Minor Thoughts from me to you

A Desert Called Peace by Tom Kratman

My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Personal Enthusiasm: It Was Okay

Read for free, at the Baen Free Library

This is a story that mostly works. It's a combination of a revenge fantasy and a polemical and Kratman does a very good job of pulling off both sides.

The story centers around Patricio Hennessey de Carrera, a retired military officer living on the planet Terra Nova. His world is turned upside down when his wife and 4 children (the youngest daughter still unborn) are killed in a terrorist attack. Fighting his way out of nearly suicidal grief, he comes out of retirement, builds an army, and uses it towards the goal of killing everyone who directly or indirectly had a hand in the terrorist attacks.

That's, rather self-evidently, the revenge fantasy portion of the work. Those elements of the story really work and are done well.

The polemical bit comes when you consider who the various groups in the story are. Carrera is clearly a stand-in for a competent but too blunt American military officer. And the terrorists who killed his wife and children are clearly barbarian Islamic fanatics. And the building destroyed in the terrorist attack is clearly a stand-in for the World Trade Center towers. The story is best seen as a description of what happened to America on 9/11 and how we should have responded to it.

It's also a look at how we will have to become (at least somewhat) more like our enemies, in order to win. It's not always pleasant but Kratman doesn't try to make us feel good about the changes. He just wants us to recognizes that victory won't be easy and it will probably change us.

The polemical part of the story works fairly well and is well-integrated into the rest of the novel. It's not forced and the explanations and and motivations that make it up are simply in the natural flow of the story.

So far, so good. But the book goes completely off the rails when it comes to the setting. I mentioned that the book takes place on another planet, Terra Nova. This is a planet that a robotic exploring ship just happened to find. It's a planet that just happened to have been settled by every major nation and ethnic group on Earth. It's a planet that just happened to have geography similar to Earth's. It's a planet where the settlers just happened to group themselves similarly to how people are grouped on Earth.

There is a clear and direct correlation between the countries of Terra Nova and the countries of Earth. It's fairly easy to make a translation list.

• The USA is represented by the Federated States of Columbia (FSC).
• The United Kingdom is represented by the Kingdom of Anglia.
• France is represented by the Gallic Republic.
• Germany is represented by Sachsen.
• Iraq is represented by Sumer.
• Afghanistan is represented by Pashtia.
• Iran is represented by Farsia.
• Russia is represented by Volgon.
• Japan is represented by Yamato.
• Europe as a whole is represented by Taurus.
• The European Union is represented by the Tauran Union.

Yes, you saw that right. Not only are individual countries represented by their oh so similarly named counterparts but so are political boundaries. In fact, it gets much worse. Not only the geography and politics are the same between Earth and Terra Nova but so is the history!

This planet, settled from Earth, had many of the same wars and conflicts Earth. For instance, there was a Great Global War that featured the same alliances and events as World Wars I and II. In fact, at the end of the Great Global War, the FSC dropped two nuclear bombs on Yamato. There was a Sumer-Farsia War that happened in the not too distant past. There was a recent "Petrol War" that sounded very similar to Desert Storm.

Much of the book takes place in and around the country of Balboa. Balboa, geographically and culturally, is very similar to Panama. In fact, the Balboans even have a "Balboa Transitway" that's identical to the Panama Canal.

This level of correspondance is highly, highly frustrating. Why make the reader spend all of the effort to make a mental map between the nations and history of Terra Nova and the nations and history of Earth? Especially when the end result is Earth in everything but name? What is the point of all of that work? Why not just set the story in an alternate history version of this past decade?

Everytime I wanted to get lost in the world, I kept getting bludgeoned with the similarities between the world of the book and our world today. It totally destroyed my ability to immerse myself in the book and just enjoy it.

I liked the characters in the book (even if they were formulaic) and I liked the story. I really didn't like the setting, so I can't rate this book as highly as I would otherwise like too. I can only say that it was disappointing, overall.

I’m going to experiment with writing reviews of the magazines I read. I’m currently subscribed to two: Orson Scott Card’s Intergalactic Medicine Show and Clarkesworld. I find it very easy to read a magazine full of short stories and promptly forget what the stories were or which ones are worth remembering. In an effort to combat that kind of short attention span, I’m going to force myself to pay attention to what I’m reading.

I hope my experiment interests you and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be interested enough to subscribe too.

I’m still catching up on the back archives of IGMS, so I’ll start off with

Issue #12 of Orson Scott Card’s Intergalactic Medicine Show

1. Over There by Tim Pratt

   When I was eighteen, I went on a quest to win back my true love. I trekked a thousand leagues across a strange world, helped by a ragtag band that grew into a mighty army, and in the end I faced down the nameless emperor who'd stolen my Gwen. I defeated him in single combat, swept Gwen into my arms, and brought her back to our world to become my wife.

   That was twenty-two years ago. For the past ten months, I've been cheating on my true love with one of my graduate students.

   This was a great take on the genre of heroic fantasy. What happens after you complete the quest, save the kingdom, win the princess and return home in triumph? As it turns out, nothing good. 4 stars, because I really enjoyed this and I like the way it subverts the genre.

