Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Book, Movie & Podcast Reviews my own book page

Re: "T" IS FOR TRESPASS

Didn't Henry Pitts earn a living while retired by creating cross-word puzzles? There is no mention of this avocation in the latest Grafton book.

Yes, he did. Perhaps he retired again?

EmmaG

Santa has already made the visit to barnesandnoble.com so I assume T is winging its way here. But thanks.

The shelf isn't as jammed as it was a year ago. Yeterday I started reading the female-serial-killer book Joan gave me for my birthday. So the shelf is only 3 1/2 months long, rather than 4. Damn! I felt a lot better before I figured the specifics out and wrote the sentence.

So you are telling me I have to waint THREE AND 1/2 MONTHS before we can have a conversation about "T?"

I picked up Dean Koontz's THE HUSBAND last night in despiration avoiding ATSS's......I just don't know....Husband said it was a good read, in fact better than other Koontz books he has read.

I think I'll pop over and pick up MISSISSIPPI. I hope it will make me laugh. I just transferred money to pay for the new roof and I need a book that will cause me to chuckle.

As I finished "T" I remembered to whom I pay homage when I sign off:

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Albers

Kathy,
If only I'd known you were after a laugh--the funniest book, miles ahead of anything else I've ever read--is Peter deVries' Let Me Count the Ways . I snicker, I giggle, I laugh out loud. My husband forbid me to read it when he was in the room. I have it; you may borrow. Key moments are leg in cast, second coming and funeral procession. I dare anyone not to laugh at some point during this one. Gee, maybe it's time for a reread.

Please oh please, let me read it!!!

Kathy

More about "T" IS FOR TRESPASS. I think Sue Grafton will be remembered as a master of her craft much as Dick Francis is.

I'm still thinking about the book I finished. Most of the time my reading selections could be compared with eating Chinese food. They fill me up for a time and are a source of great enjoyment, but in a short time I am hungry again.

Here's the latest thought on "T." I believe Grafton used the "S" word about three times and the "F" word about two times. This was just an amount of the use of "R" words to jar me when they were used and not enough to numb me by their use.

I'm not totally sure why I didn't like Chelsea Cain's Heartsick, but I didn't. So let me put on my critical cap and see if I can "count the ways."

1) Heartsick actually deals with two serial killers. Its mainline story is a killer of teenage girls, with the primary detective on the case being a man who is sort of recovering from being held prisoner and tortured by a female serial killer who is now in jail and whom he visits every Sunday. The sections dealing with the female serial killer, flashbacks and present time, are cool in a pleasantly twisted way. Those dealing with the case being investigated are pretty much dull and predictable. Maybe a book, like a motion or subject for debate, should only deal with one major subject. I dunno. I hate literary "rules," but what Ms Cain tried to do in Heartsick just plain didn't work—IMHO, of course.

2) The group of detectives working the case included, among others, two women—one white, one black. Cain gave the black woman a character, a history and family. The other one had a name. If I ever learned anything more than her name, it didn't stick. And when they showed up together in scenes, which happened frequently, I spent a lot of time struggling to remember which name was the black woman and which name was just the name. So I spent a good deal of reading time both frustrated and annoyed. I had a similar problem with the two primary suspects, both high school teachers, but by story's end I could tell them apart.

3) Two grammatical errors stopped me dead. One was a verb not agreeing a collective noun, but collective nouns seem to be beyond the grasp of many writers these days. "There were a multitude of explanations." (pages 179-180) Was there now? The other was one of those pronoun reference moments. Susan, a reporter, meets a detective. It? That would be the bear she's shaking if one analyzes the sentence grammatically.

4) Finally I was sharply pulled out of the story one other she-didn't-really-write-that-did-she moment. "Archie lets his eyes fall on the corpse on the floor." (page 244) Yeah, writers use the phrase frequently, but do they ever literally picture what they're describing? Yuck. "Gaze" works to describe the situation and is far less gruesome.

Heartsick overall? At least two thumbs down.

Kathy,
I have sad news regarding T. Santa sort of screwed up. He went to my B&N.com wish list and moved it into the cart. There were, however, two paperbacks on the list that won't be available until April. He selected send all at the same time and "at the same time" turned out to be April. He tried to correct it but couldn't. Result? I won't get T until April. I can't borrow yours because it is ordered. Maybe I'll see if I can change his order. Or at least cancel T.

On a happier note I'll have Let Me Count the Ways unshelved when you pick me up on Tuesday.

Interesting series of events—IMHO. One night while in the hospital this fall, I was busy channel surfing and came across a TCM showing of Soylent Green. Now I'd seen it when it was released in 1971 and not been terribly impressed, but—what the heck—at that moment I was in a hospital and, compared to the other channels I'd checked, ol' Soylent Green was lookin' pretty good. So I watched it. And liked it. Oh, Charlton Heston discovering that "soylent green is people" was still pretty hokey, but what intrigued me was the background against which the mystery was set. So I decided to investigate.

First thing I found out—maybe this info was in the movie credits; I can't remember—was that Soylent Green was based on a science fiction novel, Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison. Assuming, correctly it turns out, that my husband, a sci fi nerd who never gets rid of book, would have the book, I asked him. Said book was produced. He loaned it to me, requesting that I be careful because it was really old, and—sure enough—I had in hand a 60-cent paperback, published in 1966. I think my husband thought each page would tear out once I read it. (Actually none did, but I'm sure glad he doesn't know that's exactly what happened when I read his 50-cent, 1950's copy of I Am Legend.)

As in the movie, what held my interest was the world Move Down! Move Down! presents. It's set in 1999 New York City where the population is 35 million. Food, water and living space are close to nonexistent. Oh, there are wealthy people who manipulate crime and politics (sound familiar?), but there aren't many. The protagonist, Andy, is a cop—played by Charlton Heston in the movie—and it is casually mentioned at one point that his salary is taxed at 80%. Life in this book is 'way beyond hard, except for the elite. (Bush's base, perhaps?)

Having finished Make Room! Make Room! late last night, I found myself wondering: so, which is better—the book or the movie? Usually that for me is an easy question. Except for To Kill a Mockingbird, I invariably choose the book. In this case? It's harder because Soylent Green and Make Room! Make Room! are so extremely different. The major story of the movie, Andy's discovery of what soylent green is, isn't even in the book. The book captures the horror of overpopulation much better, but this aspect of the story leads to speeches about birth control, which are straight propaganda. At least the movie didn't force those upon its audiences.

I don't think I'd recommend either the book or the movie alone, but when they're seen and read close together, doing so creates an interesting picture of how Hollywood handles its material.