Kitten At War (And Other News)

Hello all, just thought I’d give you a quick update on how things are going for us newly weds up in Breezy Point, Minnesota.

Kitten Problems

Anya has an enemy! We don’t know who or what it is, but there is definitely…something…out there that she doesn’t like.

It started a few weeks ago. One night we heard a solitary screech – presumably Anya – and then a very brief yowling sound of a cat fighting. Vanna ran out there (I, uh, stayed in bed and gave moral support through the window) to find Anya a little…upset. When we were able to examine her (it doesn’t take much to calm kitty down; just give her some food and she’s happy enough) we found several wet marks where something had tried to bite her.

Hmm. The problem was that we couldn’t figure out what this ‘something’ was. If it was a cat, there would have been more noise. Same if it was a squirrel, or a chipmunk or a dog. Black Bear? Highly unlikely. Skunk? Eh. Raccoon? Nah.

There was no obvious answer to Anya’s nemesis. But as she was unhurt, we forgot about it.

Cut to last night. Once again we heard a wail. Vanna rushed out. This time Anya didn’t come back straight away. Vanna kept calling but there was no sign of her.  Uh oh.

Eventually she crept out from underneath the deck. No bites or marks on her, but she spent the next hour or so staring out the window as if she was watching for something.

The question is…what?

I Won Something!

Have you ever heard of Premium Bonds? Me neither. (Well okay I have but saying I know something about them doesn’t make for as an effective sentence does it?)

Anyway, it turns out I have a share.  But because I’ve left the UK, I’m no longer entitled to them so I have to cash them in. Ah well, at least I get a bit of money. Is that it?

No, that is not it! Not only do I get the value of the bonds, I also won something in the July draw!

All right, it was only £25 ($40 roughly). But hey, better than nothing!

Letters and Cheques

Now that Vanna and I share a bank account, she thought she’d ordered some special cheque books for us. Good idea, right? What Vanna neglected to tell me was that she had picked ones with little kittens printed on.

*sigh* Don’t think my book will be getting much use.

It isn’t all bad news though; as well as my letter to the Premium Bonds people, yesterday we also sent off the visa packet to…whoever/wherever it is supposed to go to. Another step ticked off the list. Now all we have to do is wait!

(and then fill out more forms and have more interviews. But for now we can just relax)

Destiny

So I returned Destiny last week. I said last Wednesday (I think) that I wouldn’t talk about it until I had a better idea of what to say.

Well…I still don’t know what to make of it. I like it and I want it. But at the same time,  I don’t know what the hell I’m doing. Excluding Timeshift (it had a plot but you couldn’t hear any of it), I don’t think I’ve played a game so blindly. There is a big orb and a city and…that is about it. I started to figure things out but really, when your game cost $1,000,000,000 (that is a billion dollars) to make, you should be able to flesh out a plot. I get that it is multiplayer based, but how difficult would it be to have a narrative to follow?

That being said, I did like Destiny. It was fun and I’m sad not to have it. Fingers crossed I’ll be able to get the Xbox One soon.

The Stand

Tried to watch the film adaption of Stephen King’s book but couldn’t get into it. Vanna then kindly went out and bought me a copy. It is the uncut version, so the total page count is nearly 1200. I’m less than 100 pages through…I’ll get back to you on this.

Alex

Why Do I Waste My Time Watching Under The Dome?

This week I’m going to discuss television shows/movies that I watched a long time ago (in some cases a real long time ago) yet never got around to discussing on the blog. Better late than never, right?

To start the catch up, I thought I’d talk about Under The Dome. I have talked about this show in the past (and not in the most flattering of terms, as you can see here) but now that I’m working my way through the second season, I thought this was the perfect time to bring up my hatred for UTD up again. Enjoy!

Alex 

——————————————————–

Please does anybody know the answer to the question I pose in the title? I honestly don’t have a clue. It can’t be because I love the book; that loyalty surely disappeared by the time I finished season one. And it can’t be because I think it is good; neither you or I should be so ridiculous to even suggest that. So what is it? There must be a reason why, despite my immense dislike for everything this show stands for, I continue to persevere with it. Even though I think it the show is terrible, I am half way through season two (it may be over on T.V. but I recorded them as I wasn’t in the country when it started) and I won’t stop watching until the ending credits on the finale. Hell, I probably won’t even finish there; Under The Dome will be in its thirtieth season and I’ll still be sitting on the couch, the only idiot who hadn’t switched over.

Ugh. It is inexplicable. Really, I don’t know what I’m doing. I can’t even talk about UTD without ranting about it.  The writing, the acting and the characters (a combination of both bad actors and bad writers I suppose, but nevertheless worth including here) are just horrible. It would take me hours to list all the flaws in the show.

If you’re thinking I’m being overdramatic, I’m really not (okay I probably am but lets run with it). There is so much wrong with this show. If it isn’t a bad plot or plot device, it is awful dialogue ruining the scene.  If it isn’t horrific character logic, it is somehow even more horrific story/’dome’ logic (in the series, the dome is essentially a character too…a really dumb character).

I just cannot stress how bad Under The Dome is.  If an episode isn’t clichéd/unoriginal (which it is around 90% of the time) it is stupid beyond words. I watch it and feel my own IQ slipping.

And yet I keep going with it! The only reason I can come up with is that the show has ventured so far from the book, I feel I have to watch it to see what they do next.  Don’t confuse this for storyline immersion however, as I spend most of the episode deriding the sheer idiocy of, well, literally anything that happens. I reckon there is bigger chance of me being gripped by a late night shopping channel show than there is of being absorbed by Under The Dome  (“only one minute to buy one of the last 342 Multi-Purpose Towel Blankets!”).

Urgh. In one episode I even cheered a character/actress that I have never liked simply because she was momentarily unpredictable; a depressingly rare trait for the characters in this show. I don’t even know what else to say about it. I just have to laugh because if I don’t, I’ll end up crying about what could have been.