2. The Multiplicity Has Arrived by Matthew S. Rotundo

   A good story, based on the abstract of a paper, in an obscure journal.

   Given current trends, one may conceive of a moment in the near future when the Internet completely supplants memory, and by extension, history. From that moment on, that which is not on the Internet is not remembered, and may as well have never existed. Thus the Internet may begin to literally change the past as well as influence the present. Such a phenomenon would make the distinction between historical revisionism and actual events meaningless. What we call reality may be more malleable than we ever suspected.

   One may argue that our global society is already advancing inexorably toward this point, which may be called the Multiplicity.

   How might an unscrupulous campaign consultant (but I repeat myself) take advantage of such a thing? And what might it do to him in the end? 4 stars.

3. Somewhere My Love by Stephen Mark Rainey

   At night, no light ever shone in any of the windows. But sometimes after dark, I would hear her voice echoing out of that old house, singing songs that seemed to me unearthly.

   Her name was Jeanne Weiler, and she was my music teacher when I was in elementary school.

   Of course, she was a witch.

   The power of music to change and affect people? The bond created between a mentor and a mentee? I’ll admit that I’m not quite sure what this story was about. It wasn’t bad but it wasn’t great either. I’ll give it 3 stars.

4. The End-of-the-World Pool by Scott M. Roberts

   This was another story that I thought was largely forgettable. Without rereading it, I still have trouble remembering what it was about. 3 stars.

5. Hologram Bride, Part 1 by Jackie Gamber

   Between 1908 and 1924, over 20,000 Asian women immigrated to Hawaii to marry Japanese sugar plantation workers. Strong restrictions in immigration laws forced workers to arrange marriages on photographs only. The U.S. Immigration act of 1924 abruptly stopped these arrangements, but by 1930 picture bride unions birthed over 100,000 offspring--a powerful presence in what would become the 50th state of the union.

   I loved the way this story started out. It takes the experience of mail order brides and translates it to an alien world. In the process, it makes the whole experience vividly real to the modern reader. Especially to this reader who has never experienced the wrenching dislocation that would come from being sent to a strange, alien, culture. Easily 4 stars.

6. WEST by Orson Scott Card

   This is one of Card’s previously published short stories. A lone drifter, battling his own memories and demons, finds redemption by helping a naive band of outcasts, becoming a part of their “family” in the process. This being Card, it should surprise no one to find that the outcasts are Mormons and that the drifter eventually finds a home in the Mormon church. 4 stars.

7. The Crack by David Lubar

   The first time Kevin noticed the crack, he was down in the basement looking for an old board game his father had stored away. At least it wasn't dark, yet. During the day, with the sun coming through the small, dirty window at the top of the wall, the basement was bad, but not awful. The air always had that wet, dark-green smell whether it was midnight or noon, but shadows didn't seem as deep during the day.

   A very short story with an overly abrupt ending. It seemed to be reaching higher than its grasp. 2 stars.

8. Interview With Joe Haldeman by Darrell Schweitzer

   I didn’t feel like I really learned much new about Haldeman or his books, through this interview. A missed opportunity, good for 2 stars.

9. Essay: American Idol by Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury

   Dalton-Woodbury compares the early season experience of American Idol to what an editor experiences going through a slush pile of submissions.

   Writers tend to think about submitting stories as a kind of luck-of-the-draw experience, but when editors look at the piles of manuscripts they have to get through, they pray that maybe there'll be just one in all of those piles that they can use.

   If you haven't watched American Idol before, I would like to recommend that you find a way to watch at least one episode of the early-season auditions, just to get an idea of what reading a slush pile might be for an editor.

   The similarities just boggle my mind, and I expect that as the show progresses and the contestants try to win the votes of the American public, the similarities will continue.

   Well written and compelling, what an editorial should be. 4 stars.

Overall, this was a good issue. There were several stories that I really enjoyed, which more than made up for the ones I didn’t.

A Storm of Swords by George R.R. Martin

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I’m used to reading a series and watching the quality drop off, bit by bit, with each book in the series. That’s not the case with A Song of Ice and Fire. So far, each book maintains overall quality of the series and manages to ratchet the frenetic pace of events just a little bit higher. I really enjoyed reading A Storm of Swords and I’m already looking forward to tackling A Feast for Crows.

The action picked up right where A Clash of Kings left off. Actually, it backtracked a bit first, to cover what was happening in the rest of Westeros, during the final events of A Clash of Kings. The book was a non-stop parade of events, swirling ever more madly as the body count rose ever higher. In Martin’s world, no one is safe from death, betrayal—or redemption. It all combines for a very entertaining read and one that’s devilishly hard to put down.

As I’ve done for the first two books, I’m posting my own spoiler notes of what happened and where things stood by the end of the book.

Robb Stark finally reappears after spending most of the last book off stage. He reveals that he’s married Jayne Westerling, one of Lord Tywin’s banner men. This breaks off his promised engagement to one of the Frey’s and turns Lord Walder into an enemy. King Robb, the Young Wolf, is later murdered by Lord Frey, at the Red Wedding.

