• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

What book is everyone reading at the moment? Part 2.

I'm also in the process of reading She Is The Ancient, a sourcebook/companion/supplement for the D&D campaign Curse of Strahd.
It'd subtitled 'A Genderbent Curse of Strahd Guidebook' so no doubt it drives those TTRPGamers who take the Woke Menace seriously into hysterical fits......
;)

I'm considering running part of Strahd reset into a large depression within my Glimmer Drift setting as a different campaign.
 
I'm also in the process of reading She Is The Ancient, a sourcebook/companion/supplement for the D&D campaign Curse of Strahd.
It'd subtitled 'A Genderbent Curse of Strahd Guidebook' so no doubt it drives those TTRPGamers who take the Woke Menace seriously into hysterical fits......
;)

I'm considering running part of Strahd reset into a large depression within my Glimmer Drift setting as a different campaign.
That is relevant to my interests.
 
Just finished Unruly by David Mitchell, a somewhat brisk and potted history of the Kings and Queens of England.

It broadly covers the period from Alfred the Great in the early 9th century, to Elizabeth I in the 16th/17th century. The justification for this period is basically that it starts around the same time as the concept of 'England', and monarchs after Elizabeth were rulers of Scotland and England, or Britain, and also slightly less interesting because Parliament became more of the political centre.

It covers enough ground to be interesting without trying to be exhaustive. It's not all serious, but isn't just silly. I found it very readable and well-paced, though it perhaps skipped over some of the characters a little quickly. It does all get a little confusing at times with the aristocracy's habit of giving everyone the same name, but as a place to start, it does the job of bringing the characters to life a little and making them feel a little more real.

What I found he did well was give the big picture of what the concept of a monarch was, how it changed over time, and why that mattered.

No history buff is going to find out anything new, but the novice (like me) may well at least have more of an idea of how things developed over this time.
 
I got a little more than halfway through The Deluge by Stephen Markley when I ran up against a scene that I DID NOT LIKE. As a matter of fact, I HATED IT. If I wanted to read crap like this, I could read the news, so I've returned it unfinished, and now I'm onto The Cat Who Cracked a Cold Case by L.T. Shearer.

I'm not saying don't read The Deluge because some folks love that kind of crap, but I don't.


-
 
Last edited:
In the middle of a rediscovered book series from my childhood public library days. The "Chris Godfrey of UNEXA" series by Hugh Walters. An extensive collection starting with a space race with the Russians to the moon, written AS the space race was happening. Except in this story, a young Englishman is the first on the Moon. As the series went on, the characters visit planets and moons all over the solar system in turn, incorporating the latest space science as the author presumably became aware of it. That makes the early installments kind of wonky: for example the book "Expedition Venus" was written before we had any idea what might be found on the surface.

The stories quickly escalate past what the actual space program achieved.

Currently in "Spaceship to Saturn" (1967) and they're introducing the concept of cryo-sleep for long space missions. Ion engines were already used in previous books, and nuclear reaction assisted launches. It's an interesting experience having it be both ahead of and behind the times all at once.
 
I got a little more than halfway through The Deluge by Stephen Markley when I ran up against a scene that I DID NOT LIKE. As a matter of fact, I HATED IT. If I wanted to read crap like this, I could read the news, so I've returned it unfinished, and now I'm onto The Cat Who Cracked a Cold Case by L.T. Shearer.

I'm not saying don't read The Deluge because some folks love that kind of crap, but I don't.


-
What kind of crap is it that turned you off? Because if it was animal torture I'm right there with you.
 
What kind of crap is it that turned you off? Because if it was animal torture I'm right there with you.

You may think it's ok, but it just made me sick. I don't need to read about this kind of crap when I'm reading a book for pleasure. I can read this same stuff in the news.


Killing a father (because they couldn't trust him not to rat the killers out), and then his wife, and one of their children, who just happened to be home at the time.



ETA: Of course, I know I'm being hypocritical, because I wrote the same kind of thing in the first chapter in the first book of my talking cat series, but the result of what I wrote was that the guilt forced the criminal to spend the rest of his life saving abused animals. It actually becomes an obsession with him, but I still can't read that part of my book again, and I wrote that crap.