That is the worse thing about this abject monstrosity. Under The Dome had so much potential. It really did. I won’t harp on about the book here (because I’ve done that so much in the past already) but it was, genuinely, unbelievably good. One of the best books I’ve ever read.  This is why the show annoys me so much. I cannot for the life of me fathom how it doesn’t even contain a tiny fraction of the novel’s greatness. They (I’ll get onto the they in the next paragraph) have completely ruined the opportunity to make Under The Dome the best show on television. I should be talking about a masterpiece here…and I’m not. What a joke.

*sigh*

In the interest of fairness, I would like to state I do realize that just because I think a novel is awesome doesn’t mean a T.V. adaptation will automatically be good as well. Regardless of who is working on it, there will always be issues. In the case of Under The Dome, I can understand it would be very difficult to copy everything perfectly. For example, there are certain elements of the book that would be too dark for most networks to include (except for HBO perhaps). The audience might not even like it. And it would be a hugely expensive project to follow the novel accurately; replicating a whole town’s worth of people each with their own background and story would be a massive undertaking.

Even with an unlimited budget, that would be hard to do. Over a hundred people in a book nearly a thousand pages long…could you imagine trying to include every detail included in Under The Dome? If I compare it to Peter Jackson and the Lord Of The Ring/The Hobbit films, I can sympathize somewhat with the writers; no matter how much Jackson included in that trilogy, there was always going to be more that he missed out or didn’t explore in detail. It was impossible for him to please everybody. Under The Dome effectively had the same problem.

Still…they could have made it work! Stephen King and Steven Spielberg both work on Under The Dome! The two Steves! How can the dialogue and story be so bad? Lost was made up on the spot yet it had some fantastic arcs and character depth. Sure it wasn’t flawless but it was still a very good show. UTD has plenty of great source material so why isn’t it at least hitting a similar level to Lost? Why are all the characters so one-dimensional and predictable? And why is the dome a sentient being? Who thought that was a good idea? You’d think a huge invisible dome that has mood swings would be the worst thing on the show, yet everything else is so unconvincing and stupid it doesn’t even make the top 3 of terribleness.

It is just sad, people. I watch this show and simultaneously mourn it.

———————————————————————————

Sidenote:

Frank Darabont, who directed The Walking Dead, also directed three of Stephen King’s works; Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Mist.

The Mist is about a group of people trapped in a supermarket by a dangerous fog. Like UTD‘s…dome, the fog is merely a device used to create a situation where the various sides of humanity emerge. Darabont nailed these characters in The Mist. I can’t help but think about how much better things could have been if he’d worked on Under The Dome. Not only does Darabont respect King’s work, he is very good at creating deep characters which is exactly what UTD needs. I reckon his version (if it existed) would be one I could truly love and invest in.

Naturally I assume his commitments to The Walking Dead probably kiboshed any potential involvement. But one can dream, right?

An expanded sidenote:

Hang on a second. If you think about all the criticism TWD gets for having too much dialogue and not enough zombie fighting (I like the show but I get the argument; it’s what we want yet not what we want), and how in comparison, UTD has no character development but lots of drama…wouldn’t it have worked out if the writers et all had switched projects? Just think about how awesome it would have been if that had happened!

Ugh. Why didn’t it happen? In an alternative universe people are watching two of the best shows ever, while we settle for one terrible show and another that flits from amazing to disappointing depending on who you ask. That’s nowhere near as good. We’re missing out on greatness!

*sigh*

Okay, I’m done now. Thanks for reading.

Alex

Under The Dome (Again), Clash Of Heroes, St Jude And…Biting Spiders

Apologies for it being so quiet on the blog last week. Everything has been fine, but rather uneventful. Mostly I’ve just been killing time until my trips away. I feel it is important to see my friends, especially during this stretch without Vanna. It’s been over three months since we were last together, you know. It feels like much longer. BUT the misery (I’ve not been wallowing in despair exactly, but it is fair to say it isn’t the same without her) of being apart should finally change in December; our Christmas plans are still on, and I hope to buy the tickets shortly. All very exciting. I’ll let you know the good news once it’s confirmed (I’m thinking tomorrow, but we’ll see!).

In the meantime, here’s what has been on my mind this week.

Under The Dome:

The weekend before last, I decided to read Under The Dome for the second time. it was sitting on my desk so I thought why not? and picked it up again. It is my favourite book after all. I’m about three-quarters of the way through, and I have to say I’m enjoying it even more this time around. Not only because I’m seeing it all with a different understanding (as with most things, you pick up more once you already know the main plot), but also because I have a new-found appreciation of the novel, mostly thanks to the television series that it is far superior to (unfortunately, I keep imagining the actors from the show as the characters instead of the figments I created; okay with Barbie, as both versions are similar, but not so great with everyone else).

Now, I’m not using this post as another way to take digs at Under The Dome. It isn’t a bad show. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t continue to watch it (contrary to popular belief, I’m not that sad). In reality, I’m looking forward to tonight’s episode, so using the book to criticize the show wouldn’t be right. Fact is, it has distanced itself so much from the novel, I can’t compare them. Except for the basis premise (the dome) it’s completely different. In some ways for the better; the new character that has just been introduced (a woman called Maxine, who is not in the book in any way shape or form) has spiced up the story considerably, and added a new dimension to proceedings. So yeah, it’s not all bad.

HOWEVER, there is one thing that is bugging me. I’m going to be rather vague in my explanation, because I’m not entirely sure what I’m talking about. I know that doesn’t usually stop me, but in this case I’m rather annoyed to be vague. I know there is a term for what the writers are doing but I cannot remember it, so all I can do is blather around and hope you understand.

*sigh*

Essentially, my problem is that Under The Dome has a tendency to move the plot on in an improper way. Like they will use one scene to jump forward without really explaining the series of events. Or…ugh, this isn’t working. I’ll give you an example.