Catelyn Stark spends most of the book wondering about the fate of her daughters. She surreptitiously released Jamie Lannister, on his promise that he would release her daughters from King’s Landing and return them to her. Lady Catelyn is later murdered by Lord Frey, at the Red Wedding. At the very end of the book, she is seen with the Brotherhood Without Banners, apparently alive(?) though with a grievous throat wound that leaves her unable to talk.

Arya Stark spends most of the book riding out the river lands, with the Brotherhood Without Banners. She meets the (dead?) Lord Beric Dondarrion and eventually falls in with the Hound. After a fight with Ser Gregor Clegane’s men, she leaves the dying Hound and books passage on a ship bound for the Free City of Braavos. Before leaving, she sees her mother’s dead body, apparently through Nymeria’s eyes.

After the battle for King’s Landing, Sansa Stark was released from her betrothal to Joffrey Baratheon. King Joffrey married Margaery Tyrell and Sansa was forcibly married to Tyrion Lannister. She was spirited out of King’s Landing by Littlefinger’s agents and carried first to the Fingers and then to the Eyrie. While at the Eyrie, she learns that her Aunt Lysa was the one responsible for poisoning Jon Arryn (at Littlefinger’s prompting) and watches as Littlefinger escorts Lady Lysa out the Moon Door.

After Tyrion Lannister recovers from his wounds, his father appoints him to be the new master of the purse. After King Joffrey is poisoned, Queen Cersei accuses Tyrion of the murder. He claims trial by combat but his champion, Lord Oberyn Martell of Dorne, is killed by Cersei’s champion, Ser Gregor Clegane. Lord Oberyn does mortally Clegane, however. Tyrion is rescued before his execution, by his brother Jamie. Before making good his escape, he kills both Shae (his former whore, who testified against him) and his father, Lord Tywin.

Jamie Lannister was released from his Riverrun cell by Catelyn Stark. While traveling with Brienne of Tarth, he was captured by Vargo Hoat’s men. They cut off his sword hand, leaving him a cripple. When he finally does make it back to King’s Landing, he takes over the position of Lord’s Commander of the Kingsguard, prompting his father to disown him. After angering Cersei, he ends by rescuing Tyrion from execution.

Cersei Lannister watched her brother abandon her, listened to her father plan to marry her off against her will, and saw her firstborn son die in her arms. She’s now the regent to King Tommen.

Joffrey Baratheon was at his own wedding feast, when he was poisoned by one of the Tyrells. Having acted like a royal jerk for 3 books, he’s unlikely to be mourned by anyone other than his own mother.

Daenerys Targaryen used her dragons to conquer three slaver cities and liberate the slaves. She purchased a large Unsullied slave army, then liberated them all. She added Ser Barristan Selmy to her Kingsguard and exiled Ser Jorah Mormont. She decided to remain in Meereen, to learn how to rule as a queen rather than just continue moving forward as a destructive, conquering force.

John Snow successfully defected to the wildlings and traveled with them. He even took a wildling woman as his bedmate. He helped the wildlings cross the wall, then escaped to Castle Black to warn of their approach. He defended the tunnel under the wall until King Stannis Baratheon arrived to crush the wildling army. He was later elected as the new Lord Commander of the Nightswatch.

Bran Stark arrived safely at the wall and met Samwell Tarly there. He passed through a Nightswatch tunnel to go beyond the wall with the cold rider, Jojen and Meera Reed, and Summer, looking for the three eyed crow.

Theon Greyjoy is rumored to still be alive, being held by the Boltons. He isn’t seen at all, however.

Winterfell remains in ruins as the Greyjoys still claim to be king over the Iron Isles and the North.

Stannis Baratheon is alive and well, at the well. After raising Ser Davos Seaworth to be his hand, he learns off the wildling attack on the Wall and rushes North to defend the realm. He does, however, spend a lot of time grinding his teeth and clenching his muscles in range, every time people contradict him or refuse to give him his due.

Tywin Lannister was killed by his son Tyrion, after successfully scheming to kill the Young Wolf and arrange a closer alliance with the Tyrells.

A Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I thought this was a very good sequel to The Game of Thrones. It picked up where the last book left off and immediately went to work advancing the plot. If Game of Thrones had one fault, it was that there was too little action and too much world building. All of that world building begins to pay off in this book, however.

In the last book, some scenes were presented multiple times, from a different character’s viewpoint each time. There was little of that in this book, as the main characters are scattered all over Westeros.

There are four main Lords claiming the kingship: Robb Stark, in the North; Renly Baratheon in the South; Stannis Baratheon at Storm’s End; and Joffrey Baratheon in King’s Landing. In addition, Danys Targareon is still raising her three young dragons, Baylon Greyjoy is planning a new rebellion in the Iron Isalnds, and the men of the Night’s Watch are hearing rumors of a massive gathering of Wildlings, north of the Wall.

I was entertained by the continued growth of each of the main characters. It was also very obvious that the story was being driven by the personalities of each of the main characters. Game of Thrones revealed what those personalities were. A Clash of Kings showed the actions that those personalities demanded and the inevitable results of those actions. That personality driven story telling made this book a success.

