Recent Reading
It’s been awhile since I’ve had a chance to write about what I’ve been reading. I’m sure I’m forgetting some of the books.
I read two books on attempts to increase income poor countries. Fascinating books. They cover young economists who develop randomized studies to test various theories about what can lift income among some of the poorest of the world. Lots of good stuff, and real appreciation for the people doing lots of work to try to discover ways to lessen poverty. Also an appreciation on how hard it is to accomplish. Finally, I’m grateful for where I live. The level of dysfunction on some places in the world is incredible.
I read a book on jazz. Just a general info book, pretty basic stuff. I read a history book what was a series of vignettes of “American heroes” by an eminent historian. I hadn’t heard of several of the people covered – this wasn’t another look at a selection from the standard, well-trod list. And I read a book on “communication” titled “Difficult Conversations”. It’s from the group that created, “Getting to Yes”, a book I much enjoyed while also learning a lot.
While spending some time in and around Los Angeles, I read the next two (and to this moment, the last two) books about Hollywood cops by Joseph Wambaugh. The books are modeled after Ed McBain’s 87th precinct. Wambaugh, ex member of LAPD, has spent a lot of time hearing war stories from cops in recent years, and it shows. There are times where you say to yourself, “you can’t make this stuff up”. I felt heavily manipulated by the first of the two, “Hollywood Moon”. Even though I had some sense of what the ending would hold because there’s a certain formula to these “Hollywood” books, I still felt a bit manipulated. The last of the “Hollywood” books is “Hollywood Hills”. This is the best of the series. Being in the middle of the books and being in LA, I decided to walk down Hollywood Blvd and see a little of Hollywood beat which made the readings even more tangible. The books are light and funny. The dialog and action snaps. I’m sorry there’s not a fifth ready to go.
Stieg Larsson’s “Girl …” trilogy.
I should have remembered the last time I read a book because everyone was reading and raving about it. I was greatly disappointed the previous time (the books were Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, both books I found to be below average) and should have set my expectations a bit lower.
The three Larsson books were okay, but I had serious problems with the plot (disconnected at times). Larsson also did something a person once warned about. Someone wrote that the authors knowledge should be like an iceberg, must of it should be below the surface. Larsson threw everything he ever invented about the characters into the books. So there is much space wasted on issues not relevant to the plot, for example, we take a vacation with one character. Unnecessary. But I get that for some people, the books were all about one of the characters and it doesn’t matter what she does as long as she acts her strange way. I think the US movie did a good job at pulling everything together.
I will say, those Swedes seem to be having lots of sex and doing lots of drugs. Puts a different light on Tiger Woods’s marriage.
Sometimes it’s little things that can piss me off. The book had a few of those. Things like where a person is going to kill someone, but before they do, they stop and talk for 20 minutes, explaining everything, so not only is there time for the rescuers to arrive, but we also get all the loose ends tied up. Larsson did a few of those types of things. The one that pissed me off the most is the super-genius computer hackers picks an obvious password and never changes it. This is the problem with an author writing about something (computer hacking) he doesn’t know much about. The other problem with the computer hacking is that it solves everything instantly without much work.
Another tired “trick” in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The main character’s daughter is involved in a religious group and stops by, and as she leaves, she moves the investigation over the next obstacle with a casual observation. Another tired cliché: the subconscious “I missing something” in looking at the evidence, then the “aha” moment sprung as the investigation slows down. You know, the character keeps looking at some photos and says, “there’s something in these photos… I’m just not seeing it…” then it comes as a flash later. Silly.
The books were okay. I’m not sorry I read them (as I was with Da Vinci and Angels/Demons). However, it seems like many of the people who read these books and raved about them don’t read many books. They loved Da Vinci because they didn’t read much with a fast moving plot. I think for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, they haven’t read books with interesting, well developed characters. The other thing, the female has mostly male traits (some kind of combination of sociopath and Asbergers) which intrigued people. I think the three books, if edited down and with plot threads properly tightened and connected/interwoven, he would have had one sensational book. But, I suspect Larsson could not figure out the book he wanted to write, so he created a bunch of little stories about his characters. He created the characters he wanted, not the story he wanted.
The most recent book was Sue Grafton’s V is for Vengeance. Tempus Fugit. I can’t believe it’s been something like 30 years in reading this series. I started when “B” came out. It was the start of the women in mystery movement when Marcia Muller and Sara Paretsky were deservedly finding fame. Years later, I was in a small book group and we selected one of Grafton’s book to read. One person said what she loved about the Grafton books was spending time with Kinsey Millhone (the detective in the books). That’s my complaint. Sometimes, it feels like all I’m doing is spending time with the character. I follow the character around to meals, out jogging, paying bills, reading the newspaper.