Two teenagers are trying to understand how the dome works. Out of nowhere, one of them says ‘the dome is like an atom, so the nucleus must be in the centre.’ This then leads to them going to the middle of the town, where they find something.

Now, I can’t remember the dialogue exactly, but that was about it. There was no ‘what if?’ at the front, or ‘I’ve been thinking…say if the dome is like an atom blah blah blah.’ He simply stated it was like an atom without any evidence to prove his theory. There was no sign or prompt whatsoever to lead us to this conclusion either. He stared at the dome for a second, and then had this revelation. No doubt about it at all. We’re just supposed to go along with it.

To me, that’s lazy writing. If he’d just suggested it as a possible theory (like he does in the book), then I’d have been all aboard; I would have thought the same. Or if they wanted a visual suggestion, he could have read a science book, or saw a picture beforehand. But for him to say it with such conviction for no reason whatsoever was dumb.

Does anybody know what the term is for this? I’m convinced there is one. Someone please comment and put me out of my misery because it’ll bug me for days.

Anyway, Under The Dome is a decent show that I enjoy watching, but I do get annoyed by…whatever it is that I’ve just talked about.

Clash Of Heroes:

I appreciate the word count is shooting up, so I’m just going to briefly mention this little arcade game and move on.

Clash Of Heroes is so much fun!

Ahem.

…I’ll do a better review when I complete it. But if you’ve wondered why I haven’t talked about Fallout 3 like I said I would (you probably haven’t given it a thought, but I like to assume you have)…Clash Of Heroes is to blame.

Storm of the Century (so far!):

A bit concerned for my trip on Friday, and not just because of the long train journey. This week the UK has been struck by a ferocious storm. St Jude (yes, that’s what we call our storms, Americans) is doing something somewhere south (we Up North are golden), and the country is in panic about it. I’m not worried about the storm itself (Ooh, it’s a bit windy today!), but I am worried about the consequences. You see, we Brits cannot deal with bad weather. A bit of snow and the country shuts down. I dread to think of the problems I might face after a storm. Delayed or cancelled trains are the main fear, and I cannot be bothered with that nonsense. Six hours on a train is bad enough without adding several more hours sitting around because there is a branch on the tracks. So finish your attack soon, St Jude. I don’t want to be affected by your damage. Cheers.

SPIDERS!

Another thing in the news is the outbreak (re; a few more than usual) of False Widow Spiders. Though not fatal, the spiders have a nasty bite, and if you’re unlucky, can cause severe reactions to your systems (read the linked article for the details. Of course, the fact that the spiders are growing in number in Britain (or suspected to), and pose a mild risk to some people, is enough to create a sudden nationwide panic because THE SPIDERS ARE EVERYWHERE PEOPLE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! ARRRRGH!

Ahem.

Normally, the rise of the spiders wouldn’t be a problem for me as Up North we are perfectly safe. But later this week I’m heading South…into their territory. Though Abbie has yet to see one, I’m told the house I’m staying at does have a slight spider problem…

Great.

So, people, if you don’t hear from me next week, I probably have a good excuse. The spiders have me.

But hey, it might not be too bad. Maybe I’ll get superpowers from it. Hmm…

Alex

Telephone Interviews? Pfft. It’s The Face To Face Ones You Have To Worry About!

Today I had my very first telephone interview, for a Merchandise Assistant job, working at a well-known retail store that will remain nameless for now.  The interview lasted for about 15 minutes, and despite feeling rather shaky about the whole ordeal (as with all retail jobs, they ask you theoretical questions about customers, and I’m always wary I’ll say the wrong thing), I passed with flying colours! Go me!

Of course, that isn’t the only thing to do. On Friday, I have to go up to Newcastle for a recruitment session with some other applicants. It’ll last for two hours, and as well as a ‘task that everyone has lots of fun with,’ we talk to the manager and presumably, show how we deal with customers. I was quite excited for this until I realized something. Something bad.

I’ve never done this before!

The thing is, I really do like helping people. In my old jobs, I would often go the extra mile to help someone (like look for a file in places I knew it wouldn’t be, just in case). I tend to feel happy and satisfied when they are happy and satisfied, which is, I feel, a good trait to have. However, this positive attribute is cruelly counteracted by my general awkwardness around people. Once I’m in my stride, I’m golden, but the thought of going up to a customer strikes fear in my heart. Initially I’m thinking yeah, this will be fine, and then they’ll ask me something I don’t immediately know the answer to and…oh man, oh man what do I do?! This could just be my brain freaking me out, and I might actually be good at it once I’ve got some training (I find that I have no problems once I know what I’m doing…). But the simple fact is I have never worked at a store before, and I have no clue as to how it’s going to go. Who knows?

So, it is safe to say I’m a little nervous for Friday. I feel like I can do it, yet at the same time, I’m worried about how it will go. But whether I succeed or fail, I just have to learn from the experience, and use the knowledge for next time (if there is a next time). I’ll keep calm, and try my best.

Well…that’s the plan anyway.

 

 

In other news…

Despite my early criticisms, I have persisted to watch Under The Dome, because, well, what else am I supposed to do on a Monday night? Joking aside, though I still stand by comments here, I cannot deny that the show has improved. Mind you, I think this mostly down to how they have deviated so far from the book, there is no comparison between the two, and I can enjoy it as a standalone show.

However, the book is still far superior, and I can’t help but think Under The Dome would have been the best show on television had they followed the novel more closely. Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but it definitely would be better than the version they’ve got on now.

But I’m not getting into that again; Stephen King was involved, and decisions were made. Point is, it isn’t half bad, and  I do want to see how it’ll end.  I’d even go as far to say that I’m enjoying it, but I feel that word has been overused lately, as it seems like I enjoy everything regardless of quality. If only I blogged back when I was 18, because I was critical of anything and everything in those days. Clearly, I’ve mellowed out in my old age (unless I’m talking about buses, of course).

