Assassin's Apprentice - Robin Hood

As much as I hate to admit it after my recent lambasting of the fantasy genre as a whole, I really liked this book. It was a page-turn (screen-advancer) and the characters were diverse enough to be interesting. I would definitly be interested in reading the rest of the triology, although the book was sufficient as a stand-alone novel. You rooted for the main character, even though he wasn't perfect (and in fact was an assassin, no one I could root for in real life), and the description of the society verged on political criticism. There was a Machiavellian kind of economy - whatever means to an end, and description of the responsibility of rulers to the people (the Mountain people didn't have a King, but a 'Sacrifice'). No noble set of ethics guided decisions on the societal level (although they did on the personal level) - the good of the Kingdom was the overriding goal.

Other interesting things. I actually liked the Royals' naming system - name them for virtues you hope them inspire to - leading to the irony of course that personalities became the perversion of virtues taken to the extreme. The Red ships with Forging was slightly confusing to me, and I'm assuming will be played out better in the subsequent novels. Also, blaming the child for being a bastard (most definitely not the child's fault, but certainly politically important when you're a bastard of royal blood) was telling of society as well.

Overall, I'd recommend this novel for a light read if you're into fantasy - not a masterpiece but definitely fun.

Settling Accounts: Return Engagement - Harry Turtledove

While doing my post-book diligence on this free-to-kindle novel, I discovered this is actually a gigantic (10 or more?) book series, which explains a lot. Why are fantasy series always so long? Perhaps because they don't have any merit as individual novels and so need to build a fanbase on character loyalty.

Synopsis: This is an alternate history, based on the premise that the Confederates won the Civil War and the downstream changes of this major history-changing notion. It's set in WWII, and does a decent job of highlighting the delicate balance that has lead to our current history and how even small decisions could dramatically affect the timeline. I though the alternate history presented was interesting (the lack of Russian revolution leads to acceptance of socialism in the US - certainly the 40s was a breeding ground for that kind of thought), although discussion of the underlying currents was lacking.

I guess my overall impression of this novel is that it took on too much - there were too many characters (hard to identify with them, even though the perspective gained was good) and too much war (the US-France/Confederate-Nazi parallels seemed sloppy). Plus, the language was simplistic and repetitive (everytime a character was re-introduced, we got the same background). Due to the number of characters, there wasn't a lot of character depth. Also, I think the confederate genocide was unbelievable. I'm not a scholar of genocide, but to compare this to Rwanda or Bosnia is beyond a stretch. Of course, it's a direct parallel for Nazi Germany, although I don't feel like Turtledove even came close to capturing the motivation behind such horrific acts.

This book probably provides an interesting perspective, and may make you think a bit, but to get the full effect you'd likely have to read the full series. Based on my reading of this one novel, it certainly doesn't seem worth it.

A History of God - The 4,000-Year Quest of Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam - Karen Armstrong

I began this book quite excited about its prospects. I'm a bit of a religion-freak - although more curious by it than involved in it myself. I've read everything including translations of original works by early Christian scholars/heretics, works on Satipatthna, the Bhagavad Gita, and even a Wiccan guide. "A History of God" promised an integration of the religions that have done such a bang-up job shaping the history of Western civilization. What it delivered, however, was a jumbled mess of separate histories, philosophies, and opinions, "integrated" by talking about each religion in isolation from the others in random order. While I definitely learned something (especially about the development of Islamic philosphy, where I'm notably weak) when Armstrong veered from loosely tied-together histories to her personal opinions on the state of God in society, I nearly lost my lunch. I have a overwhelming bias towards objectivity, which was overwhelmingly disappointed. Do I agree that people are rejecting God because they find problems with the specifics of their personal religion? Maybe some, although the claim just doesn't resonate with my experience or observations. I think that some people may be more secular because the need filled by God is filled by other things (both TV and the internet provide greater meaning now-a-days). And while I strongly agree that the recent trend towards religious fundamentalism is scary in any religion (especially where it manifests as required conversion or hatred of/violence towards others not like yourself), Armstrong's religious relativism (in the guise of objectivity) hit a bit too close to home for me to buy it.

Blood Engines - T.A.Pratt

Wow, this is embarrassing. My first review in like two months and it's on a piece of fantasy/fiction. I was beginning to be worried that in my new post-Spawn/Suburban Hell/HD Plasma TV life I wasn't interested in reading anymore. I've been working on A History of God since Christmas. I thought I was turning into a normal person.

