thekarpuk's reviews
619 reviews

I'm a fan of good prose, so when I was at the Tattered Cover and a friend pointed out Cormac McCarthy as a writer of lean, economic fiction, I jumped at the chance. I picked up "No Country for Old Men" since I'd enjoyed the movie the Coen's brothers got all those pretty accolades for.

That book hasn't been read yet, mostly because I found out that "Blood Meridian" was apparently his most critically loved piece of work, so I figured why not start at the top.

This was a mistake.

While the book has some awe inspiring set pieces and an amazing ability to summon up the hellish landscape of the midwest during the 1850's, it's almost entirely devoid of sympathetic characters or even a protagonist to help guide the reader through the maelstrom of disturbing events. All you get is a bunch of Indian-scalping monsters carving a path of destruction across Mexico.

"The Kid" is in theory the protagonist, but there are entire chapters where he is absent. He's belligerent, violent, and generally is only slightly more restrained than his psychotic associates.

The Judge, a hairless giant with a genius mind and an almost demonic lack of morals is really the only character I was interested in. The arbitrary nature of his actions presents the greatest mystery, and his commentary on the world is worth listening to, even if it's a excessive in spots.

While the style of the writing can be beautiful at times, it can also be a hindrance to comprehension. There was a point where the leader of their gang, Glanton, decides to start attacking the Mexican army for reasons I'm still unclear on. In another section the Kid is left behind, and even though I reread the passage several times, I still couldn't tell you why. The narrator spends so little time explaining that certain plot points didn't make sense to me.

The bigger issue is the violence. I understand the purpose of shocking events in a novel, it can be potent stuff, but after a while Blood Meridian's violencce felt almost cartoonish. When there's towns full of rotting corpses, dead baby trees, endless spans of dead animal bodies, and many other horrors on a page by page basis, after a while I just stopped caring. By the later chapters I began imagining I was reading about the sort of Looney Tunes shorts they would make in Hell.

I don't regret reading the book, it was a unique experience, but "Blood Meridian" is not an enjoyable book, and I doubt I'll be lending it or rereading it anytime soon.

I can say without hyperbole that "Blankets" is one of the best books I've ever read.

Craig Thompson's explanation always amused me. As I understand it, his basic reasoning was that in most comics the survival of an entire planet is often managed in 20 - 30 pages, so why not try something different and make a small story of first love into an expansive 500 page work?

With someone less skilled and sensitive it might have been a disaster, but in Thompson's hands it became a delicate work with artwork that carries the emotions of the moment better than any text could.

I've known very few people who weren't emotionally effected by this book, and it's one of the few things I will recommend to almost anyone without hesitation.

Carnet De Voyage is indeed a travel log, the title is entirely accurate. The author even apologizes in the forward to those who were hoping the book would be his next major work after "Blankets". I am one of those people who was disappointed.

I can take comfort in its quality as an actual travel log. The pictures are excellent, the commentary on his thoughts are worth reading, and overall I didn't mind the time spent with the book.

There were a few moments that were genuinely insightful in regards to Thompson's process are an artist, and others related to his personal life that were genuinely touching.

I'm not sure if this is something I can recommend for the price to anyone but an existing Thompson fan, but if you see it on someone's shelf, I would definitely advise you to flip through it.

If you know anything about the history of comics it can feel like Chabon is showing off a bit in this book. The name dropping of comic book legends from the golden age of the medium gets hot and heavy in certain situations during "Kavalier and Clay", and the fact that the titular characters seemed to know every single person of note from that era was a bit eye-roll-inducing in certain spots.

That's the worst thing I can say about the book though. It's an epic read that reminded me of "Middlesex" in its empathetic treatment of characters and its convincing sense of period detail.

It's one book where not being a nerd actually enhances the experience.

"Snuff" is a stupid book. I'm not going to mince words on this. Having read all of Chuck Palahniuk's novels, I'd put this one squarely at the bottom rubbing elbows with "Invisible Monsters" and the main narrative of "Haunted".

Snuff is the tale of three different men all waiting for their turn at a record breaking gang-bang. None of the three are initially referred to by name, just by number. This can be disorienting since they all sound exactly the same in tone, that is to say, they all sound like Palahniuk. He shoudl stay away from multi-character narrative, it does not play to his strengths.

Like a few of his other books, "Choke" being the worst offender, "Snuff" stretches plausibility until it snaps. There are no characters in this novel that talk like recognizable human beings, and it only takes a quick googling of reviews done by people in the sex industry to determine that the author apparently didn't even do the basic research necessary to deal with the topic of porn in an insightful manner.

Everything in "Snuff" is cartoonishly, ridiculously excessive for no reason I can determine other than ineffectual shock value. The twists are obnoxiously convenient, the jokes don't really work, and the observations made are trite. For a book that can be read in an afternoon, this book felt too long.

"Distraction" is one of the more didactic books that I've actually enjoyed.

Oscar Valpraiso is the hyper-motivated adopted child of Hollywood elite who starts the book working as a senatorial campaign manager in a near future where the US economy has collapsed and the government has been rendered nearly irrelevant.

The world presented in Sterling's novel is intriguing to be sure, full of roving nomad gangs equipped with cheap food sources and cheaper information networks. An amazing amount of thought has gone into his world building, and it shows.