And finally….

Rather conveniently, once Under The Dome finished, the Swedish adaptation of The Girl Who Played With Fire began (on a different channel before you get smart). Last week I mentioned how keen I was to see how the second book was transferred to film…turns out, not that great.

Well, that’s a little harsh. After all, there was nothing wrong with the film; it covered all the key points, the suspense carried on from the first, and I had no niggling complaints about it. But much like Under The Dome, I just think the novel is better. In this case, I reckon it is no fault of the people involved, and more to do with the general problem movies have copying from books; simply put, there isn’t enough time for it cover everything the book has to offer.

The Girl Who Played With Fire is a slow-paced book, but the build up is what makes it so good. Inevitably, the movie loses that element because it can’t afford to have hours and hours worth of background. I imagine The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest (which I’ll watch next week) will have the same problem, as both the second and third book have so much going on, it’s impossible for the films to keep up. They can’t convey it all the various subplots. The first one worked for the Swedes and Hollywood because there was one main plot line; the mysterious disappearance of Harriet Vagnar. The sequels, because of all those story arcs, are difficult to replicate. At least that’s my opinion.

Anyway, The Girl Who Played With Fire wasn’t a bad film at all. Had I not watched the novels, I probably would have liked it a lot more. But I did, so I can only give it a 7/10. A valiant effort, but ultimately cannot compete with Larsson’s work. Still, glad I watched it.

 

Stephen King Has Ruined Reading For Me

On my recent trip to Barter Books in Alnwick, I bought four novels, including two from Stephen King; Joyland, and more importantly, Under The Dome. And, as I mention in the first link, I also bought two Shaun Hutson novels while I was there.

Now, before Stephen King, my favourite writer for a long time was Shaun Hutson. I own and have read at least twenty of his novels (some of them more than once), so I can confidently say that I enjoy his stuff. I like his style; it is vivid, fast paced, and doesn’t hold back when it comes to the more deprived parts of society.  Hutson also has a very good knack at building up a very dramatic finale, a technique which usually results in me skimming entire sentences in my determination (or perhaps desperation) to reach the end.

And once I do finish, I’m rarely let down. It is often hard to predict how it will end, as Hutson will often go for the less favourable ending, where perhaps the protagonist dies, or arrives too late to stop bad things from happening. Sometimes it even ends abruptly, with the overwhelming threat left to your imagination. But whatever happens, it usually concludes the story perfectly, which, as most of you will no doubt know, isn’t an easy skill to master.

So, yeah, Hutson’s influence has definitely helped to shape my writing style, and the way I approach and do things. If you aren’t familiar with his work, I would say my short story One Stormy Night is similar to his novels, in regards to how it ends. It may not reach his level, but it was certainly Hutson inspired.

However, despite all this gushing praise, I have to admit I wasn’t impressed by Last Rites and Epitaph, the two aforementioned Shaun Hutson books I bought at Alnwick. I still enjoyed them, of course, but they didn’t captivate me like his previous efforts have. Yes, the stories were intriguing, and his familiar style was as strong as ever…but ultimately I was disappointed. And I think Stephen King’s Under The Dome is to blame.

Why? Because Under The Dome had everything. I’m not going to go over it again, but it was nigh on perfect. As a result, I don’t think the other books in my collection can compete. Normally Hutson is a refreshing change of pace from King; while a King novel is slow and long-winded, Hutson’s novel is like a punch to the face. Under The Dome, however, was somehow a hybrid, combining both styles and making the separate versions inadequate. Suddenly I’m looking at these two books and thinking ‘eh, they’re good, but neither of them are Under The Dome.’

I knew I loved UTD, but I hadn’t realized how much until I tried to read another book and struggled, simply because I was so amazed by the story of Chester’s Mill. It was such an amazing novel everything else is, frankly, unappealing to me. That might be the greatest compliment I can give Under The Dome, but it also signals that I have a big problem on my hands; I’ve got plenty of books to read, but is there the possibility that I won’t even like them, thanks to Under The Dome?

In some ways, It’s like having a night in the most luxurious room in the world, where you get the best night’s sleep that you’ve ever had. It was fantastic. The best thing ever. You loved that you got to experience it, and you wouldn’t even dream (ha!) of not doing it. BUT now you have to go home, to your normal bed…and suddenly it is no longer enough. It was acceptable before, but it is not special now. Bland…boring. And you’re stuck with it. And who wants that?

So, thanks Under The Dome. I don’t know what to do now. It was too bloody good it has ruined everything else for me. Humph. I expect a compensation cheque in the post, Mr King. I’m sure you can come up with a suitable figure in return for me not being able to enjoy a book EVER AGAIN (at least 5 figures; don’t be cheap).

…I have a tough life don’t I?

Alex

 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Mind you, I do think that I’d feel this way regardless; both books were just disappointing by Hutson’s standards. Last Rites was just silly, and seemed somewhat half cocked (I think it would have been much better), while Epitaph, though interesting in concept, was ultimately very predictable, which as I said before, is very unlike Hutson. Again, it could have been much, much more. They just didn’t live up to hype.

So, next step is to go back to King, and read Firestarter. Hopefully I’ll enjoy that, and this feeling I’m getting will just be a fluke. I guess I will just have to see.

 

Agh, Why Must They Make Unnecessary Changes?

A slight interruption on what I planned yesterday, as instead of reviewing this summer’s trip to America (which I’m probably not in the mood for anyway…I’ll just do it tomorrow instead) on the blog today, I’m going to talk about the television series of Under The Dome. The pilot was last night (I know it premiered a few months back in America, but we had to wait a bit for it to arrive on these shores) and I watched a recording of it this afternoon.  And it was, uh…well, I’ll get to that shortly.