-
 
Last edited:
Just finished Unruly by David Mitchell, a somewhat brisk and potted history of the Kings and Queens of England.

It broadly covers the period from Alfred the Great in the early 9th century, to Elizabeth I in the 16th/17th century. The justification for this period is basically that it starts around the same time as the concept of 'England', and monarchs after Elizabeth were rulers of Scotland and England, or Britain, and also slightly less interesting because Parliament became more of the political centre.

It covers enough ground to be interesting without trying to be exhaustive. It's not all serious, but isn't just silly. I found it very readable and well-paced, though it perhaps skipped over some of the characters a little quickly. It does all get a little confusing at times with the aristocracy's habit of giving everyone the same name, but as a place to start, it does the job of bringing the characters to life a little and making them feel a little more real.

What I found he did well was give the big picture of what the concept of a monarch was, how it changed over time, and why that mattered.

No history buff is going to find out anything new, but the novice (like me) may well at least have more of an idea of how things developed over this time.
Good review! I've been reading Unruly off and on, and am two thirds of the way through it.
 
The Fourth Protocol, by Frederick Forsyth.

Classic cold war competence porn. Part of my program to rediscover old favorites via audiobook. Just got past the opening set-piece, which is every bit as cool as I remembered it. Looking forward to the rest. Even as a teenager, I remember being surprised that Forsyth dared to cast the then-living Kim Philby as a major character. Literally the real life spy and traitor, not an expy or fictionalized "loosely based on". I'm still surprised today, especially because Forsyth has the cheek to invent a whole inner life, family, and busman's retirement for him. All in service of this thrilling bit of fiction.

Forsyth, like Ludlum, is one of those thriller writers of which I had the mixed fortune of reading their best works first. Imagine my disappointment, upon discovering that some of their other novels weren't as good as The Fourth Protocol, or The Bourne Identity. It's always weird to me when an author manages to write an absolute banger of a narrative, and then never really demonstrate that level of talent again. Even Tom Clancy managed a pretty good run, to begin with.
 
The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann.

Just finished The Buddenbrooks which I hadn't read since my 20:th. Likewise, The Magic Mountain was some decades since I last read it. Some heavy ◊◊◊◊, both of them!
 
I've been reading the classics since June. Classics like the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Dracula, Moby Dick, Oliver Twist to Alice in Wonderland by C.S. Lewis.

While in College, I took a double-credit class that linked the History of Western Civilization (for the first hour) with the History of Literature (for the second hour), and as we went through each historical period, we also studied the literature that was prominent at the time---from the Odyssey, Epic of Gilgamesh, The Canterbury Tales, La Divina Commedia di Dante, to War and Peace.

IMO, they're all great classics, but to make a long story short, I just got sick of reading them, so until I get I'm Starting to Worry About This Black Box of Doom by Jason Pargin from the library (2 more weeks, YEEEEEEEEEha!), I'm gonna read a bunch of pulp fiction books by Erle Stanley Gardner (that are classics to me) for the rest of the year.


ETA: Here's my post with all the books I've read since June (except for the last one):



-
 
Last edited:
Just finished reading a biography on Frederik III of Denmark, who outplayed the nobility and introduced absolute monarchy in Denmark. Besides that he had some almighty scraps with the Swedes, and tried to juggle a number of alliances and treaties with various other countries, with varying degrees of success.

I've now moved on Antony Beevor's book on the Russian Revolution and the civil war that followed. I've made it through the first part of the book, which covers the revolutions of 1917, and jesus wept, if ever there was an event that could have benfited from a bit of hindsight, this was surely it. So many freaking opportunities to curb Lenin and the Bolsheviks...
 
Okay, just finished Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits, by Jason Pargin, whom I gushed over when discussing his newest book (I'm Starting to Worry About this Black Box of Doom). It's about a girl, Zoey, who inherits a mansion and fortune in a near-future dystopian city without police or laws, where everyone broadcasts everything on a network called 'Blink', new skyscrapers can pop up virtually overnight, and billionaires have a lot of power and influence. Oh, and she has people with horrific implants come after her and a huge bounty put on her head. It's basically a thriller with some of I'm Starting to Worry's themes taken to the extreme. In that respect, it was a good pick for a second read.

