July 2017: What are you reading?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I forgot to add on the previous page that in poetry I have begun reading the epic poem Orlando Innamorato for the first time by Matteo Boiardo.
 
Better than three quarters through Sleep with Slander (1960) by Dolores Hitchens. The inclusion of her Fools' Gold in the Women Crime Writers volumes from Library of America intrigued me and since I had an old paperback of it ...

I can see why my edition has such a good blurb on the cover from Bill Pronzini. So far it's a well-thought out, well-organized and well-written old school private eye novel in the hard-boiled mode though not as hard-boiled as Hammett or Chandler. On-line reviews note its resemblance to Ross Macdonald novels of children in trouble, and that seems accurate, though I think Macdonald does more with that theme, if only because it recurs in his work.

Anyway, unless it tails off badly I'd recommend it to anyone who like crime novels from the 1930s through the 1960s.


Randy M.
 
The War of the Flowers by Tad Williams. It's strange to read Williams' descriptions of the real world. I like his writing style, but I hope it doesn't get bogged down the way that chunks of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn did.

I thought it was much better paced than either Memory Sorrow and Thorn or Otherland, and it's nice to know he's occasionally able to wrap up a story without taking several huge books to tell it.
 
I've just finished Blood Games by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. Review Here

We're into July and I was hoping to have caught up with all those pesky comics by now, but the pile is still there, so another 25 comics next
 
Sleep with Slander proved quite a good mystery, with a strong ending. It was enjoyable enough I've started another mystery, The Moving Target (1949) by Ross Macdonald, one of his Lew Archer series. Readers of a certain age or Paul Newman fans, may recognize the novel as the basis for the movie Harper (1966). Apparently, because Newman had successful movies the titles of which started with an H (Hud, The Hustler) the producers changed the name of the character from Archer to Harper.

Randy M.
 
Read those pesky comics and have now started Pellucidar, the second book in Edgar Rice-Burroughs series of the same name
 
Apparently, because Newman had successful movies the titles of which started with an H (Hud, The Hustler) the producers changed the name of the character from Archer to Harper.

Randy M.

Is that real? Awesome bit of trivia there.
I wonder which producer thought that one up "We make more money with a H title"
 
I'll be interested in how you get on with that series. I loved the first, liked the next three, but found the last two became just too weird for me to wrap my poor little head around.
Finished In the Ocean of Night. Good premise, some parts nicely done, but other parts slow and awkward. I understand it's a 'fix-up' and this shows. When Benford sticks to the hard SF he's fine, but when he spends dozens of pages on the protagonists wierd relationship for no purpose, it's much less good. The end is also a little weak I think. Benford ends the book with what I call 'method writing' instead of just clear story telling, in which he resorts to a style of implication rather than exposition that I don't get on well with. This would be a great SF book if it was half the length, retaining only the necessary scenes and cutting out all the stuff on Bigfoot. I probably won't read further in the series. That said, it's not awful and Benford is not a bad writer I think.
 
Finished In the Ocean of Night. Good premise, some parts nicely done, but other parts slow and awkward. I understand it's a 'fix-up' and this shows. When Benford sticks to the hard SF he's fine, but when he spends dozens of pages on the protagonists wierd relationship for no purpose, it's much less good. The end is also a little weak I think. Benford ends the book with what I call 'method writing' instead of just clear story telling, in which he resorts to a style of implication rather than exposition that I don't get on well with. This would be a great SF book if it was half the length, retaining only the necessary scenes and cutting out all the stuff on Bigfoot. I probably won't read further in the series. That said, it's not awful and Benford is not a bad writer I think.
Pretty similar to myself, though, possibly I liked it a bit more. I did like the hard SF aspects. However the books that follow on from this are radically different and, in my opinion, much poorer, particularly the last couple. So I wouldn't disagree with your decision!
 
I read Meg Little Reilly's We Are Unprepared this weekend. I had difficulty believing that meteorologists could (and would) predict precisely one superstorm - not maybe a superstorm and not one or more superstorms - several months in advance. Our met service struggles to predict superstorms a few days in advance.
 
The Sparrow by Mary Daria Russell - wasn't keen.
 
It seems as though I forget about this thread unless I've subscribed for the month. Lately I've finished Proof by C.E. Tobisman; A Merciful Truth by Kendra Elliot (One of my favorite thriller authors.); Say You're Sorry by Melinda Leigh; Rusty Nail by J.A. Konrath --- In the S.F. category I've read The Oncoming Storm, Falcone Strike and Cursed Command by Christopher Nuttall (I've really enjoyed the three books in this series.); and Perilous Waif by E. William Brown and then an historical fiction book Beneath a Scarlet Sky, by Mark Sullivan. --- A really unusual look at W.W. II through the eyes of an Italian Resistance Fighter and spy.

Presently reading Terradox by Craig A. Falconer and looking for an audible book to have on my phone. --- Next job tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top