First of all, as a way of defending the gripes I’m about to share with you, I’d like to state that I wasn’t expecting the television series to be an exact replica of the novel. I was well aware that there would be changes, as there was no feasible way they could copy King’s in its entirety (it would be too long, for one; Lost would look tame in comparison). Though it is a thoroughly enjoyable read (link to my passionate review), the book simply wouldn’t work as a television show if they didn’t streamline it a little. I’m not so naive to think that there wouldn’t be any amendments at all. It’s inevitable, isn’t it?

HOWEVER, despite my acceptance that it was bound to happen, there were a lot of things they did in the pilot (and ultimately, the series) different from the book, that even now, I can’t understand. Changes that just seem unnecessary. I won’t go through all of them (i.e I’ll not mention the more spoiler orientated ones; the changes that surely must affect the plot) but here’s a brief list of what I noticed this afternoon:

1. Barbie’s personality: The main protagonist is seen burying a body (not a spoiler, it happens in the first minute), and driving a dodgy car. But in the book, Barbie’s a good guy! What is with dead man? Not impressed.
2. The Police Chief is involved somehow, in a bad way: I won’t add to this (mostly because I don’t know how far it goes) but this version is a shifty character. In the book, he’s a good guy too.
3. Joe (one of the teenagers has no mother under the dome, but has gained a sister: …what?
4. Julia the journalist has a husband: Again…what?
5. No Andy Sanders: Main character, vital character, but doesn’t appear to exist. Umm, okay.
6. Rusty, one of the main characters, is on the outside of the dome: Well, unlike Andy, he does exist. Still not happy. He’s also a fireman instead of a physician’s assistant.
7. The church radio station is now a rock radio station: I won’t explain this (I’m tagging it with a spoiler) but it doesn’t work with one of the huge themes in the book. *sigh*

Now, I understand that they’ve probably reduced the character number out of necessity (they’d probably use up their entire budget on wages if they used all the names in the book), and by doing so, they’ve been forced to change some of the backgrounds (one girl, for example plays two characters) too. But still, the above changes don’t make sense to me. Chopping out some of the less important characters, I understand, but not the main ones. And to make Barbie a completely different guy is somewhat confusing too. As for the plot amendments…well, I’ll reserve making a complete judgement for now.

So, all in all, I wasn’t impressed. But hey, maybe it’ll get better from here on out (can anyone who has watched the series confirm this? Wikipedia tells me it was well received initially, but later episodes were criticized). Maybe I’m being overly harsh picking on it now. After all, it wasn’t a bad pilot. I can see why a lot of people enjoyed it (despite my complaints, I suppose I did too).

The problem is, of course, regardless of how good the television version of Under The Dome is, or turns out to be, it’s never going to compare favourably to the book in my mind. The question is can I enjoy it knowing what I know? If I think about it from a neutral perspective (what would Vanna say?), I can’t deny that the pilot was, at the very least, interesting; I am genuinely curious about what they have in mind for the various characters now that they’ve deviated from the novel. Whether the next few episodes can hook me, and persuade me to ignore the issues that I currently have with it (even if I hadn’t read the book, I don’t think Under The Dome would have instantly captivated me like Lost, or The Walking Dead, did)…well, that remains to be seen. But I’ll give it a chance, because that’s just the kind of guy I am.

On the plus side (to show I’m not fully against it), I was impressed with the visual effects, and more importantly, the casting (which can often go wrong when you’ve read the source material). The biggest name is actor Dean Norris, a name Breaking Bad fans should recognize as the man who plays Hank Schrader, who is perfectly cast as Big Jim Rennie. I wasn’t sure when I initially saw him, but I think he’s probably the right guy. The actor playing Barbie looks all right too, and there is a nice reference to my childhood through the actress playing Rose, owner of the Sweetbriar Rose, who used to be Zelda, from Sabrina The Teenage Witch. Ahh…memories.

So, uh, yeah, there are some positives. I’ll see how it goes, and update you on my thoughts next week.

And that’s about it. But before I finish this, I would like to mention something else that came to my attention today (I had seen trailers for it previously, but clearly my brain thought it best I forgot all about it); the Carrie reboot.

…Why? Just, why? I’m not against reboots, but this one is stupid. The 1976 film was great, and still works today. There is no need for a new one. Especially not with the cast they’ve chosen. The girl from Kickass, really? She’s the vulnerable yet dangerous Carrie? No. Just no. And Julianne Moore is a good actress, but she can’t work as the crazy mother. She’s too nice for that. I just can’t see it.

Urgh. Why can’t they reboot IT instead? Unlike Carrie, the original IT wasn’t that great. They could improve on it. But Carrie…no. Could you imagine them doing the same with The Shining? No Stanley Kubrick insanity, no Jack Nicholson? It doesn’t bear thinking about. And what if they dipped into the Kickass pot again, and used Nick Cage as Jack’s replacement? *shudder* Like I said, don’t even think about it…it isn’t worth it (especially not the producers out there reading this…I don’t want to be blamed for that abomination).

*sigh*

Oh Hollywood. When will you ever learn?

Under. The. Dome! (My Book Review: Full Stops For Emphasis)

I’ve been somewhat reluctant to write this review. Not because I didn’t want to, or because I didn’t think it was worth one (heresy!), but because I don’t think there is anything I could say that would do Under The Dome justice. It deserves more than just simple platitudes. Even one word answers like ‘magnificent‘ or ‘amazing‘, that are very effective at being descriptive yet concise, are not adequate for the heaps of praise I want to throw at Stephen King for writing this book. It just isn’t enough.

So, if you didn’t get it before, I like Under The Dome. A lot. In fact, I love it. It’s unquestionably my new favourite book, that’s how much I love it. And don’t expect it to lose that hallowed title because it has raised the standard so high (it’ll take something very blooming good to beat that; even Duma Key, which I thought was wonderful, can’t compete). Simply put, it’s the best book I’ve ever read.

