It was on TV, I watched it. Wasn't feeling well, but it was the perfect escapist thriller. Lots of big explosions, a plot that was your standard thriller plot, it ticked all the boxes without being exceptional. Enjoyable, sure, but not memorable in the same way as Inception or as huge as Transformers II.
What is there to say? Cruise ship, terrorist type chap shutting down all the computer systems at will, and a rather spectacular ending sequence with exploding oil tankers and ships running aground (although this did somewhat stretch the credibility--I seriously doubt the ship could have got even half as far as it did). The girlfriend was your stereotypical screaming American girl, who didn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation half the time, and basically acted like a half wit for the vast majority of the movie. Amusing though. Main character was something of a stereotype too, but convincingly enough acted. If it's on TV again I'll probably watch it again, but I won't be rushing out to buy it. (That said, I must confess that I couldn't leave the telly while it was on, and the ad breaks turned this into what felt like something of a marathon watching session--though that might just be because I don't tend to watch that much in the way of films).
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The Noah's Ark Quest
Well, I traded in various books the other day for this one and one other (my whole Clive Cussler collection, if you're interested, bar a couple of hardbacks). Anyway, it was a can't put down variety of book.
Noah's Ark. Scientifically improbable, and yet many thousands believe in it, either literally or figuratively. As a wooden boat, it would have been the largest ever built, liable to collapse under its own weight. In order to load all the animals, something like one pair every 30 seconds would have to be loaded. On the other hand, flood mythologies feature in every major belief system, so is there a kernal of truth at the heart of the story?
Dilara's father has spent his life searching for the ark, but he's been missing for three years when the archaeologist gets a call from a family friend. Poisoned before he can relate things fully, his garbled words lead her on a quest to prevent the end of the world, aided by ex-army engineer Tyler Locke and his close friend Grant Westwood.
Plenty of action, excitement, and a fabulous quest, plus the requisite dastardly plot to misuse the remains of Noah's Ark this is a thoroughly enjoyable novel, and also surprisingly believable. A keep you up until you're finished sort of book, I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I'll certainly be keeping my eyes out for more.
Noah's Ark. Scientifically improbable, and yet many thousands believe in it, either literally or figuratively. As a wooden boat, it would have been the largest ever built, liable to collapse under its own weight. In order to load all the animals, something like one pair every 30 seconds would have to be loaded. On the other hand, flood mythologies feature in every major belief system, so is there a kernal of truth at the heart of the story?
Dilara's father has spent his life searching for the ark, but he's been missing for three years when the archaeologist gets a call from a family friend. Poisoned before he can relate things fully, his garbled words lead her on a quest to prevent the end of the world, aided by ex-army engineer Tyler Locke and his close friend Grant Westwood.
Plenty of action, excitement, and a fabulous quest, plus the requisite dastardly plot to misuse the remains of Noah's Ark this is a thoroughly enjoyable novel, and also surprisingly believable. A keep you up until you're finished sort of book, I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I'll certainly be keeping my eyes out for more.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Glass Tiger
I was most impressed with this novel, especially as I only picked it up because books at the Harris booksale were five for a pound and there were four others I wanted. I decided to read it primarily because it looked like one of the view not mega long books I had left to read, and I wasn't feeling well yesterday, so I didn't feel like going into one of the new Robin Hobb ones I've got recently.
It's a thriller. It's got plenty of action, conspiracy, intrigue, and a brilliant plot twist, but what really drives it is the main character, or rather, main characters. The 'goodie' and the 'baddie' are both intriguingly written, and deliberately close to each other in their life experiences. Powerfully written, two hunters stalk each other across America, the prize: the life of the President.
Brendan Thorne, ex-CIA, now living in Kenya as a game keeper, is dragged back to the States to chase a man the new President thought was dead, a man with a grudge and the skills to act on that grudge. Trouble is, not only is Hal Corwin a worthy adversary, completely at home in the forests where Thorne has to chase him, adept at hiding in plain sight, those who recruited him have their own ambitions and motives best served by using Thorne and then getting him well and truly out the way--preferably dead, but a Kenyan prison will work just as well.
An excellent, unputdownable novel. I'll certainly be looking out for more by Joe Gores.
It's a thriller. It's got plenty of action, conspiracy, intrigue, and a brilliant plot twist, but what really drives it is the main character, or rather, main characters. The 'goodie' and the 'baddie' are both intriguingly written, and deliberately close to each other in their life experiences. Powerfully written, two hunters stalk each other across America, the prize: the life of the President.
