Review: Guns, Booze & Zombies by G. Joseph ★★★

(Received E-copy from the author for review)

Once upon a time there was a girl who read a zombie book she didn't like (What?! I know!!), and wrote a frustration-filled rant review about it.

This review was then seen by another author working on his own zombie story, and he contacted the girl to thank her for writing her review because he said it helped him in shaping his own story. She was all pleased as punch about this, and offered to read his book to see how it came out.

This is the review of that book.


(Also, surprise! I'm the girl. :D)

(In case you didn't know.)

So, what did I think of "Guns, Booze & Zombies"? Overall, I thought it was on the high end of OK to good scale, but a little spit and elbow-grease would make it really shine.

I really enjoyed the concept and setting of this story: A zombie outbreak in Prohibition Era New York. It sounded intriguing - I don't think I've seen a 30s era zombie story before. (I mean, I've seen Nazi Zombies, but that's a whole different set of entrails there.) I was interested to see how Prohibition was worked into the story, and to get the feel for 30s NYC. But as much as I liked the concept, I did have some issues with the execution.


See what I did there?

Storywise, it was a little too skewed toward the "tell" side of the spectrum, and I wanted more "show". The Prohibition aspect felt sadly lacking, as was the Depression. They were mentioned, of course, but I never truly felt the impact of either one. They never felt like hardships. Benson is evicted, but since the story moves almost right into Escape From Zombie New York, the impact is dulled and I felt as if it was almost unimportant. For another example, we're told that Benson Doss and Emma have rekindled their romance, but this doesn't quite mean anything because 1) we didn't know they had one in the first place, and 2) randomly meeting up in a speakeasy and having a few drinks doesn't exactly scream "rekindled romance" to me. That says, "They're friends, and she's a forward thinking kind of gal that will buy a down-on-his-luck guy a drink." For me to believe the romantic aspect, I wanted to see them react to each other, be attracted to each other, to maybe talk things through and discuss where attempt #1 went sour, commit to trying again, that sort of thing. All of which I missed.

I wanted to really know the characters, and care about them, but I didn't really get that as much as I'd have liked. In fairness, this is a novella - it's only 117 pgs on my Nook. But there's a lot of stuff packed in those pages, and I feel like a little more focus on the characters would have brought a bigger impact when bad things happen to them. For example, when we find out about a character's softer side, which leads into a side plot, I was able to sympathize with him more and wanted things to work out for him. But I didn't really feel anything close to that connection with any of the other characters.

Two other big story issues affected my enjoyment of this one. First, the side plot I mentioned was never resolved. Maybe there's a 2nd book in the works, which wouldn't be a bad idea, since the second issue I have is the twist at the end which came out of left field. It was just... OK, maybe not as unbelievable as one aspect towards the end was... (view spoiler)[The group of remaining survivors meet up with the Army, and the commander instantly knows who Benson Doss is, and turns over command to him...? My suspension of disbelief turned into a lead weight on that one. (hide spoiler)]... but still out of left field.

Finally, my last issue is with the lack of editing. This book is badly in need of an editor. I mention this because, to my knowledge, I was sent a copy of the final, for-sale version. There were quite a lot of misused words, missing commas, unnecessary semi-colons, misspellings, and awkward syntax all over the place. Every instance of the word "quiet" was misspelled "quite", "site" and "sight" were used interchangeably, among other misuses. Also, it seemed that words were switched out in favor of "better" ones that made the sentence awkward in many cases. Often, the simpler word will fit more naturally into the sentence than a less commonly used one. Example: "We allow the team to gather some excess sleep." This just feels clunky to me. It would feel much more natural as "We allow the team to get some additional sleep."

I actually did enjoy the story, though, despite my complaints above - I was interested in seeing where it went and what happened, and if there was an explanation for everything. I really enjoyed the goriness of the fighting, and liked, oddly enough, the sentimentality some held toward their loved ones turned flesh-eating-corpses. I would be interested in reading the sequel, if there should be one. I definitely think that G. Joseph has potential. He's one to watch.