Then came the Kindle, and with it some free fantasy books. 5 days later, here I am. I read in the car at stoplights, at work while waiting for downloads, at home instead of watching TV. I stopped sleeping. Hello, I'm a fiction addict. I've tried to give up fiction multiple times in the past, but it always ends up sucking me in, no matter how poorly written.

Well, enough editorializing, onto the review. I am generally not a fan of fantasy, despite having read a lot of it. I love the thought of fantasy/sci-fi, using fiction to step outside the world as we know it and examining things as possibilities, not practicalities. But fantasy novels generally suck, and this one was no exception. While some authors use fantasy as a platform to stimulate the imagination, move a story line, most (Pratt included) write to their audience - people interested in the show and not the substance. Blood Engines provided no insight into the human condition. There were no light bulb moments. There's basically a ruthless sorcerer with a problem who fights a bad sorcerer, pulling out all the stops, and has to compromise in the end. There was no beauty in either the language or the plot, although it was somewhat refreshing that the strong ruthless character was female. As is often the case with fantasy novels, this is one book in a series - drawing readers in to see if the character is better developed in the next novel. I hope I have the will-power to not read it.

Kindle!!!

I realize that this is a book review blog, but I just had to share my joy at receiving a Kindle for my birthday. Not only is it a totally cool technology, but the screen really is just like reading a book. It's easy to navigate, transport, and comfortable to hold. You can even upload your own files onto the kindle. I guess my only current digs (in the two days since I got it) it that it doesn't have a touchscreen (prob impossible with the cool screen), the five-way controller isn't the most convenient, and kindle book selection is limited. It would be great if you could get scientific journal subscriptions posted to your kindle - best scientific use ever - although I certainly don't want to pay for all of those subscriptions myself.

Three Kingdoms

Oh my God. Wait for it... I have actually finally finished this/these books that I started in June and vowed I wouldn't read anything else until I finished. Sure, there were four of them, >2000 pages total, and they were a little dense, but I could have polished them off in a month before. I can't believe I have to do this, but one of my New Year's Resolutions is to read more. The last-year version of me would be shaking her head in disgust at what I've become.

Oh - review. Did I love the books? Obviously not, although I think they're definitely a worthy read. If you're going to spend any time in China, various stories/characters from the Three Kingdoms are cornerstones of Chinese literature/art (from my minimal understanding anyway). The stories are long and complex, and the incredible number of characters makes it hard to know who's on which side, but it really gives you a feel for the moral and goal of early Chinese literature. Virtue (I read a translation of the Mao version) is considered above legitimacy and the Mandate of Heaven falls on the ruler who serves the people. Decadence and self-indulgence are the reasons of the fall of the Shu-Han and Wu empires, not the greater military strength of the Wei/Jin. There's a lot of time spent on various military strategies, and at times it feels like the author is just trying to get as much detail in as possible to the detriment of the story. As always, I don't know how much of that is translation or just cultural differences in storytelling style.

It does remind me (and this is a common comparison) of the Iliad due to its epic proportions and lack of a key central character. I guess Kongming is as close as it gets - and he's a pretty cool guy. I felt like the author struggled with him a bit - how do you have the perfect primer minister/military strategist who at the same time has 6 failed invasions into the Northern Heartland and at the end of the day the Kingdom he supports failed? The external excuses for his failures, however historically accurate, started to get kind of weak by the end.

Anyway, I guess I'd recommend this version for anyone seriously interested in Chinese culture, but most readers could probably get by with a shorter version.

Travel - sort of...

Since this is supposed to be a travel blog, and I'm not going anywhere, I'm going to post a short review on my fun-filled trip to Texas. Yes, I was in Dallas for 5 days. I know this is a little scary for those who know me (Chicago liberal in Texas?) but I didn't actually step outside the hotel/resort complex the whole time. We stayed in Grapevine Texas, at Gaylord's Texan. It was a nice place if you're in to the all-inclusive, no way to leave, experience. A lot of decent resaurants (pretty sweet sports bar actually), and the 'outdoor-indoor' experience reminded me of Vegas. I guess I have to liken it to living in a dome or something like that. My major beef with the place was that the net access you paid for in your room couldn't be reached in the conference center (made for a lot of running back to the hotel btw talks to check my email). I was really starting to get clausterphobic there at the end - trapped feelings and all. Of course, I'm sure the who 'being away from the baby over Halloween' thing didn't help either.