What fairs less well are the characters. While Oscar has a lot of depth and history, he's the entire show. His wild ideas, his long rants about how to make things work, and all his speeches about the way of the world compose the lion's share of the dialogue worth reading. Everyone else comes off as two dimensional idiots either railing against his ideas, or saying how crazy/amazing his behavior is.

The worst example of this is the crazy Louisiana governor performing brain augmentations on immigrants. As an antagonist, the character is weak and a hollow stereotype.

As a book of ideas, "Distraction" is well worth the read, but on a character level it's basically just the writer's avatar ranting through everything in quotations.

Call me uncultured, but I have trouble reading books where I can't empathize with the protagonist. This made "Dogs of Babel" the opposite of a page turner, where each chapter seemed to function as a standalone idea, where most of the action and interest lay in the past, not in the future.

The main character, Paul Iverson, has lost his wife Lexy. She fell out of a tree and died, and the only witness was their dog Lorelei.

I was with the story in that first chapter. The imagery was striking, the way the scene was set pulled me in.

Then Paul, a professor of linguistics, declares that he will teach Lorelei to speak so he can get her witness testimony concerning Lexy's last hours.

The more Paul discusses this idea, the more he loses me. This intelligent man who otherwise sounds perfectly reasonable is calmly discussing the steps necessary to produce a talking canine. This takes my view of the premise quickly from crazy to crazy-stupid.

Lexy is the most interesting character in the story, and she's dead, so all the fun is in the flashbacks. She makes elaborate [b:death masks|91479|Death Masks (The Dresden Files, Book 5)|Jim Butcher|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1221336382s/91479.jpg|2183] that express her view of the deceased, and much of the story is about her emotional issues and conflicted view of death. A much more interesting, and entirely believable story.

Much more fascinating than an older gentleman getting involved with people who surgically alter dogs to attempt to give them the physical equipment necessary for speech. This sub-plot could work with a much weirder, more quirky author, but Parkhurst delivers it in a straightforward, sincere style that comes off as awkward with the freakshow subject matter.

Even Paul himself doesn't seem to question is sanity more than in just passing. I think even crazy people occasionally wonder about the correctness of their behavior, but this guy is all confidence.

So we've got half a book I really got attached to, and half I could not even remotely accept. 3 Stars seems appropriate for that.

Did you like "Slaughter House Five" and "Cat's Cradle"? Were you like me and totally blown away by the 4th wall breaking in "Breakfast Of Champions"? Well then scale back your expectations before you crack open "Bagombo Snuff Box".

These are stories written back in Vonnegut's magazine days, and as such are far more reserved than the stories he would later become a legend for.

Not to deny it's good qualities. For Vonnegut completists it's a fascinating collection, and for fans of short fiction it has plenty of gems, but betrayed expectations often make fans angrier than an actual lack of good craftsmanship.

The awkward part for me was the introduction, where Vonnegut complained about the way the magazine industry changed due to the rise of television. Ranting about the idiot-box was a passe old man activity by the 80's, and reading it in a book released in 2000 made my eye roll a bit in spots.

Even if someone's a genius, I'm still not that wild about hearing nostalgic rantings about the way things used to be.

Miranda July makes me want to scream a little.

"No One Belongs Here More Than You" is well written. No denying that, these stories sing with crisp, concise imagery.

But the protagonists at best seem unhinged, and at worst are terrifyingly disconnected from reality.

There's a story that involves a woman talking to her downstairs neighbor. When he hunches forward, clearly having some sort of medical issue, she gets down next to him, trying to have a moment with him. Instead of, you know, doing something sensible like getting help.

Another that runs away with her best friend to live in a cheap apartment and do cheap sex shows and a porn store.

An older gentleman who is seduced by a coworker that's trying to set him up with non-existent sister.

And on and on this way, with people who are familiar because there really are people this thoroughly scary in their obliviousness and self-destruction.

It's a quick read and pretty entertaining, but I left it feeling oddly unclean. I think many people will relate to her stories, but I wonder from which side?

Seeing the movie before reading the book is something I avoid if I'm at all interested in the subject matter. One is going to alter my view of the other, and I'd rather my book reading experience be untainted by images of what the characters look like or sound like. In the case of "No Country for Old Men" I saw the movie before even taking an interest in Cormac Mc McCarthy, but after reading the book I was surprised at how little it mattered.

The movie is essentially the book minus a scene or two. The dialogue at times is identical. What this results in is a book that I most likely will never have to reread since I can watch the movie and get virtually the same experience.

In some cases the movie actually improved upon a scene by adding additional atmosphere, or with a subtle tweak to the dialogue.

Making a noir western is not most likely what he set out to do, but that's the best way I can describe the story. People fall into criminal endeavors, make mistakes, and deal with evil men they're in no way prepared to handle. It's like a hillbilly [b:Raymond Chandler|2052|The Big Sleep|Raymond Chandler|http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41AGA624Z5L._SL75_.jpg|1222673] story.

One aspect of McCarthy's books that I've noticed in both that I've read is the presence of a character that seeks to emulate god through acts of senseless cruelty. Anton Chigurh, the ruthless hitman from "No Country for Old Men" has a lot in common with Judge from "Blood Meridian". They're both creepy characters, and I'm curious to see if this theme plays out in any of his other books.

The book has good, Spartan prose and an ear for rural dialogue that's unmatched by most contemporary authors. It's a good read, but if you have a DVD player, there's an easier way to approach the material.