----------
Also, as a side note, I would like to say that G. Joseph has been beyond courteous and professional in all of his messages to me. I thanked him privately for this, but, especially in light of the recent author/reader drama 'round the interwebs recently, I would like to publicly do so as well. 

So thank you G. Joseph, for remaining professional and pleasant. This is exactly the right way to go about the author/reader interaction. Best wishes for a successful and long career! :)

Review: We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver ★★★★★

I started this review 6 times, and each time, I deleted it because it didn't quite convey the right thing. I think the problem is that I'm not sure just what that thing is. But one thing I do know is that I love books that make me feel like this... that "I don't know what I need to say but I need to say something, to talk about this with someone because this book won't keep quiet in my mind" feeling.

I guess it's lucky that this was chosen for our latest group read then, because I filibustered there with every jumbled, messy, half-formed thought that my tired-because-I-stayed-up-until-nearly-2am-with-this-book-then-worked-a-full-8-hours mind could think of... Because this book won't keep quiet in my mind. I finished it last night around 1:30am, tears streaming down my face, hurting for everyone and furiously heartbroken over something so unnecessary and so seemingly unavoidable as what was depicted. Then I slept, and I dreamed about this book, with hazy, distant figures without names or faces, but bigger than life aspects.

It's rare that I dream about books. It doesn't matter if I read it up until the minute I drop off; I only dream about a book I'm reading, or have read if it pulled me into its world first. I dream about the books that touch my soul. *cue dramatic music*

This book was just... wow. If I were to nitpick anything, it would be that Eva's pen wandered a tiny bit too much into the outside world. I wanted to see her world, the world of her family, or her lack thereof. It took a little bit to get there, and for a while, there were hints but the narrative meandered along in its own time. But oh my, once it got going, it really got going. I don't think it was just my last minute mad dash to read this the day before my bookclub meeting that helped me to read 75% of this book in one night after work... it was unputdownable. Once I glimpsed this family's world, I couldn't look away.

There is... so much to talk about in this book. And I don't think that I could even attempt to do the topics or themes any justice (as I didn't in my bookclub, not for lack of trying). This is a book that begs to be turned around to the beginning again and immediately re-read. It's like one of those optical illusions. At first, the picture is simple, but then once you see the hidden picture within it, you gain a new appreciation for the whole.

This book was beautifully written, insightful, questioning and heartbreaking. It was nothing at all like I expected, and even guessing the things that I guessed (which turned out to be true), it didn't make the impact any less. This book was so incredible at making me sympathize and empathize with each person's perspective, though we only see these through Eva's brutally honest memory, that it was impossible for me to lay blame anywhere, even though the potential for assigning blame was huge.

This was expertly executed (pun intended), and it is not one that I will forget any time soon.

Review: People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks ★★★★

I've had this book on my to-read list for a long time, 3 years or so, but it was one of those books that I didn't really think that I would ever really get to. A 'lifer'. I'd read Brooks' Year of Wonders back in 2008, and I liked it, but about 4 years has passed now, and the more I read in those intervening years, the more I came to feel like it wasn't really all that impressive, after all. I especially feel that way after finishing People of the Book. The writing in YOW just doesn't even hold a candle to the writing in POTB. It's a beautifully written, moving book, and I'm sorry that I put off reading it for so long.

I will say that there were parts of POTB that felt too modern for the historical sections, and even too "British" (mainly because the 'could/should/would have done' phrase sticks out like a sore thumb to me), and I thought that the romantic interest was awkward and didn't really ever sit right with me, but aside from those two things, I couldn't really find anything to criticize in this book.

I read for pleasure, and this book drew me in. I thought it was a fantastic melding of history, bibliophilia, socio-political issues, and life. I thought the characters were interesting, and even though most of them were only bit-players, I never actually felt like that's what they were while reading. They had history, and depth, and personality, and I very much enjoyed reading their stories, even when they were disturbing or heartbreaking.

But mostly, I loved this book for the story of the haggadah itself. I loved the way that the history of the book unfolded, with each clue to its journey through the years being shown as a story in itself, moving backwards in time until the origin of the book is shown. The historical sections were wonderful - they all felt completely real, although they were all horrifying as well, especially the 1492 Inquisition section.