Surprisingly, though, I... Didn't really care for it. It was his third book, and maybe that's part of the explanation, but in my eyes the setting and plot didn't really make sense. Not sure if I can list examples without spoiling anything. Also, after the two initial horrible villains to come after the hero, the primary villain of the story (Molek) was just... Shallow and irritating. Also, the misogony. God, the misogony. I guess the main villain was supposed to be a laughable parody of an insecure incel manchild compensating by turning into a supervillain (and a contrast to the two that came before him, who were actually genuinely disturbing, and I mean that in a good way), but in the long run, it just got gross, especially with his constant SA threats. Also the heroine gets beaten up horribly towards the end of the book, which coupled with all the hatred of women you encounter in this book was just... Gross. Also pretty much every character in the story was either really shallow and/or really unlikable. Honestly, while I think I got what Pargin was going for throughout most of the book, all in all it just felt... Edgy.

I'll definitely read more from Pargin, but I think I'll try out the John Dies at the End series before reading more of the Zoey trilogy.
 
I've just started reading a bunch of pulp fiction by Erle Stanley Gardner. He is the creator of Perry Mason, probably one of the most famous fictional lawyers of all time, and that's the series that I'm reading right now.

I'm sure everyone has heard the name before, and it's probably more from the 1957-1966 TV series than from the books written by Gardner.

I'm reading the series in order because I've got a little OCD going on with things like that, and after I read each case, I'm also going to watch the corresponding episode of the TV series (the numbers in parenthesis are in the season.episode format). These are the first five "cases" of the book series that I'll be reading (until I can borrow I'm Starting to Worry About This Black Box of Doom by Jason Pargin):


#1 The Case of the Velvet Claws (6.22)
#2 The Case of the Sulky Girl (1.5)
#3 The Case of the Lucky Legs (2.2)
#4 The Case of the Howling Dog (2.23)
#5 The Case of the Curious Bride (2.5)


I love Perry Mason, and over the years, I've read each one of the books of the whole series at least six times. This is my seventh time.

IMO, one of the biggest differences between the books and the TV series is the murderers are not the same ones. The writers found a way to pin the murders on someone else, except there was one that did follow the book to the end, but that was rare.

The really BIGGEST difference (IMO) was the relationship between Perry and Della. Don't get me wrong, I loved Raymond Burr as Perry Mason, and Gardner was even quoted as saying the he was the lawyer that he envisioned when he wrote the books (or something to that effect), but for some reason the network (CBS) wouldn't let them have a relationship. As a matter of fact, in the books, Perry asked Della to marry him a least three times.

I think that would've made for a better series, but that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary of course.

Gardner even put some easter eggs in some of the episodes to hint at it, and there's even a book out about it that someday (when I have some extra money) I'm gonna buy.

Out of all the books in the series that Gardner wrote, only one of them has (what I think is) a very unique aspect to it that is very, very different from the rest of them:


The Case of the Howling Dog has the only client of Perry's that was ACTUALLY guilty of the murder.


And finally, another aspect of Erle Stanley Gardner that not a whole lot of folks know about is that he IS the father of (if not one of the forefathers of) the Innocence Project and other similar organizations.

He deserves this recognition, because of his work with an organization he started called The Court of Last Resort:

The concept for The Court of Last Resort was developed from a popular true crime column of the same name. Written by lawyer-turned-author Erle Stanley Gardner, the column appeared in the monthly magazine Argosy for ten years beginning in September 1948. Gardner enlisted assistance from police, private detectives, and other professional experts to examine the cases of dozens of convicts who maintained their innocence long after their appeals were exhausted.


-
 
Last edited:
When first being adapted for TV, Perry Mason was supposed to be an afternoon serial (soap opera) with a developing love story between Perry and Della. Gardner protested and pulled the rights, but the producers had gone so far that they changed character names and professions and launched (The) Edge of Night, a long-running soap opera, first with and later without the "the" in the title.
 
I've both read the books and seen the show, so I can't remember where this happened, but I remember one case where a prospective client turned up in Perry Mason's office who was about to be arrested for something. Perry Mason then got some people who looked like his client to meet the police witness several times that day in order to confuse the witness identification of his client. Highly unethical, of course, and not the only time something like that happened.