Sure, it probably won’t be a literary classic, and some of you might be rather snobbish at the fact I’ve just said Under The Dome to be the best book I’ve read, and probably will ever read (by that, I mean I’m not going to read another book; books have been won by Under The Dome, and it’s pointless trying any others out*), but I honestly don’t care. I just don’t believe there is a single book out there that will entertain me like Under The Dome has. It is the only book that I’ve been addicted to from the very first word to the very last, and I really can’t big it up enough. It’s just fantastic, and you must read it. You must.

What’s so good about it?

Well, everything, to be honest.

For one, King’s writing is probably the best I’ve seen from him (if Koontz was on fire, King is an unstoppable inferno). There were some beautiful passages, and as I said before, I was sucked in immediately. His digressive (another new word!) style never extends too far either. I know he’s often criticized for that, but in Under The Dome, it was written in such a way it all seemed relevant. Nothing was unnecessary. The pacing was incredible too; I don’t think I’ve ever read a King book that has managed to keep such a great tempo to it (an impressive feat given how much detail Under The Dome has; it’s definitely one of his biggest novels, which is saying something). Even when nothing was happening, you always felt like something was about to happen. Whether it is through the suspense, or the perfectly deployed piece of foreshadowing (one chapter in particular stands out; King describes the various scenes in the town, and it all sounds so lovely and happy…then, with one sentence, it is all turned upside down, and you begin to fear about what’s going to happen next), you are permanently on edge. It’s just incredible.

And, really, it’s King’s narrative that makes Under The Dome so damn good. An invisible, impenetrable dome sealing off a small town in Maine is an unbelievably good premise in its own right, (immediately you’re thinking how? who? why?) but somehow, it isn’t even the best part of Under The Dome. It is simply the device that King uses to create his story. It’s the characters of this small town that make it real. They are so diverse, and so interesting, you can’t help but take note of them.

Of course, you want to learn more about the dome too, but it’s the town, and the people of the town that lure you in. I cared so much about the characters, and I was so fascinated by their stories. They are ordinary people, yet at the same time, completely difference. Essentially, how they act to the dome is what makes Under The Dome come alive (that’s why it’s called Under The Dome; if it were just The Dome, the emphasis would be elsewhere). In a matter of weeks (if that), you see how being separated from the outside world breaks down the rules of society in this town, and how the things we consider important as human beings are easily forgotten when normal life is disrupted. The ugly side of humanity is brutally revealed, and it makes putting the book down so damn hard. It is so clever, so incredible (I’m sorry if I keep using the same words over and over again…as I said before, nothing seems good enough). Frankly, what King has managed to do is nothing short of genius.

And that’s about it. I could go on. I really could. I could talk more about the dome, I could talk more about the characters, I could talk more about the narrative, and so on. But I won’t. All I will say is Under The Dome is bloody marvellous. I can’t even pick flaws in it. It’s just perfect.

Well…almost perfect. I suppose there is one, minor disappointment (but I must stress that I use that word loosely; if disappointment was a full size earthquake, this minor version would be one of those trembles that you barely notice) to Under The Dome: the ending.

But before you go, ‘ah, that’s Stephen King, what do you expect?’ (in fact, I said something like this only last week), it is a lot more complicated than that. I don’t want to reveal any spoilers so this is going to be rather tricky to explain…but I’ll give it a go.

The reason why Under The Dome is such a good premise, and such a good idea, is the same reason why the ending was never going to be fully satisfying for me. If he changed it, it wouldn’t have worked in the same way. The book wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good.

But now that I’m thinking about it…though the ending seemed rather anticlimactic and quiet compared to the rest of the book, I reckon it was the best ending he could have given it (yep, I’ve changed my mind in just a few sentences). It was poignant; a conclusion that made you think about, uh, things (I don’t really want to be specific as it might spoil things for those of you haven’t read it yet). Fleshing out the last few chapters would have been more gratifying, but it probably would have lost something.

Hmm.

So, uh, ignore everything I’ve said about the ending just there. I’m going to return to my initial statement; Under The Dome is perfect. 10/10 Best book ever.

Ahem.

Glad that’s settled.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

 

*A joke, of course. I’m reading a Shaun Hutson novel now, and the difference in style is huge (both are good, but in completely opposite ways).

 

 

Law Of Nines, And The Funhouse…Two Books, Two Reviews

So I finished Under The Dome on Saturday. It. Was. Fantastic.

But…before I write up a proper review (well, my half arsed musings) about Under The Dome (saying it was fantastic doesn’t quite cover everything…sorry), I’m going to discuss the two books I read prior to picking up King’s masterpiece. The first book has waited for my all important review (I believe every author is after my seal of approval, uh huh) for a few months now, and it’s about time I discussed it. As for the second, well, that one just depressed me. But in a good way.

Intrigued? Of course you are!

Let’s start with…

Law Of Nines

I’ve said the name a few times in the past, but except for telling you how much I liked it, you know you very little about Terry Goodkind’s Law Of Nines.  I read it way back in June/July, so the main reason for inserting a passing mention in the odd blog post was to show I hadn’t forgotten about it, and that eventually I would get round to reviewing it.

And uh, here we are! I must admit, I am somewhat wary about writing this review, as I think that my elusiveness to discuss the book up to this point may have involuntary created a massive hype around the Law Of Nines. This hype will then lead to great disappointment once you realize you could have read an equally useful review somewhere else. One that is less digressable (new word, don’t question it) and, uh, better planned. But hey, you probably already knew that, right?

But despite the fact it would be easier for me to just link you to a different site and say “yep, I agree with them”, I’m going to plow on with this review regardless. Why? Because this book deserves it!

…And because I’ve got nothing else to talk about, so I may as well.

Ahem.

