I am in the middle of a mystery called "Dog On It" by Spencer Quinn.
The best way to describe this book thus far is to call it mystery fluff. Fluff is fine every now and then, but for the people who read it constantly, well they're just filling their mind with crap.
No offense to you fluff readers.
And while I'm here I'll go ahead and define fluff. Mostly fluff is made up of crappy romance novels. A romance novel, according to Wikipedia must have an "emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending." The romance novels I'm talking about are the ones with the woman who's unhappy, meets a gorgeous and OMG, life is wonderful. Can you tell I hate romance novels?
I'm sorry, I'll get back to the point. Fluff is fine as long as you don't depend on it. Don't pretend that life is actually like the fluff books. Don't fill your mind with fluff because you will ALWAYS be disappointed and probably angry.
"Dog On It" is a cute book, nothing more. It's fun to see the world from a dog's point of view, especially the world of a private detective. But it gets repetitive. We get it. Dogs are hungry, horny and have an extremely short attention span. Tip for all you new writers out there: Dogs are not good main characters. I propose having a book with two main characters, Mr. Quinn. You've got options besides the dog.
Again, I'd suggest that you don't waste your time with this book. If you enjoy mystery books, are a dog lover and are in the mood for a book that makes you feel good (but nothing more) then enjoy!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Alive in Necropolis
I just finished reading "Alive in Necropolis" by Doug Dorst. I don't really know how to review a book so I'm just going to say what I want.
He wrote a great beginning for it. It invites you to keep reading and makes you ponder about how an author can write this well. But overall I found the book to be unfocused. It couldn't quite decide how it wanted to go or even what genre it was in.
I'm the type of person who needs closure. While I can deal with things not being "whole" or completely solved at the end, I have to have some sort of closure. Dorst gave me a bit of that at the end, but it seemed like an afterthought. As if he had really intended on finishing the book with the last police report.
And another thing! I didn't like to read the police reports. I had to read them because they contained most of the "action" of the book. They were a bit of a cop-out (no pun intended). And if we're being realistic to the character and what he was going through in the book, he would stop writing these silly police reports when he started drifting away from The Book (the rule book). They weren't easy reads either. I'm not sure of the thought process being this choice.
I'm not a writer, but I think for a first book it would be best to stick to one or two main characters, rather than merely dip into the lives of many characters. There was no order to which character he focused on.
My suggestion would be to skip this book.
He wrote a great beginning for it. It invites you to keep reading and makes you ponder about how an author can write this well. But overall I found the book to be unfocused. It couldn't quite decide how it wanted to go or even what genre it was in.
I'm the type of person who needs closure. While I can deal with things not being "whole" or completely solved at the end, I have to have some sort of closure. Dorst gave me a bit of that at the end, but it seemed like an afterthought. As if he had really intended on finishing the book with the last police report.
And another thing! I didn't like to read the police reports. I had to read them because they contained most of the "action" of the book. They were a bit of a cop-out (no pun intended). And if we're being realistic to the character and what he was going through in the book, he would stop writing these silly police reports when he started drifting away from The Book (the rule book). They weren't easy reads either. I'm not sure of the thought process being this choice.
I'm not a writer, but I think for a first book it would be best to stick to one or two main characters, rather than merely dip into the lives of many characters. There was no order to which character he focused on.
My suggestion would be to skip this book.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I say it all the time. Well in my head all of the time. I rarely say it out loud. I don't want kids. I don't really even want to get married.
Please don't tell me this is a phase I'm going through. That's fantastic that you think that, but even if it is a phase don't tell me. It's like you're saying my feelings and opinions aren't valid simply because it is just one section of my life. Of course they're valid. Keep that to yourself.
I don't want kids because they are loud. I don't want them because they are messy. I don't want them because they aren't developed and cannot be reasoned with . I don't want them because I don't want that kind of responsibility. I don't even take of myself all that well. Would someone seriously trust me to watch a child?
Maybe I'm being unfair.
I wouldn't mind being alone for the rest of life. Of course I would want a healthy social life and to have friends to be with, but the truth is that I am a loner. Not only do I "recharge" my batteries by being alone, most of the time I prefer being alone over being with people.
Then again I do find myself talking to myself a lot more now. Is this the beginning of my descent into crazy-cat lady?
I'm not ruling out having kids. I'm not saying I'll never want them and you cannot change my mind. I'm saying I do not want them now. The future "me" I imagine doesn't include a screaming baby and a small toddler.
Please don't tell me this is a phase I'm going through. That's fantastic that you think that, but even if it is a phase don't tell me. It's like you're saying my feelings and opinions aren't valid simply because it is just one section of my life. Of course they're valid. Keep that to yourself.
I don't want kids because they are loud. I don't want them because they are messy. I don't want them because they aren't developed and cannot be reasoned with . I don't want them because I don't want that kind of responsibility. I don't even take of myself all that well. Would someone seriously trust me to watch a child?