That's when I stopped reading/watching them.
 
I've both read the books and seen the show, so I can't remember where this happened, but I remember one case where a prospective client turned up in Perry Mason's office who was about to be arrested for something. Perry Mason then got some people who looked like his client to meet the police witness several times that day in order to confuse the witness identification of his client. Highly unethical, of course,, and not the only time something like that happened.

That's when I stopped reading/watching them.


That's not true, but I'm not going to argue the point.


-
 
Personally I found the Perry Mason books to be a bit repetitive after a few.


It can certainly seem that way, but I liked the way Perry got Holcomb's goat and made him look stupid in his earlier cases, especially in court, and later when Lt Tragg shows up, it became more of a cat and mouse game, and I loved that too. I guess you just have to love legal shenanigans like I do to appreciate it.

There's even one case where he makes Holcomb look like an idiot, and Tragg comes over afterwards to thank him---unofficially of course.

I agree, the court room scenes can sometimes seem formulaic, but I especially loved when Perry cross-examined a witness about forensics, because Erle Stanley Gardner himself was a big believer in the forensic sciences, especially those in the medical profession. He featured many of them in the forwards to his later books.

As you probably already know, Gardner was a lawyer who worked mostly for the impoverished, and some of his cases sound outrageous (to say the least), but they're also true.

In one case, he was up against a concerted effort to shut down the Chinese lottery by going after the shopkeepers who were selling the tickets rather than the big guys who were really behind it.

He learned when this shakedown was going to happen and went to all his clients the night before and had them switch around to different shops for the next day.

Obviously, none of the cops knew each shop keeper by sight and arrested all the wrong people with the wrong warrants.

Gardner had every single case thrown out of court using the legal theory that since the warrants were used to arrest the wrong people, they were invalid.

There's a book out with more stories like that, and I'm going to get it as soon as I can afford it.

IMO, Gardner was one cool guy, and when I read his books, I think of him actually out there, doing some of the things in real life that Perry did in fiction.


ETA: I also like that Perry sometimes has his silly moments, but those aren't as plentiful as I'd like. When I run across them, I'll try and point them out here in this thread.


-
 
Last edited:
When first being adapted for TV, Perry Mason was supposed to be an afternoon serial (soap opera) with a developing love story between Perry and Della. Gardner protested and pulled the rights, but the producers had gone so far that they changed character names and professions and launched (The) Edge of Night, a long-running soap opera, first with and later without the "the" in the title.


Interesting, and thanks for the added info.


-
 
Sadly, I am re-reading the 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' I'm finding that I hate the main character as much as I did the first time.

It is very rare that I want to punch a book, but there you go.
 
When first being adapted for TV, Perry Mason was supposed to be an afternoon serial (soap opera) with a developing love story between Perry and Della.
Gardner protested and pulled the rights, but the producers had gone so far that they changed character names and professions and launched (The) Edge of Night, a long-running soap opera, first with and later without the "the" in the title.


And just to clarify, Gardner protested and pulled the rights because they wanted to focus more on the romance than the legal aspects.


ETA: I found the name of the book I mentioned earlier, Perry Mason, A Love Story: The TV Clues You Missed.

You probably missed some tell-tale signs that Perry and Della were a lot closer than you thought on the original "Perry Mason" TV show. An air of 'Romantic Longing' surrounded their relationship from the very beginning, largely because of the chemistry that existed between Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale. Burr told author Brian McFadden that the two actually met more than a decade before "Perry Mason" began and shared a fondness for each other that couldn't help but come through on the show. That's why, even though Erle Stanley Gardner wanted no hint of romance on the program, any attempt to have Barbara and Raymond actually play their roles that way was doomed to failure. And Barbara later admitted that their sense of humor sometimes got the better of them and they enjoyed seeing just how much they could get away with. As this book shows, they got away with quite a lot!

(The hilited part is where I made my mistake earlier)


-
 
Last edited:
Yes, but their next post was quite ordinary.

Maybe they meant: "I'm done, I'm not going to read another book again."

I avoid reading books like that, they mess me around to much.
Yes, maybe, and I agree, those sort of books are not for me.
 