As I did for the first book, I’ll keep notes of the major characters and where each was left at the end of the book.

Robb Stark—Is somewhere between Riverrun and Casterly Rock, still making war on the Lannisters. He didn’t appear in the book much, except as an offstage force of chaos.

Catelyn Stark—Is in Riverrun, interrogating Jamie Lannister. Last we saw her, she was preparing to execute him, during a midnight interview in the dungeons.

Arya Stark—Has just escaped from Harrenhal, after hiding there as a servant girl under two different conquering forces. She appears to be heading towards Riverrun, to find her mother and brother.

Sansa Stark—Is still a hostage of the Lannisters, in King’s Landing. Her engagement to Joffrey has been dissolved and she’s still hoping to escape King’s Landing.

Tyrion Lannister—Is recovering, in King’s Landing, from wounds sustained during the Battle for King’s Landing. He’s no longer the Hand of the King, however.

Jamie Lannister—Is still a prisoner of Robb Stark’s forces, having been captured during the battle for Riverrun. He managed to spend the entire book rotting in Tully’s dungeons.

Cersei Lannister—In King’s Landing, still trying to keep Joffrey safe. She’s no longer the regent however. That role has been assumed by Lord Tywin Lannister.

Joffrey Baratheon—Has been hailed as King by both the Tyrells and the Lannisters now, as well as most of the bannermen for the Baratheons. He is freshly engaged to Margery Tyrell.

Daenerys Targaryen—Is on the far side of the world, booking passage out of Qarth, with her dragons and khalasar.

John Snow—Has defected to the wildlings, north of the Wall. The wildling horde is riding towards the wall and plans to smash through into the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.

Bran Stark—Is heading North, from the ruins of Winterfell. He’s still a cripple but has discovered that he can mentally ride with Summer, at will.

Theon Greyjoy—Is dead, after the Bolton’s sack of Winterfell.

Winterfell—Was first captured by Theon Greyjoy and the men of Pyke, then captured and sacked by the Boltons. The North is at war and completely unprepared to face and invasion from beyond the Wall.

Stannis Baratheon—Presumed dead, at the Battle of King’s Landing.

Tywin Lannister—Newly named Hand of the King and Regent, in King’s Landing.

I just realized that I really have a 6 star rating system, not a 5 star system like I’d always assumed. I realized that after seeing, and thinking about, Adam Volle’s review scale. This is his scale:

• 5 Stars: Breaks new ground in some fashion.
• 4 Stars: The people involved know what they're doing and have done it. A success.
• 3 Stars: Flawed, but still enjoyable.
• 2 Stars: A misfire. Major flaws preclude enjoying the work as a whole.
• 1 Star: Egregiously misguided, even evil. Fire someone.

I initially told Adam that his “4 stars” is roughly equivalent to my idea of what “3 stars” should be. When he told me that I was a tough audience, it caused me to think more about where I was going with my rating system.

I consider 3 stars to be my default rating. That is, I expect every book / movie to earn at least a 3 star rating. I reserve 4 stars for things that are unusually good and 5 stars for entertainment that is truly defining.

The more I thought about, there really isn’t anything I want to remove from Adam’s rating system. I just think my system needs 6 stars instead of just 5. Or, put another way, I’d like to give things 0 stars instead of always giving them at least 1 star.

Here’s how I’d put my own rating system:

• 5 Stars: Defines an entire class of entertainment.
• 4 Stars: Breaks new ground in some fashion.
• 3 Stars: The people involved know what they're doing and have done it. A success.
• 2 Stars: Flawed, but still enjoyable.
• 1 Stars: A misfire. Major flaws preclude enjoying the work as a whole.
• 0 Stars: Egregiously misguided, even evil. Fire someone.

Essentially then, my rating systems splits the 5 star category into two sections: something new in an established genre versus creating an entirely new genre. For instance, Lord of the Rings would definitely be a 5 star work. Almost by definition though, few things are going to earn 5 stars.

I’m not sure that this is the last word in my rating system though. For instance, what do I do with books or movies that I personally don’t enjoy all that much but that I recognize as having true excellence? In all fairness, they should probably earn 3 or 4 stars but I don’t like giving a high rating to something that I didn’t personally enjoy and might not always recommend. I’m considering adding an enthusiasm ranking to each review: Enthusiastic, Meh (Neutral), and Don’t Bother (negative).

What do you think? Am I over thinking things here?

Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As you may be aware (he said dryly), this is the first book of George R.R. Martin’s wildly successful fantasy series, “Game of Thrones”. I really like this book. I know it’s true because I managed to reread it and there are very, very few books that I can stand to reread.

This book meets most of my criteria for being both entertaining and engaging. It has a grand scope, many complex characters, and massive world building with a fine attention to detail. It’s true that the novel sprawls over more than 800 pages but Martin makes good use of that length, through detailed world building.