Larsson could learn a few things from Grafton, especially this book (ironically, Larsson’s character reads a Grafton book in his story. Larsson mentions a number of mysteries in his mystery. I consider that incestuous). Grafton’s plot, overlooking some of the pedestrian scenes, is neatly woven together (even if we get some excessive discussion of moving a lamp and phone off a trunk to remove some item inside of it).
I like Grafton’s work, but I’m occasionally annoyed by it too. The books are almost like a diary or log, not a story. And I feel a little guilty because Grafton and I share a love of a couple particular authors (Ross MacDonald and John D. MacDonald – her stories are set in Ross MacDonald’s fictional town to pay homage).
My big disappointment was a book by Steve Hamilton. He was recommended and has won numerous awards for his mysteries. This is the second time a top award winning mystery author hits me as amateurish. The other one is Laura Lippman (who’s won more mystery awards than another other author and I find her books non-compelling, I’m still trying to figure out why people love them). Steve’s book is about an ex-baseball player and ex-cop who now lives with deep angst in the UP of Michigan. An ancient friend shows up to hire the character to find a one-night stand that happened several decades before (never bought the idea). Within a few pages of when the old friend shows up, we, the readers, find out that he’s a low-down liar. And the main character goes on to believe him throughout the entire book. It’s one thing to be loyal, it’s another to believe someone who’s lied to you over and over and over. That almost every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. The main character’s an ex-cop. You don’t have to be House to know that people lie.
Some really bad news: they’re going to turn one of my favorite author’s book into a movie. Lee Child. I discovered him about a year ago and love the books and his character Reacher. That they’re making a movie is not the bad news. The person hired to play Reacher, a guy who is taller than 6 feet 6 and very broad and strong, often doesn’t talk, tends to be extremely cool and understated, a guy who likes physical labor and travels carrying only a toothbrush – who would play such a character? Tom Cruise. OMG. Did anyone read the books? The movie is DOA in my mind. This is as bad as those terrible Sherlock Holmes movies recently. At least in this case they're besmirching a fictional character unlike the Sherlock Holmes movies.
By the way, I think the Reacher character is being used in the Person of Interest tv series. I think the lead in that show is Reacher.
It’s been awhile since I’ve had a chance to write about what I’ve been reading. I’m sure I’m forgetting some of the books.
I read two books on attempts to increase income poor countries. Fascinating books. They cover young economists who develop randomized studies to test various theories about what can lift income among some of the poorest of the world. Lots of good stuff, and real appreciation for the people doing lots of work to try to discover ways to lessen poverty. Also an appreciation on how hard it is to accomplish. Finally, I’m grateful for where I live. The level of dysfunction on some places in the world is incredible.
I read a book on jazz. Just a general info book, pretty basic stuff. I read a history book what was a series of vignettes of “American heroes” by an eminent historian. I hadn’t heard of several of the people covered – this wasn’t another look at a selection from the standard, well-trod list. And I read a book on “communication” titled “Difficult Conversations”. It’s from the group that created, “Getting to Yes”, a book I much enjoyed while also learning a lot.
While spending some time in and around Los Angeles, I read the next two (and to this moment, the last two) books about Hollywood cops by Joseph Wambaugh. The books are modeled after Ed McBain’s 87th precinct. Wambaugh, ex member of LAPD, has spent a lot of time hearing war stories from cops in recent years, and it shows. There are times where you say to yourself, “you can’t make this stuff up”. I felt heavily manipulated by the first of the two, “Hollywood Moon”. Even though I had some sense of what the ending would hold because there’s a certain formula to these “Hollywood” books, I still felt a bit manipulated. The last of the “Hollywood” books is “Hollywood Hills”. This is the best of the series. Being in the middle of the books and being in LA, I decided to walk down Hollywood Blvd and see a little of Hollywood beat which made the readings even more tangible. The books are light and funny. The dialog and action snaps. I’m sorry there’s not a fifth ready to go.
Stieg Larsson’s “Girl …” trilogy.
I should have remembered the last time I read a book because everyone was reading and raving about it. I was greatly disappointed the previous time (the books were Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, both books I found to be below average) and should have set my expectations a bit lower.
The three Larsson books were okay, but I had serious problems with the plot (disconnected at times). Larsson also did something a person once warned about. Someone wrote that the authors knowledge should be like an iceberg, must of it should be below the surface. Larsson threw everything he ever invented about the characters into the books. So there is much space wasted on issues not relevant to the plot, for example, we take a vacation with one character. Unnecessary. But I get that for some people, the books were all about one of the characters and it doesn’t matter what she does as long as she acts her strange way. I think the US movie did a good job at pulling everything together.