I don't know how true this is (sometimes Cracked has weird unbelievable stuff in their e-mails), but I just finished reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde about a month ago, and it would've been an interesting thing to know while reading it, even if it isn't true.

I also just found out (from the same source) that Mary Shelley got her inspiration for Frankenstein during an opium dream. I just finished reading this one last month too.

I don't know how true this is either, but I swear to god, Lewis Carroll was on some kind of hallucinogen when he wrote Alice in Wonderland.

But anyway, here's my original review of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde:





AA1pAdsL-b.jpg



-
 
Last edited:
#1 The Case of the Velvet Claws (6.22)

Reading the first book of the Perry Mason series was a big relief from reading the classics, especially with their well-known fondness for long run-on sentences.

The jump from books with more description than dialogue, to ones that were overflowing with dialogue, was like a breath of fresh air to me. No more would I have to read a sentence twice, trying to figure out what the hell the author was trying to say.

In most (if not all) of the books in the series, Perry eventually ends up in the courtroom, but The Case of the Velvet Claws is one novel where that doesn't happen.

In this specific case, Della is disappointed with Perry for turning against his client and throwing her to the wolves, but when he's able to prove she's innocent afterwards, she promises to never doubt him again.

She keeps that promise throughout the series, even to the point of betting a month's salary (with Paul Drake) that Perry will once again prove his client's innocence, despite how dark the case looked in the next book in the series, The Case of the Sulky Girl.

Speaking of Della, one of the events that divides the series for me is when she begins to stay in the room with Perry to take notes of his interview with clients. Not too shortly after that, she even accompanies him when he does a couple B&Es, looking for evidence.

Some folks may see that as a negative, but the way Perry explained it almost makes it legal, and that also brings up the first thing I learned from reading these books. According to Perry Mason, almost every criminal law statute in the US has attached to it the idea that you also have to prove intent. In other words, Perry argued that there would have to be a criminal or felonious intent behind it before anything could be considered a crime.

Another important thing I learned is that if he helps a fugitive from justice, he can't be charged with aiding (giving the suspect support and help) if they are innocent.

When I come upon one of Perry's many explanations as to why those are true, I'll include it in my review.

A good example of the first point is if you were walking by someone's house and saw smoke pouring from it, would there be a criminal or felonious intent to commit a crime if you broke in to save their lives?

I'm sure some folks will want to argue these points, but I'm going to let Gardner kind of answer that by quoting a kind of modern day forward that he wrote to the third book of the series:


A NOTE FROM ERLE STANLEY GARDNER
Perry Mason shares the prerogative of all good fictional characters. They never grow old. Yet the lawyer’s cases began years ago in what now seems almost a different world.
The Case of the Lucky Legs deals with Perry Mason at a time in his career when there were three powerful 'slick paper' magazines, The Saturday Evening Post, Collier’s and Liberty. Only The Saturday Evening Post has survived. It occurred in a period when much of the best food was in speakeasies, when sliding-panel doors were standard equipment.
Moreover, in these earlier cases Perry Mason had the great advantage of complete freedom of action. Those of you who read Perry Mason’s adventure of The Case of the Lucky Legs will, I think, agree that fame has disadvantages; that a young, relatively unknown fighting criminal lawyer can get into a series of most attractive escapades with skeleton keys and an impulsive disregard for the finer points of legal ethics.
Nowadays when the celebrated Perry Mason dashes past a cornerstone of legal ethics without bothering to touch base, bar associations shiver with apprehension. In these earlier days when only a few people knew of the daring, resourceful Perry Mason, a bunch of skeleton keys in his pocket was standard equipment. After all, who dared to keep a locked door between a Perry Mason reader and the mystery on the other side? Certainly not the author!
So to those who wish to encounter Perry Mason in one of his earlier adventures, who have a nostalgic longing for the days of the speakeasy and individual initiative, I trust this reprinting of The Case of the Lucky Legs will give you your money’s worth of excitement and entertainment."


-
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I admit that Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits has grown on me. I think part of the reason why I disliked it in the beginning is I really dislike oppression and violence, of which there's plenty in the book (along with a pretty bleak and uncaring setting in general) but looking back I can appreciate the message, the jokes, and the overall absurdity more.

