the way that Maguire writes. I liked the different perspectives that he told the story from. I thought it was an interesting take on the story of Snow White. The only thing that I would warn against is that it isn't child-friendly and I didn't feel any real resolution in the end.
Son Of A Witch. On the good side, this book had interesting spins on the characters; and once I got past the first few chapters, I was riveted to the point that I could not put it down.On the negative side, I didn’t care for a lot of the military storyline and I didn’t feel real resolution at the end at all. The more I read Gregory Maguire’s books, the more I realize how disappointing his endings tend to be. It’s unfortunate because he is a good writer. Even if you don’t like the ending though, something has to be said for the journey.♦DiggIt! ♦Add to del.icio.us ♦Add to Technorati Faves
Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows
These books are collectively the best, but might possibly be the best books individually as well. But we'll just say they're the best series of books. Note, that I did not say children's books because these books go beyond being mere children's books. I'm 30 and I've read them all. I know people in their 50's and 60's who have too.
My husband is actually the person who convinced me to read them after he read the first one. I had seen the first movie and loved it, but I usually read thrillers or true crime so I didn't know if this would be my cup of tea. Still, I did it to appease him so he'd stop bugging me and I was so glad I did.
The books were so much better than the movies and they were addicting like nothing I'd read before. Some nights, I was up to 3 or 4 in the morning because I couldn't stop reading. Now, those are good books, to say the least.
I was trying to decide my favorite Harry Potter book and it's really hard. If I were made to choose, I guess maybe Order of the Phoenix. What's yours?
On a different note: though I love J.K. Rowling as an author, I don't care for her as a person. I feel like she didn't care enough about her readers. She kept saying she was going to do what she wanted with the characters, which turned out to be fine, but it was the way she said it. I was scared for years that she was going to kill off Harry for goodness sake. Also, I was upset that she said that Dumbledore was gay. I mean that's fine if he is but what did that have to do with anything? If it was important that he was gay, she should have put it in the books. Otherwise, I didn't see that it mattered.
♦DiggIt! ♦Add to del.icio.us ♦Add to Technorati Faves