Maybe I'm being unfair.
I wouldn't mind being alone for the rest of life. Of course I would want a healthy social life and to have friends to be with, but the truth is that I am a loner. Not only do I "recharge" my batteries by being alone, most of the time I prefer being alone over being with people.
Then again I do find myself talking to myself a lot more now. Is this the beginning of my descent into crazy-cat lady?
I'm not ruling out having kids. I'm not saying I'll never want them and you cannot change my mind. I'm saying I do not want them now. The future "me" I imagine doesn't include a screaming baby and a small toddler.
Monday, August 17, 2009
First blog of hopefully many blogs
I really don't know where I would like to go with this blog. Instead of keeping to a strict schedule or having a certain topic that I have to talk about, I think it might be better to keep it really open. I want to put some thoughts down. I want to respond to things I've heard and think out loud about things I've learned.
My original idea for this blog was to respond to my pastor's sermon each week. I don't think I'll remember to do it every week though...
This previous Sunday's sermon was on Heaven. I actually don't think about heaven all that much. About what it would be like, what I have to look forward to. The one particular talk I remember was with Bethany. She has some interesting ideas about heaven and about what it will be like. What I remember from our talk was that she thinks heaven will be pretty much like earth. I was a bit wary at first, but I eventually decided that I liked what she had to say, even if I wasn't sure if I agreed with it.
One of the verses that Lou went over was this..."There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=31)
To me, that doesn't sound very interesting. A life without pain is a mediocre life. How can you possibly understand, I mean truly understand, joy, love and everything wonderful unless you understand the opposite. Now I realize this is the view of a mere human. I can't comprehend beauty without ugliness, joy without sorrow, bliss without pain. Maybe, like so many other things about God, I'm simply not meant to understand.
The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). The other thing I was going to talk about was marriage and relationships in heaven. I took issue with what Lou had to say about marriage. I had a hard time believing that marriage becomes obsolete in heaven. But it has been made very clear to me by the Matthew verse that there will be no marriage in heaven. There aren't a lot of ways you can interpret that one. I find it sad that there will be no marriage in heaven. Marriage is a deeper connection than friendship. It wasn't created only to emulate the relationship that we (the brides) are supposed to have with God (the groom). It is hard for me to believe that we'll never experience the deep trust that some married couples have. And no kids? If God wants us to have free will, but takes away everything that is important to us on earth when we get to heaven, what will we have to look forward to besides worshiping him forever?
Lou says that we will have free will. I don't have verses to support this because he didn't mention any. But while we have the free will, we pretty much only want to worship God the whole time. Now, I don't know about anybody else, but that sounds even more boring than not having pain or marriage.
I'm just having a hard time setting aside everything earthly. Marriage, kids, and free will are all important to me (they are not my idols, so please don't suggest that). Is the Bible saying that these are not important to God?
My original idea for this blog was to respond to my pastor's sermon each week. I don't think I'll remember to do it every week though...
This previous Sunday's sermon was on Heaven. I actually don't think about heaven all that much. About what it would be like, what I have to look forward to. The one particular talk I remember was with Bethany. She has some interesting ideas about heaven and about what it will be like. What I remember from our talk was that she thinks heaven will be pretty much like earth. I was a bit wary at first, but I eventually decided that I liked what she had to say, even if I wasn't sure if I agreed with it.
One of the verses that Lou went over was this..."There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=31)
To me, that doesn't sound very interesting. A life without pain is a mediocre life. How can you possibly understand, I mean truly understand, joy, love and everything wonderful unless you understand the opposite. Now I realize this is the view of a mere human. I can't comprehend beauty without ugliness, joy without sorrow, bliss without pain. Maybe, like so many other things about God, I'm simply not meant to understand.
The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). The other thing I was going to talk about was marriage and relationships in heaven. I took issue with what Lou had to say about marriage. I had a hard time believing that marriage becomes obsolete in heaven. But it has been made very clear to me by the Matthew verse that there will be no marriage in heaven. There aren't a lot of ways you can interpret that one. I find it sad that there will be no marriage in heaven. Marriage is a deeper connection than friendship. It wasn't created only to emulate the relationship that we (the brides) are supposed to have with God (the groom). It is hard for me to believe that we'll never experience the deep trust that some married couples have. And no kids? If God wants us to have free will, but takes away everything that is important to us on earth when we get to heaven, what will we have to look forward to besides worshiping him forever?
Lou says that we will have free will. I don't have verses to support this because he didn't mention any. But while we have the free will, we pretty much only want to worship God the whole time. Now, I don't know about anybody else, but that sounds even more boring than not having pain or marriage.
I'm just having a hard time setting aside everything earthly. Marriage, kids, and free will are all important to me (they are not my idols, so please don't suggest that). Is the Bible saying that these are not important to God?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)