I do maintain that the story requires some suspension of disbelief, though. For example,
Zoey knows she has a multi-million dollar bounty on her head, and no one thinks to evacuate her mother, who doesn't even seem to know Zoey is in danger --which by the way is stringe given that the hunt for Zoey becomes the top story on the Blink social media network that seems to dominate society? Zoey is in a mansion surrounded by the best body guards money can buy, but the killer with the mechanical jaws can literally just walk right in and nearly, well, eat her?


Again, it was one of Pargin's first books, and maybe it's meant to be read as one of those action flicks where you're there for the fights and flashy explosions and the plot itself isn't really meant to make sense. Or, just read it as a horror story, where you're supposed to just bask in the, well, horror?

Anyway, for anyone interested, this video will give you a primer on the type of world and humour you'll encounter (not safe for work). For all the book's faults, it has such gems as 'he had the eyes of a man whose favourite joke was just a shrieking child falling down a flight of stairs'.
 
Currently reading Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger and The Cavalry that Broke Napoleon: The King’s Dragoon Guards at Waterloo by Richard Goldsbrough. The latter is very detailed.. been skimming some chapters.
 
#2 The Case of the Sulky Girl (1.5)*

I don't know about anyone else, but when I first started reading Perry Mason, the first thing I learned about were assumptions, because they became a big part in helping to solve the fictional mysteries that I've read.

They can also help when writing them too.

I'm sure everyone's heard the trope that many fictional murderers were usually the least likely suspect. For me it was because of assumptions I made, like for example:

In The Case of the Velvet Claws...


You're not really sure who the killer is until the wife confesses to shooting her husband and running, and that's when I assumed she was guilty, until Perry proved the nephew was the real killer, because my assumption was wrong.

In this case, the murderer on the TV show was the same as the book, but the rest of the story was quite different.

In The Case of the Sulky Girl...


Because the murder victim spoke to one of the characters before they left in the Judge's car, I assumed that they were still alive.

In this case, the murderer on the TV show was also the same as in the book, but the rest of the story was quite different too.

Also, if anyone watched the Perry Mason series on Max, you might remember that one part where one of the characters tells Perry (paraphrasing) that no one ever confesses in court, especially on the witness stand. Well if IIRC, that very rarely ever happened in the novels too, but it did happen a lot in the TV series with Raymond Burr, but not in the first two cases that I just watched above, but it does happen in the TV Show episode named after the novel's title, The Case of the lucky Legs (3.10).*


*
(season.episode)


-
 
Last edited:
Been reading and re-reading Michael Kurland's Moriarty series, about the adventures of the world's first consulting criminal and the obsessed Sherlock Holmes.
Good stuff, though The Infernal Device has a number of errors similar to the list I posted before of common mistakes of writing set in the late Victorian period.
 
Terry Pratchett: Thief of Time. I read it first when fairly new. Confusing to me as I picked it up at the book store and did not know it was part of a series.
 
Finished Matthew Sturgis's Oscar Wilde: A Life. At nearly 1000 pages, it is a thorough biography, less concerned with assessing Wilde's literary legacy than with delineating Wilde's deliberately constructing and inhabiting a flamboyant, overbearing, and outrageous persona. Wilde's marriage, fatherhood,
rejection of heterosexuality and embracing homosexuality ("Uranian" love) and subsequent entanglement with Lord Alfred Douglas all get coverage. Douglas emerges as a wastrel, spendthrift (with Wilde's money) and hot-tempered to the point of insanity. His father, the Marquess of Queensbury, nurtured a deep hatred of Wilde - and of his own son. He threatened to shoot Wilde in some public place. Douglas persuaded Wilde to sue Queensbury - and the result was that Wilde in turn found himself tried and convicted of gross immorality and sentenced to two years in prison. This ended his writing career, except for the successful long poem "The Ballad of Reading Gaol," and ruined him financially, though he had never lived within his income. After two years of exile in Italy and France, Wilde died in Paris.

Wilde seemed to charm and amuse everyone he met. He must have been a wonderful acquaintance, but an exasperating and expensive friend. Sturgis shows his enchanting side but also his careless and needy one.
 
Back
Top Bottom