SO, Law Of Nines; what’s it about? Well, I think the official blurb sums it up best;

Turning twenty-seven may be terrifying for some, but for Alex, a struggling artist living in the Midwest, it is cataclysmic. Inheriting a huge expanse of land should make him a rich and happy man; but something about this birthday, his name, and the beautiful woman whose life he just saved, has suddenly made him – and everyone he loves – into a target for extreme and uncompromising violence.

Oooh…you can see why I picked it up, can’t you? Not only is the protagonist called Alex (great name, great name…), it just sounds good. Violence, a beautiful woman…yep, Law Of Nine’s grabbed my attention straight away.

And it only gets better once you start reading. I’m not going to divulge any details of the plot here (except for two references below) because I don’t want to spoil a single part of it for you. It really is a fantastic book, and I must recommend it to you. Even if you aren’t interested in the fantasy or thriller genres (you monsters!), it is worth reading.

What’s so good about it?

Well, by far and away the best thing in Law Of Nine’s arsenal is the story. It has one the most interesting premises that I’ve read in a long time. I’d be raving about it a lot more if I hadn’t just read Under The Dome, but, yeah, it really is superb.

My favourite aspect is probably is the insane asylum angle (to do with his mother…I’ll leave it at that), which is perfectly written, and one of the best sections I’ve read in a book before (it really connects you to the characters). It really carried the story on, and created another level of depth to the novel.

But that’s just one highlight among many. The overlying theme of this epic battle going on between good and evil that our protagonist is intrinsically linked to, plus several other themes I won’t mention, really draw out your imagination. Or at least it did with me. It opened my mind, I suppose you could say. And that’s always a good thing.

Oh, and of course, there is a great deal of excitement and peril in Law Of Nines. The fantasy side creates the story, but the thriller side keeps you entertained. To fall once more into one of those damned clichés I insulted the other day, Law Of Nines hooked me from the start, and I did indeed struggle to put it down. Not Under The Dome type struggle, but it was difficult. I think I read two hundred pages in one day, so yeah…I was involved.

Anyway, The Law Of Nine’s was a fantastic book. The writing was…good, and as I said above, the idea of it was bloody fantastic. The fact that there could be a sequel to it (apparently it is linked to Goodkind’s other novels too) is even more exciting, as it might take place in the second world (you know, the one that I didn’t mention before, and will not mention again because, you know, spoilers). There were a lot of positives to take from it.

The fact that I’d never heard of it worked in its favour too. I was going completely off the blurb; I wasn’t familiar with the author, and I had no idea what genre or style it would be in…it was a complete shot in the dark. But it blew me away.

….However…

But, despite all this praise, Law Of Nines did have a few flaws that I can’t fail to acknowledge. The ending, for example, is a little anti-climactic, which was a bit disappointing (given the scale, I think it was always going to be hard to complete…but still, could have been cleverer.

And though the fantasy/thriller blend worked in many ways; it wouldn’t have been as interesting plot-wise had it been all thriller (the fantasy added the depth, if you will), and it might have lost some of the excitement without that element of action…you did feel, at times, like something was lacking. The problem stems from how these two genres differ. Thriller novels work off tension, and tight, purposeful writing. Fantasy stories, especially ones that have the level of scope that Law Of Nines has (in terms of size, it wouldn’t be too inaccurate to compare it to something like Lord Of The Rings), require a lot more indulgence than a tale set over a few days. This leads to an imbalance, where neither aspect is fully satisfied. It needs to be sharper, but at the same time, more expansive to work.

But, even with that issue, I really enjoyed it. And it was a very good effort. Not perfect, but certainly an impressive book. Were I to give it a score, I’d probably plump for 8/10. My more cynical side would argue it’s just a 7, but I tell my cynical side that was a bloody engaging read and deserves the extra point. My cynical side promptly shuts up.

So, yes, an 8/10. If I scored it. But I don’t, because I leave that kind of simple analysis to my film reviews.

Ahem.

Besides, even if Law Of Nines was just a 7 (hypothetically, of course), the sequel might do even better, and get a (hypothetical) 8, or maybe 9. Who knows? The potential is definitely there. I’ll make sure to keep my eye out for it.

The Funhouse

The Funhouse, by Dean Koontz is like a B movie with Samuel L Jackson. The plot is mundane, possibly stupid (or probably non-existent), but it compensates entirely for this in other ways. In the movie’s case, it’ll be through the artistic stylings of Mr Jackson. In The Funhouse’s case, it is through Koontz’s writing, which is depressingly good (I’ll explain that term shortly)*.

But before you go criticizing me for comparing the plot of a Koontz novel to a B movie, I would like to point out that The Funhouse is actually the novelization of a B movie horror film of the same name (The Funhouse, in case you’d already forgotten), and isn’t originally a Koontz idea. Therefore I’m entirely right to question the plot, because, like most horror films, it doesn’t really have one. Nor does it have Samuel L Jackson included in the cast, so frankly, I’m not sure why they even bothered making it into a novel.

But I digress. Back to the story, and The Funhouse (the movie version) can be boiled down to a few sentences (again, like most horror films). Essentially, there are some teenagers who go to a carnival. Bad things happen, there is a monster, people die, scream scream scream, the end. Koontz’s novel is more or less the exact same premise as the movie, because, well, it wouldn’t impress the guys who hired him to transform the film into book form if he changed everything about it. He does, however, add a better back story to it. It’s deeper. His version has a madman hellbent on revenge, a weird mutant child thing, an alcoholic mother…but otherwise, same thing.

Now, I realize I am being very critical here. After all, I do like horror films, and I like horror novels even more. I simply wanted to get across the point that my enjoyment of this book (contrary to everything I’ve said so far, I did actually enjoy this book) didn’t come from the story, it came from the writing. Because Koontz, to steal a phrase from my dad, was on fire (not literally, but certainly metaphorically) when he wrote The Funhouse. I can’t fault his writing whatsoever.