I will say, those Swedes seem to be having lots of sex and doing lots of drugs. Puts a different light on Tiger Woods’s marriage.
Sometimes it’s little things that can piss me off. The book had a few of those. Things like where a person is going to kill someone, but before they do, they stop and talk for 20 minutes, explaining everything, so not only is there time for the rescuers to arrive, but we also get all the loose ends tied up. Larsson did a few of those types of things. The one that pissed me off the most is the super-genius computer hackers picks an obvious password and never changes it. This is the problem with an author writing about something (computer hacking) he doesn’t know much about. The other problem with the computer hacking is that it solves everything instantly without much work.
Another tired “trick” in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The main character’s daughter is involved in a religious group and stops by, and as she leaves, she moves the investigation over the next obstacle with a casual observation. Another tired cliché: the subconscious “I missing something” in looking at the evidence, then the “aha” moment sprung as the investigation slows down. You know, the character keeps looking at some photos and says, “there’s something in these photos… I’m just not seeing it…” then it comes as a flash later. Silly.
The books were okay. I’m not sorry I read them (as I was with Da Vinci and Angels/Demons). However, it seems like many of the people who read these books and raved about them don’t read many books. They loved Da Vinci because they didn’t read much with a fast moving plot. I think for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, they haven’t read books with interesting, well developed characters. The other thing, the female has mostly male traits (some kind of combination of sociopath and Asbergers) which intrigued people. I think the three books, if edited down and with plot threads properly tightened and connected/interwoven, he would have had one sensational book. But, I suspect Larsson could not figure out the book he wanted to write, so he created a bunch of little stories about his characters. He created the characters he wanted, not the story he wanted.
The most recent book was Sue Grafton’s V is for Vengeance. Tempus Fugit. I can’t believe it’s been something like 30 years in reading this series. I started when “B” came out. It was the start of the women in mystery movement when Marcia Muller and Sara Paretsky were deservedly finding fame. Years later, I was in a small book group and we selected one of Grafton’s book to read. One person said what she loved about the Grafton books was spending time with Kinsey Millhone (the detective in the books). That’s my complaint. Sometimes, it feels like all I’m doing is spending time with the character. I follow the character around to meals, out jogging, paying bills, reading the newspaper.
Larsson could learn a few things from Grafton, especially this book (ironically, Larsson’s character reads a Grafton book in his story. Larsson mentions a number of mysteries in his mystery. I consider that incestuous). Grafton’s plot, overlooking some of the pedestrian scenes, is neatly woven together (even if we get some excessive discussion of moving a lamp and phone off a trunk to remove some item inside of it).
I like Grafton’s work, but I’m occasionally annoyed by it too. The books are almost like a diary or log, not a story. And I feel a little guilty because Grafton and I share a love of a couple particular authors (Ross MacDonald and John D. MacDonald – her stories are set in Ross MacDonald’s fictional town to pay homage).
My big disappointment was a book by Steve Hamilton. He was recommended and has won numerous awards for his mysteries. This is the second time a top award winning mystery author hits me as amateurish. The other one is Laura Lippman (who’s won more mystery awards than another other author and I find her books non-compelling, I’m still trying to figure out why people love them). Steve’s book is about an ex-baseball player and ex-cop who now lives with deep angst in the UP of Michigan. An ancient friend shows up to hire the character to find a one-night stand that happened several decades before (never bought the idea). Within a few pages of when the old friend shows up, we, the readers, find out that he’s a low-down liar. And the main character goes on to believe him throughout the entire book. It’s one thing to be loyal, it’s another to believe someone who’s lied to you over and over and over. That almost every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. The main character’s an ex-cop. You don’t have to be House to know that people lie.
Some really bad news: they’re going to turn one of my favorite author’s book into a movie. Lee Child. I discovered him about a year ago and love the books and his character Reacher. That they’re making a movie is not the bad news. The person hired to play Reacher, a guy who is taller than 6 feet 6 and very broad and strong, often doesn’t talk, tends to be extremely cool and understated, a guy who likes physical labor and travels carrying only a toothbrush – who would play such a character? Tom Cruise. OMG. Did anyone read the books? The movie is DOA in my mind. This is as bad as those terrible Sherlock Holmes movies recently. At least in this case they're besmirching a fictional character unlike the Sherlock Holmes movies.
By the way, I think the Reacher character is being used in the Person of Interest tv series. I think the lead in that show is Reacher.