Brendan Thorne, ex-CIA, now living in Kenya as a game keeper, is dragged back to the States to chase a man the new President thought was dead, a man with a grudge and the skills to act on that grudge. Trouble is, not only is Hal Corwin a worthy adversary, completely at home in the forests where Thorne has to chase him, adept at hiding in plain sight, those who recruited him have their own ambitions and motives best served by using Thorne and then getting him well and truly out the way--preferably dead, but a Kenyan prison will work just as well.
An excellent, unputdownable novel. I'll certainly be looking out for more by Joe Gores.
Monday, 3 January 2011
The Pursuit of History (Third Edition)
I'd like to write that this was a load of tosh, purely because of the author's name, but in fairness to the book, I really can't. It was wonderfully interesting, and I read much of it whilst on lunch breaks at M&S, which proved a wonderful antidote to the crippling lack of anything interesting or intellectually challenging that stacking shelves offers.
I'm actually quite getting into this whole historiography thing, really starting to enjoy looking at the practice of history and how it should be done and shouldn't be done and so forth. I also feel like I'm starting to be in a position where I can start drawing my own conclusions. Despite what I initially thought, it seems that the point of historiography isn't just to lambast those historians you happened to have a falling out with at high school. In fact, Tosh doesn't have a go at anyone, and even points out the odd merit or two of psychohistory, which seems to be generally given short shrift (although he does go on to point out that it has its own unique set of weaknesses and runs huge risks of inferring waaaaay too much).
The section on oral history was interesting, postmodernism taken into account and explained without being resoundingly attacked as in Evans' book. In fact, while I initially worried there might be issues in terms of him referring to 'modern' trends in history which were modern thirty odd years back when the book was first written, the last few chapters make it clear that it really has been updated.
I particularly, though, enjoyed one of the first chapters, which looked at social memory and how society perceives history as opposed to how historians say it really happened. This theme was then picked up again in the section on oral history, making hte point that why people perceive things as having happened in a certain way when analysis suggests that they really didn't happen like that, is as interesting as the event in itself. Why is the Battle of Britain in popular culture a David v Goliath contest, when the numbers of fighters were actually pretty similar and many recent historians have challenged whether it was even that close a thing as to whether we were gonna win? Why does nobody remember instances of panic during the Blitz, instead subsuming it all into the wider Blitz spirit? Tosh argues that social memory serves a specific function, legitimating current rulers and practices, as well as offering 'guidance'. While no two instances in history are identical, he argues that history does offer suggestions of alternatives where we perceive no alternatives.
A very interesting book, not too theory-ridden, though it explains all the major theories well and assesses the impact and reasons for Marxist theories popularity amongst many historians. I was also quite chuffed to feel that I knew the majority of the historians he referred to from my first term at Cambridge and other reading :) Thoroughly enjoyed it, though it's not a book you can really read all in one go... Needs spreading out, and the chapter divisions do this well enough. One or two chapters at once is probably more than enough to digest at once.
I'm actually quite getting into this whole historiography thing, really starting to enjoy looking at the practice of history and how it should be done and shouldn't be done and so forth. I also feel like I'm starting to be in a position where I can start drawing my own conclusions. Despite what I initially thought, it seems that the point of historiography isn't just to lambast those historians you happened to have a falling out with at high school. In fact, Tosh doesn't have a go at anyone, and even points out the odd merit or two of psychohistory, which seems to be generally given short shrift (although he does go on to point out that it has its own unique set of weaknesses and runs huge risks of inferring waaaaay too much).
The section on oral history was interesting, postmodernism taken into account and explained without being resoundingly attacked as in Evans' book. In fact, while I initially worried there might be issues in terms of him referring to 'modern' trends in history which were modern thirty odd years back when the book was first written, the last few chapters make it clear that it really has been updated.
I particularly, though, enjoyed one of the first chapters, which looked at social memory and how society perceives history as opposed to how historians say it really happened. This theme was then picked up again in the section on oral history, making hte point that why people perceive things as having happened in a certain way when analysis suggests that they really didn't happen like that, is as interesting as the event in itself. Why is the Battle of Britain in popular culture a David v Goliath contest, when the numbers of fighters were actually pretty similar and many recent historians have challenged whether it was even that close a thing as to whether we were gonna win? Why does nobody remember instances of panic during the Blitz, instead subsuming it all into the wider Blitz spirit? Tosh argues that social memory serves a specific function, legitimating current rulers and practices, as well as offering 'guidance'. While no two instances in history are identical, he argues that history does offer suggestions of alternatives where we perceive no alternatives.
A very interesting book, not too theory-ridden, though it explains all the major theories well and assesses the impact and reasons for Marxist theories popularity amongst many historians. I was also quite chuffed to feel that I knew the majority of the historians he referred to from my first term at Cambridge and other reading :) Thoroughly enjoyed it, though it's not a book you can really read all in one go... Needs spreading out, and the chapter divisions do this well enough. One or two chapters at once is probably more than enough to digest at once.