Now, I’ve read a few of his other novels, and though impressive, none of them have affected me in this way. Maybe it was different with The Funhouse because he didn’t have to worry so much about the plot, allowing himself more time for the narrative. I don’t know. Regardless of the reason, it was superb. The descriptions were amazing, there was lots of suspense, vivid imagery…everything was impressive. I wish I hadn’t boxed it away because I would have loved to share an extract with you. There was one particular part in the first few chapters where I just had to stop and say “wow” to myself. That doesn’t happen often, but here I was, silently (or in this case, audibly) applauding Koontz for what he’d done.

This is where the whole “depressingly good” thing comes in. Some of it was so fantastic it saddened me, because it made me feel like I couldn’t ever manage to do anything like that in my writing. I suppose on a different day it would be inspirational; I could use that to improve my own abilities, and to encourage me to better myself. Either way, I think it says a lot about what Koontz had done.

Or about me.

Hmm…

I’m going to say it’s a compliment to him, and leave it at that. Well done Mr Koontz.

 

 

 

*I probably overplayed that metaphor didn’t I? What can I say, I had Samuel L Jackson on the brain and I wanted to involve him somehow.

For Once, The Cliches Are Right (At Least For Me)

You know how on the back of most books (or front, if they are real fancy; inside covers too, if they really want to push the point across that the book is Superb, Magnificent, Fantastic), there will be a brief summation of what various “important” people or magazines think of it? Normally, it’ll just be a few words that have been highlighted from a full review (I’m waiting for one publisher to transform “Completely lacking in originality, and utterly magnificent in its inability to understand what the reader wants” to Completely, and utterly magnificent!), or even a string of sentences together (saying more or less the same thing).

Now, I usually ignore such quotes. Stuff like, “A real page turner”, or “I couldn’t put it down”, have been used so much I’ve become desensitized to them. And there are only so many superlatives in existence. Once you start throwing them about on the cover of every book in the store, it all seems a little pointless*. Especially things like “I couldn’t put it down”. Could you not? I bet you did.

Anyway, I usually don’t pay attention to these ‘sayings’, and I make sure to avoid using them myself when I give my review of a book (speaking of which, I haven’t forgotten about The Law Of Nines…I’ll discuss that soon). But for Under The Dome, the Stephen King novel I bought on Sunday, the whole not being able to put it down thing isn’t that much of an exaggeration (it still is though; a guy has to eat, sleep and shower, after all). I’d hate to say it to someone, but, for once, I can actually agree with the cliché**; I really am struggling to put this book down.

Look at the numbers. Under The Dome clocks in at 880 pages (the second longest book I will have read after IT, another one of King’s works) and in less than 48 hours, I am nearly at the half way point. A fair speed, no? I’ve read it in between games of Halo. I’ve read it while I watched the Chelsea friendly against Milan the other night. I’ve read it on the toilet (sorry!). And I’ve read it in the early hours of the morning when I really should be sleeping. Even earlier today, when I was doing the dishes, I was tempted to put it by the sink (I didn’t of course, but I was tempted)! I’m so hooked (another one of those clippets, that), it is actually having a negative influence on my writing (normally reading inspires me), as I can’t stop reading to work on my own novel!

And why am I addicted?

Because Under The Dome is bloody good. I’m not building my hopes up too much (this is King after all; something is bound to go wrong at the end), but if it continues on like this, Under The Dome will be my most favourite book. I thought Duma Key had that spot nailed down, but that might not be the case for much longer. We’ll see.

And that’s all I have to say for today, really. I have a new addiction. But it’s a good addiction, right?

Ahem.

Think I’ll go back to my book then. You’ll probably get a review tomorrow. Or maybe the next day. So, uh, be ready for lots of superlatives. But don’t worry; mine will be different to all those other reviews. They’ll be sincere. They’ll be real. They’ll be…um, cliches with meaning.

Yeah…

Speak to you later,

Alex

 

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

*One example of how silly these review quotes are, is the quote that adorns the top of every single Richard Laymon book that I have (and I have quite a few). He’s a writer I admire (RIP), but this is probably the best example of how ridiculous these cliches are. At one time, Stephen King gave his opinion on one of Laymon’s books. No doubt one of his early stories. I can’t quote what it says because all my books are boxed away, but it is something alone the lines of “If you’ve missed Laymon, you’ve missed a treat.” And because it is vague, they’ve chosen to put it on top of everything he’s ever written. And to me, that’s just lazy.

 

** Now, I should say that there have been plenty of books that I’ve been desperate to finish. I’ll be reading at midnight, and then it’s 1am…and then it’s 2am…but I’m still reading because I can’t help myself. I know what that feeling is like. It is both wonderful but depressing (you enjoy the book, you want to reach the end, yet at the same time, you don’t want it to be over). That’s happened loads.

Usually, however, this happens as I near the finale, or a particularly exciting section. The Larsson Trilogy, for example. Lots of mystery and cliffhangers keeping me going throughout, but it was only near the final couple hundred of pages did this effect really influence me. In this case, with Under The Dome, it has been a non-stop phenomenon. Every page makes me want read the next one. It’s, a, uh, real page turner.

…woops.

 

Pictures From Alnwick!

Photography On The Citadel

Today, we went up to Barter Books in Alnwick to trade in some unwanted books for credit. The last time I went there, I managed to trade my entire bag of books (this rarely happens, so I was rather boastful about it on the blog) for £30. I wasn’t expecting this to happen again (I can’t be that lucky, surely), but, to my surprise, I was once more handed an empty bag, and given another £30.

Wahey! Not bad, eh?

Of course, it is all gone now; I immediately spent it on more books. Like last time.

Ahem.

But, in my defence, I didn’t do what I did last time, and replace the 15 books I’d just sold with another dozen, making the trip somewhat futile (the aim, remember, was to lighten the load for the imminent house move). Oh no. This time, I sold around 20, and…

View original post 155 more words