I remember studying the Inquisition in school, and somehow it never really conveyed just how fucked up that shit was. That's probably why we never learn anything. We sanitize history to the point where it's completely lost all meaning, so we just keep doing the same shit over and over. We're still killing each other over differences in opinion regarding which religion is "right", or because a man dares to love another man and want to share his life with him, or because someone's skin is the wrong color, or because... we're just fucking bored and hate-filled. For fuck's sake. When will we grow up?

"You've got a society where people tolerate difference[...] and everything's humming along: creative, prosperous. Then somehow this fear, this hate, this need to demonize 'the other' --it just sort of rears up and smashes the whole society."

/soapbox

Fantastic book. I highly recommend it.

Blah Blah Blah...

Yeah, so... No updates here in like... 3 weeks. Shameful I know. I've been in this horrible reading funk that I'm only just now emerging from. I didn't finish a single book from June 8th through June 21st.
It were terrible.

So, now that I think I'm finally over it (YAY!) I might just go ahead and post a review or something.

I know, I know... Try to contain your excitement, though.

Review: Tastes Like Human by The Shark Guys ★★

2.5 Stars
I really wanted to love this book. Really I did. When I received the email asking me to review it, I thought it sounded hilarious, and pretty much jumped on that. I love clever, irreverent humor, and I was really excited to read this book - but it just didn't deliver enough for me, sadly, and I've got pretty mixed feelings about it.

This book contains some great examples of witty observations and wordplay, non sequiturs, and paraprosdokians -- fans of Mitch Hedberg will know this last one. For those who aren't, let me explain: It's the kind of joke where the back half of a sentence or phrase is an unexpected punchline for the beginning half. Such as: "I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long." or "I ordered a club sandwich. And I'm not even a member!" Your brain has to kind of work in reverse to see the joke. Great stuff. I love it. One such in this book was this one, from "Top 13 Fighting Tips": "8. Never Hit a Guy with Glasses; use full bottles instead." It made me chuckle, and I like that.



Chuckling is good, but I was expecting "bitingly funny" humor that would keep me giggling for the duration, and in that I was disappointed. This ebook is only 144 pages long. I can read that easily in one day after work, but this book took me 3 days to finish, and the last bit was something of an endurance test - it felt like it was trying too hard to live up to that "bitingly funny" title, with irreverence that should be funny but towards the end here was just over the top and edged on being silly (Example: all of the "Top 20 First Date Suggestions"). In and around the funnies I've mentioned before, there was just too much that didn't do it for me. List entries that left me wondering what the point was in including them, how it related to the topic at hand, how the sub-title for the list item related to the list item, etc. There were some which would have benefited quite a bit from just another line or so of detail or backstory... or relevance.

Two examples:
First, from "Top 8 Great Achievements in Sitting", number 7 is "Giving a Sit For Charity":

"Most people change seats after making quick judgment calls - should I get up for this elderly person who might not really be all that old but has just let himself go, or do I really want to wake up to a face like that should I decide to doze off on the bus.
Briton Terry Twining made the mundane marvelous when he changed seats 40,040 times in 48 hours at a soccer stadium in Belgium. It should be said that the stadium was completely empty - free from lager-swilling hooligans who'd likely not take kindly to those making the mundane marvelous in the middle of a game, so points off for deception. (Daily Telegraph, December 2008)

Wake up to a face like what? Do they mean they don't want the first thing they see when they wake up to be the see a face of an elderly person? I'm not sure what they are trying to say here...?
But my main question is: How exactly does charity fit in here? Was this guy seat-hopping for charity or were they just going for a clever list title pun? I wouldn't have ever thought anything about charity except for the title. I'd likely have thought he was trying to set a Guinness World Record (and "Giving A Sit For Guinness" would have worked just as well), or was really, really bored that weekend. But since charity WAS mentioned, and this is "Great Achievements in Sitting" - where's the relevance to the charity? Did he raise $1 for every seat his ass touched and donate it to cancer research, or anything? I don't feel like seat-swapping 40,000 times is much of an "achievement" unless there WAS a point to it. Maybe if he was doing it to call awareness to the true horror of hemorrhoids for sitters everywhere I'd see the relevance, the achievement, but as it is, I'm just left feeling like "Hoookay then..."