Most of the story takes place in the land of Westeros, among the Seven Kingdoms. It’s a world where magic used to exist but most people believe that the magic has faded out of the world. The last of the dragons is dead and the other magical creatures exist only in fairy tales told to children. It’s a world where the seasons last for years instead of months. Summer has been long, more than 14 years, and many people don’t remember the harshness of Winter.

The history of Westeros and the Seven Kingdoms is embedded deeply into the story, making the world feel large and expansive. The story revolves around the seven Great Houses and focuses primarily on 3: the Starks, The Lannisters, the Targaryens. Each has their own peculiar history, traits, tendencies, and retainers. The characters in each House are fairly detailed. Everyone has their own unique personality and acts according to their own motivations and those of their House. The richness, depth, and complexity of these characters is a big part of what draws me into this world.

The details of the world are another element that really draws me in. For instance, many of the Lords, being quite imperfect people, father bastards. A bastard isn’t entitled to his (or her) father’s name but needs a name nonetheless. So, each region of Westeros has its own surname for bastards.

Stone was a bastard’s name in the Vale, as Snow was in the north, and Flowers in Highgarden; in each of the Seven Kingdoms, custom had fashioned a surname for children born with no names of their own.

Mix all of this together and you get quite a stew of motivations: greed, revenge, lust for power, duty, fear, loyalty all leading to a constant maneuvering for power in the Game of Thrones. As the Lannisters, Stars, and Baratheons jockey for power no one will move through the story unscathed.

On to the spoilers. Since I’m reading through the series, in anticipation of the release of the fifth book, I decided to keep notes of what happens to each of the major characters in each book.

• Robb Stark, Catelyn Stark—Robb Stark inherited the Lordship of the North when Eddard Stark was executed for treason. He’s currently at Riverrun, having just won a surprise victory over the Lannister forces and his bannermen have just proclaimed him King in the North, to avoid pledging fealty to either Renly Baratheon, Stannis Baratheon, or Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister.
• Arya Stark—Has escaped King’s Landing is headed North with Yoren, of the Night’s Watch.
• Sansa Stark—Is currently being held as a hostage of the Lannisters, in King’s Landing.
• Tyrion Lannister—Is with his father’s forces, on the Trident, but is about to head to King’s Landing to try to knock some sense into his nephew’s (King Joffrey’s) head.
• Jamie Lannister—Is a prisoner of Robb Stark’s forces, having been captured during the battle for Riverrun.
• Cersei Lannister, Joffrey Baratheon—In King’s Landing, ruling.
• Daenerys Targaryen—On the Dothraki sea. Khal Jogo has just died and her dragons have just hatched. Her pitifully small group is deciding where to go next.
• John Snow—On the Wall, with the Night’s Watch. He’s preparing to go North of the Wall, to find out what happened to his uncle Benjen Stark and to investigate the suddenly reawakened threat of the wights and the other creatures of the cold. He’ll be accompnying the Lord Commander of the Watch, Lord Mormont.
• Bran Stark—A cripple, confined to Winterfell, longing to act a man, as his brother Robb does.

Firstborn by Brandon Sanderson

My Rating: 4 of 5 stars

Dennison has spent his entire life watching Varion, his older brother by 20 years, win battle after battle. Varion has fought his battles flawlessly, perfectly, never losing. Dennison has fought his own battles valiantly, but hopelessly, never winning. And, yet, his father and his Emperor refuse to release him from military service. Why? What good does it do anyone for him to stay in arms? Especially when his brother is loyally advancing the Empire's cause at every turn?

This was a pure impulse buy for me. I saw it listed as "customers that like this also like this" item on Amazon.com. I'm a fan of Brandon Sanderson and it was only $0.99, so buying it was an easy decision. (Sure, I know it's on Tor.com, but I like supporting my favorite authors and I prefer reading things on my Kindle whenever possible.)

This was one impulse buy I don't regret. As always, Brandon Sanderson is enjoyable and he knows how to tell a story with a twist. For a $0.99 short story, I definitely got $5 worth of enjoyment.

Live Free or Die by John Ringo

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Once again, I greatly enjoyed a book by John Ringo.

If you're going to read Ringo, you need to know what you're getting yourself into. He's a veteran and (judging from his books) he loves blowing stuff up, he hates stupid people, he loves weird aliens or situations, and he has quite a vivid imagination.

Live Free or Die follows this trend. Like many of Ringo's recent books it has a "conversational style". When I say that, I mean that it reads as if you were sitting around a fire with him, listening to him spin a tale. The narration is loose and free, the action is usually just a bit over the top, the events are a bit outrageous and the entire thing is ton of fun to experience. It never even approaches the realm of fine art but that's okay. It's too much fun to quibble about.

The book opens when Earth (Terra) receives its first visit from aliens. They drop off a space gate that allows anyone and everyone from the galaxy to come calling. Soon enough, the Horvath come through and start demanding tribute. It's up to Tyler Vernon to figure out a way to make a buck (or a couple of billion) and start leading the way to free Earth.

Along the way, most of Earth's major cities get wiped out (along with most of America's die-hard liberals) leaving the conservatives and libertarians in charge. Most of the Middle East also gets wiped out (due mostly to their own fear and stupidity.) This is at least the second time that the Middle East has been destroyed in a Ringo novel. (The first, I think, was in "Into the Looking Glass".) A trillion ton asteroid gets turned into a floating battle station (complete with 1.5 kilometer thick nickel-iron armor) and hundreds of floating space mirrors are used to turn alien fleets into scrap metal.

Really, what's not to like?

(Oh, and if you want to read it on your Kindle or Nook or what-have-you, I'd recommend getting it directly from the publisher at Baen Books. It's cheaper than Amazon and has no nasty DRM restrictions. You can thank me later.)

Kennedy by Theodore Sorenson

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

How suddenly a life can be cut short. That is the lesson I took away from "Kennedy".

I underestimated Ted Sorenson. I shouldn't have. One doesn't get to be Counselor to the President and speech writer without having some skills with words. Nevertheless I strongly disliked this book and allowed that to color my perception of Sorenson's skills. I did, at least, up until the final paragraph.

The final few chapters start to build momentum as Sorenson depicts Kennedy's resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the sudden relaxation of tension with the Soviet Union, the negotiations over atmospheric nuclear testing, and the successful signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The tone of the book changes to reflect Kennedy's relief at successfully navigating these crises. Sorenson chronicles Kennedy's trip out west to promote the treaty and the dawning new era of détente with the Soviet Union.

Then, he treats the reader to this final, concluding paragraph.

On November 20 he transmitted an optimistic report to the Congress on our participation in the United Nations. On November 21 he started another tour into the heartland of the opposition, this time in Texas. That evening, in Houston, he talked of "an America that is both powerful and peaceful, with a people that are both prosperous and just." The next morning, in Fort Worth, he expressed confidence that "because we are stronger...our chances for security, our chances for peace, are better than they have been in the past." That afternoon, in Dallas, he was shot dead.

The introduction of Kennedy's assassination is sudden, abrupt, and shocking. This is the first mention of Kennedy's death in the entire book. It's effective. It's very effective. I'm not sure I even like Kennedy that much but, for the first time, I felt the emotional impact of his assassination. It was an unpleasant dash of cold water and I felt the shocking finality of a life suddenly snipped short. A life ended without a chance to say goodbye, without the opportunity for a final hug or smile, without training a successor, or squeezing the hand of a loved one. A life that suddenly, irrevocably, ends.

For that, I'll forgive Sorenson for much of the pain I felt while reading his biography of John F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, it can't make up for all of the book's shortcomings. Like I said before, I really didn't like this biography that much. I read it expecting to get an introduction to Kennedy, his life, his time, his achievements, and his death. What I got was a hagiographic love letter from a devoted worshipper. Perhaps you feel I'm being too harsh. Allow me, please, to illustrate.

It will not be easy for historians to compare John Kennedy with his predecessors and successors, for he was unique in his imprint upon the office: the first to be elected at so young an age, the first from the Catholic faith, the first to take office in an age of mutual nuclear capabilities, the first to reach literally for the moon and beyond, the first to prevent a new recession or inflation in modern peacetime, the first to pronounce that all racial segregation and discrimination must be abolished as a matter of right, the first to meet our adversaries in a potentially nuclear confrontation, the first to take a solid step toward nuclear arms control—and the first to die at so young an age.

And, again.

History and posterity must decide. Customarily they reserve the mantle of greatness for those who win great wars, not those who prevent them. But in my unobjective view I think it will be difficult to measure John Kennedy by any ordinary historical yardstick. For he was an extraordinary man, an extraordinary politician and an extraordinary President. Just as no chart on the history of weapons could accurately reflect the advent of the atom, so it is my belief that no scale of good and bad Presidents can rate John Fitzgerald Kennedy. A mind so free of fear and myth and prejudice, so opposed to cant and clichés, so unwilling to feign or be fooled, to accept or reflect mediocrity, is rare in our world—and even rarer in American politics. Without demeaning any of the great men who have held the Presidency in this century, I do not see how John Kennedy could be ranked below any one of them.

Much of the book is written in that vein. It grew wearisome after the first 3 chapters. It was dreadfully dull by the end of the book. In Sorenson's estimation, Kennedy could do no wrong. It wasn't enough that he was a superb President. Sorenson was convinced that Kennedy could have been his own best Secretary of State, his own best Ambassador, his own best Press Secretary, his own best speech writer, his own best Chief of Staff, etc. The only thing holding Kennedy back from single handedly running the government the way it deserved to be run was a simple lack of time.

Thankfully, the book was not without its redeeming points. The language was, occasionally, poetic. For example:

But the President was upset, and sternly told Jacqueline later never to do that ... and not to worry about his future. On November 22 his future merged with his past, and we will never know what might have been. His own inner drive, as well as the swift pace of our times, had enabled him to do more in the White House in three years than many had done in eight—to live a fuller life in forty-six years than most men do in eighty. But that only makes all the greater our loss of the years he was denied.

And I did finish the book with a better understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin crisis, the Bay of Pigs, and other significant events than when I started. So my time spent reading it wasn't an entire waste. But it was a trudge, not a pleasure.