...19,999... 20,000! Only 20,040 more to go... Why was I doing this again?

Second, from "Top 5 Out of Control College Parties", number 5 is "Operation Storm the Dorm":

"Return to your freshmen dorm" seems like a terrible theme for a seniors' party. Why would anybody need to revisit such recent history, especially when the rashes from irregularly washed bedding have yet to fully disappear? Presumably the only benefit is that you would now be a senior and could lord over freshmen the minor achievement of having satisfied minimum academic requirements for three years as you attempt to cajole them into your old bed.
Regardless, that was the theme for a soiree at Bates College in Maine, recently found to be the most expensive non-profit college in the US, a year there costing more than someone earning a liberal arts degree would earn in five years of intensive interning. Parents forking out that kind of cake would probably not be thrilled to see the apples of their eyes bruised in a brawl with police. But that's what happened when police tussled with some 200 "return to your dorm" partiers, pepper-spraying several who the officers said refused to get out of the way of an incoming ambulance.
With his elbow on ice and face rearranged according to the preferences of law enforcement, one of the protesters called the cops' use of force "absurdly excessive". While we would be inclined to believe exactly that in most cases, one policeman did have his leg broken in the melee. (No word if it was his opening night.) (Associated Press, May 2010; WMTW-TV, May 2010)

Now, this list is about out of control college parties. But this entry doesn't actually say what the party was or why it was out of control. They hypothesize about the theme of the party, but that sounds more like a hazing scene from Dazed and Confused than an actual party. I just wanted a little more. Rather than just compiling newsclips, I was hoping for that extra step - get in touch with someone who was there and find out what the party was about and how it got wild enough to need riot police. That's what I want to know if you're going to tell me about "out of control parties", not just the outcome like it's filler on the 10pm news. Make it interesting enough so that any of the wild people reading your book will say "Pish tosh! They call that a party? Amateurs. Lemme show 'em how it's done! Jeeves, ready Party Cave." (Or, you know, whatever they named their party planning lair.)

Moving on, I want to talk about the readability. On the whole, the book was easy to read and interesting, but occasionally -- not all the time, or even most of the time, but frequently enough to allow for quite a few highlights on my nook -- I'd run into a sentence or passage that just didn't make sense to me. I'd read it again, and on one specific occasion I read the line a total of five times, even sharing it with friends to see if I was missing something. I tried coming back to it later - sometimes that helps if I just can't wrap my brain around something, but I'm still baffled by it. The sentence is the first one in the "6 Creative Drug Smuggling Operations" introduction paragraph. For clarity, I'll quote the entire paragraph:

Drug traffickers can no longer rely only on backpackers looking to turn a quick buck for a shower back home to get their products to market. While the domestic auto industry can stamp its feet and plead for government bailouts every time foreign competition threatens its innovation-free way of doing business, drug traffickers are forced to deal directly with increasingly sophisticated police methods of detection and stiffer penalties in countries that serve as transit points.

Second sentence, a little long, but that's OK. I got that one. But that first one... It's like it's two sentences in one or something. Or if it was trying to be funny, like throwing a little dig in there at backpackers for being dirty, broke, or stranded in a foreign country, or all of the above, I think it missed the mark, at least with my test subjects friends and I. It's the "for a shower back home" that grinds the sentence to a halt for me. Take that out, and "Drug traffickers can no longer rely only on backpackers looking to turn a quick buck to get their products to market." makes sense.

This example is the most baffling one, for me, but there were others where multiple hyphenated words and long sentences contributed to that feeling I mentioned before of just trying too hard, and not always hitting the mark. Often less is more with humor.

So, overall, this book was just OK for me. Would I recommend it? Yes. Everyone's sense of humor is different, and what may not have worked for me might be exactly someone else's style. I do think that it would benefit from another edit run-through to clean up some of the long sentences and make things more concise, but that's just my preference. Not terrible, but I think my expectations let me down a bit here.