If you're looking for a serious introduction to President John F. Kennedy, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. If you already love President John F. Kennedy and simple want to relive the love, this is most definitely the book for you.

A Journey: My Political Life by Tony Blair

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book caught my eye because I knew very little about Tony Blair. I knew he was the Prime Minister in Britain. I knew he was the leader of the Labour Party and a big government, big spending progressive. I knew he was President Bush’s staunchest ally in the war on terror. And, that’s about it. I really didn’t know anything about what he actually tried to accomplish in Britain or why. I didn’t know anything about who he was or what he made him tick. And, after reading Decision Points, I was interested in his perspective on the events of the past decade.

Although long, this book was an enjoyable read. Blair writes with a light, conversational style that I really enjoyed reading. It could be a little distracting at times, as he would occasionally take a rabbit trail into the past. It was usually apparent when he did so, but I got confused about the timing of events a few times. That was a minor complaint as the style generally contributed greatly to the tone of the book.

As I read, I discovered that Tony Blair has a wonderful sense of humour. That’s matched with a very contemplative approach to life. For example, he recounted several times how stressed out he would get before a big speech, spending his time constantly writing and rewriting his text. He compared this to President Bush who was amazingly laconic before most speeches and never seemed to worry about the message or the delivery. (Some might say that those contrasting approaches showed up in the quality of speeches that each man gave.)

This book is exactly what it says on the cover: a story about the journey Blair took during his political life. It’s partly a history of the events of the past 30 years and partly a recounting of the decisions and actions that formed Blair’s own evolving outlook on life and politics. After reading the book, I came away thoroughly convinced that I would like Tony Blair as a person, even if I felt compelled to oppose many of his policies.

As to policies, I won’t spend a whole lot of time critiquing them. Blair and I are on different ends of the political spectrum, when it comes to the question of how involved and active government should be. It’s not really worth belabouring the point of all of the different ways in which we do disagree.

I was greatly impressed by Blair’s perception of the ways in which traditional big government liberalism and socialism is highly unsuited to our modern economic system and dynamic society. Blair clearly saw what was wrong with the Labour Party and with the government’s highly centralised approach to decision making. He saw that people were used to choice and used to firing incompetent providers in the private section. And he saw that the government’s provision of services wasn’t coming close to what people now expected. As a result, he spent his entire political career trying to reform the delivery and provision of government services. While I don’t agree with his solutions, I was very happy with his overall critiques of government services.

This comes across clearly in his definition of what it means to be a progressive.

First, what makes you a progressive? I would say: belief in social justice, i.e. using the power of society as a whole to bring opportunity, prosperity and hope to those without it; to do so not just within our national boundaries but outside of them; to judge our societies by the condition of the weak as much as the strong; to stand up at all times for the principle that all human beings are of equal worth, irrespective of race, religion, gender (I would add of sexuality) or ability; and never to forget and always to strive for those at the bottom, the poorest, the most disadvantaged, the ones others forget. Notice these are all values, not policies. They may beget policies.

… Third, there is a new divide in politics which transcends traditional left and right. It is what I call “open vs. closed.” Some right-wingers are free-traders, others aren’t. Likewise with the left. On both sides, some are pro-immigration, others anti-. Some favour an interventionist foreign policy; others don’t. Some see globalisation and the emergence of China, India and others as a threat; some as an opportunity. There is a common link to the free trade, pro-immigration (controlled, of course) interventionist and pro-globalisation political positions, but it is “open vs. closed,” not “left vs. right.” I believe progressives should be the champions of the open position, which is not only correct but also a winning position, as Bill Clinton showed conclusively. However, it is a huge and important dividing line in modern politics.

I would agree with this definition and, by it, I think I could call myself a progressive. I would place myself on the “open” side of his dividing line. I think Blair and I would merely (merely!) disagree on the policies that this definition begat.

I very much enjoyed this book as a look into the mind and growth of Tony Blair. It did exactly what a good political memoir should: it helped me to understand who he is, why he made the decisions he did, and how he grew as a result of his time in politics. Now that I’ve read it, I’m strongly rooting for him to have success in the Middle East peace process and I wish him well in his post prime ministerial career.

Decision Points by George W. Bush

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

When I read political memoirs, I'm typically looking for one of two things: a much better understanding of the politician or a much better understanding of the decisions that were made and the day-to-day, nitty-gritty detail of events that led into the decisions. Sadly, with this book from "43", I got neither.

President Bush had an active presidency and was often juggling many simultaneous crises. I was hoping for a look at what life was like in his White House. How crazy does a typical day look when you're juggling a Social Security reform bill, a war in Iraq, and a belligerent North Korean state all at once? Sadly, I never found out. By organizing the point around different topics and focusing on one decision point at a time, he stripped events from their context, rendering them sterile and unmoored from the emotions of each year of his presidency.

I was also greatly disappointed by the lack of detail surrounding each decision point. Many of the descriptions boiled down to a very simple formula. "An event happened. I had a gut feeling but knew I needed to consult with some trusted advisors. My advisors confirmed my gut instinct and I implemented the plan. Ultimately, I was disappointed in the outcome and I know realize that I should have changed my tactics (but not the overall plan). Today, America is better off and I'm glad I made the attempt, even if it didn't turn out quite the way I'd hoped it would."

I wish I could say that I exaggerate and that there is a higher level of detail in the book. I can't. The Harriet Miers debacle, for instance, only takes about a page to relate. I've watched the West Wing. I know that a huge amount of work goes into the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. Going into the book, I wanted to know a lot more about the process that led to picking Ms. Miers as a nominee. This book did nothing to satisfy my curiosity.

People who already love President George W. Bush will probably love this book. Those of us who read it hoping to find a reason to reevaluate his presidency will have to go away disappointed.

The new film adaptation of Beowulf's justly been receiving loads of huzzahs for its groundbreaking use of 3D technology (The Economist has devoted an article to how exactly it works), but its screenplay has received far less - if any - respect from the critics.

This is perplexing, since what writers Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman have written is something of an achievement - a new, nearly legitimate interpretation of England's oldest epic poem. The general failure of film critics to recognize this may be due to the same ignorance which resulted in their complaints about Frank Miller's 300 earlier this year. No review of that movie was apparently complete without the observation, soon trite, that the directors had forgotten to give their Spartans body armor. But this only revealed how many of those reviews' writers had actually missed one of the movie's fundamental points: 300 isn't an attempt to accurately recreate a historical event, but an attempt to accurately recreate the spirit of how Ancient Greece would retell such a historical event. The Spartans are nearly naked not because that is how they really fought, but because that is how Greek artists would depict them.

Director Zack Snyder himself has said as much:

"300 is a movie that is made from the Spartan perspective. Not just from the Spartan perspective, the cameras are the Spartans, but it’s the Spartans sensibility of the Battle of Thermopylae... If you had Spartans sitting around a fire and they were telling you before anything was written down what happened at Thermopylae, this is the way they would tell it. It’s not necessarily down to the fact that they don’t have armor on. Everything about it is just to make the Spartans more heroic [italics mine - go get your own].”

Beowulf is the same kind of creation, only far, far more ambitious. Not only does it recreate with a sometimes wince-inducing measure of honesty the kind of world in which the story purports to take place, but with only two notable (and ultimately unnecessary) exceptions that I could count, the movie is completely faithful to its source material - yet reinterprets that material in such a way that the themes of the story are doubled in strength.

The story of both the original poem and the movie is easy to summarize: an over-the-hill king named Hrothgar is besieged by Grendel, a monster who enters his hall every night and eats a couple of the king's apparently very loyal subjects. Beowulf arrives and rips the monster's arm off, then follows the beastie into its cave in order to kill its mother, too. As proof of his kill, he brings back Grendel's head. Years later, Beowulf dies saving his kingdom from a dragon. The End.

What holds all of this together, in the poem, is the comparison readers are invited to make between King Hrothgar at the beginning of the poem and King Beowulf at its end. Beowulf the movie amplifies this theme by answering the questions about the poem most of us never even thought to - but should have - asked: Why doesn't Grendel kill Hrothgar himself? Why does Beowulf return to Hrothgar with only Grendel's head? And really, the dragon's just kind've a random tack-on, isn't it?

Well, not anymore, it's not. Gaiman and Avary explain Grendel's torturing of King Hrothgar as the confrontation between an illegitimate, freakish son and his deadbeat dad. The kingdom's wrecking by a monster is the result of its king's fornification with a bewitching succubus. The same demoness successfully seduces Beowulf, when he arrives in her cave to kill her, and thus the warrior later returns with only Grendel's head.

This coupling between man and Satanic siren, of course, results in the birth of a new monster, which bedevils the crowned Beowulf many years later: the dragon. Everything thus comes full-circle and Beowulf finds himself in the exact same position as his predecessor - naturally, the very best of scenarios in which to contemplate the two mens' differences.

See what I mean about the themes being strengthened? Yes, liberties are taken in that new "scenes" are added to the story. But they're really nothing more than most theologians do with the Bible itself, imagining details that do not contradict what is known, in order to make sense of story points otherwise not understandable.

The consequences of failing to at least pay child support are brutally exposed in Zemeckis's film..

I shouldn't really be surprised that these particular writers pull it off. I'm used to Hollywood bungling its adaptations, but Neil Gaiman is a British import who's made his name writing modern takes on mythology; it's his niche, and he's good at it. Stardust is another example of his work.

And really, that might be why I enjoyed Beowulf, and you should take any recommendation here with a grain of salt; Beowulf can play the part of a straight-up action-adventure story for your typical moviegoer, but it's also a game being played by a couple of lovers of literature with their brethren. Fun-averse purists aside, inhabitants of English Departments far and wide are watching this movie with glee. And they understand why Beowulf feels it necessary to get naked before wrestling a giant.

Full enjoyment of the show is thus reserved for a select audience of which I, for once, am a member.

So, not often getting the chance to be part of an elitist "in-crowd" at anything, I'm naturally going to go see it again. Have fun doing whatever it is you, y'know, non-English Major types do with your lives.