Ice Age 2
I suddenly realised that I hadn't actually watched this film, despite the fact we have it on DVD. And after reading a chapter of 'On Collecting', I felt like I needed some light relief.
I thoroughly enjoyed it actually. It was a good follow up plot to the original, amusing and Manny in particular was well developed. I love that mammoth :) Sid was... Well, he was Sid. An irritating younger brother, like mine when he was a bit younger (now he's a lovelorn teenager!). The new twins were interesting, added an additional comedic element although that was pretty well supplied by Sid (and the squirrel. Mustn't forget the sabre-toothed squirrel). I liked the new mammoth, thought she was well portrayed and very amusing with her decision that she really was a possum, in spite of her tree problems...
The only jarring note was the ending. In fact, I felt the ending would've been better skipped out completely. The last scene with the squirrel was unnecessary, a little confusing, and took away from what could have been a very strong ending with the extended 'pack' heading off together. The sabre-toothed squirrel is fine as a short, and as a comical note of relief, but I felt it was overdone a little and especially so in the ending. Unnecessary is the only way I can describe it. Fine as an extra bonus feature, or even after the credits, but it ruined the ending somewhat.
Sid and Dieago made a good pairing, constantly antagonising each other, although I think Diego was a stronger character in the first movie--although to be fair, it's impossible to develop equally wide range of new characters and I think they did a good job of keeping continuity with the first whilst introducing three new characters.
In short, it was a film that I thoroughly enjoyed watching, and while not perhaps quite as good as the first, certainly comparable. I shall have to see if I can get the third out the library now...
I thoroughly enjoyed it actually. It was a good follow up plot to the original, amusing and Manny in particular was well developed. I love that mammoth :) Sid was... Well, he was Sid. An irritating younger brother, like mine when he was a bit younger (now he's a lovelorn teenager!). The new twins were interesting, added an additional comedic element although that was pretty well supplied by Sid (and the squirrel. Mustn't forget the sabre-toothed squirrel). I liked the new mammoth, thought she was well portrayed and very amusing with her decision that she really was a possum, in spite of her tree problems...
The only jarring note was the ending. In fact, I felt the ending would've been better skipped out completely. The last scene with the squirrel was unnecessary, a little confusing, and took away from what could have been a very strong ending with the extended 'pack' heading off together. The sabre-toothed squirrel is fine as a short, and as a comical note of relief, but I felt it was overdone a little and especially so in the ending. Unnecessary is the only way I can describe it. Fine as an extra bonus feature, or even after the credits, but it ruined the ending somewhat.
Sid and Dieago made a good pairing, constantly antagonising each other, although I think Diego was a stronger character in the first movie--although to be fair, it's impossible to develop equally wide range of new characters and I think they did a good job of keeping continuity with the first whilst introducing three new characters.
In short, it was a film that I thoroughly enjoyed watching, and while not perhaps quite as good as the first, certainly comparable. I shall have to see if I can get the third out the library now...
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Happy New Year
Well, Happy New Year one and all. Looking back, I've done pretty rubbishly at keeping up with this blog. Never mind. This is a new year and I'll have a bash at doing better this time round. It was easy to push it to one side while I was at uni, but I figure I was just making excuses really. And it's not as though there was nothing to write about, and I've had plenty of time since I came back. Anyhow, that's me done apologising for lack of blogging.
What's happened this year? I 'won' Nanowrimo for the fourth year running, with an end total of 113,114. Finished at Cardinal Newman, started at Christ's College Cambridge. Learnt lots about early modern social and economic history, including the fact that you apparently don't capitalise early modern. Also discovered that footnotes are impossible and incredibly annoying. Essays would be so much more fun without footnotes.
Got my A-level results. Made lots of new friends. Joined a new church in Cambridge, which I now find myself missing while I'm at home. Went to two airshows, the first time I've ever been to one. Sunderland was amazing, Southport was wet, and the commentators much harder to hear which was a shame because the commentating was very good at Sunderland.
The 'big' politically events of the year: coalition government, student protests, Harrier got retired :( (my favourite modern aircraft), what else is worth mentioning to any future historian? Nick Cameron and David Clegg of the Con-Dem party are useless liars, and I think there's a case to do Nick Clegg via the Advertising Standards Agency or for breach of contract or something. The expenses scandal. It was cold and England collapsed in a big heap of snow, even though there wasn't that much snow. Anything else? I guess there's the Royal Wedding announcement, but that's not that important. Do you like my value judgements, random future historian who just happens to be using my blog as a source? I'm afraid I'm probably quite atypical, but I really don't care about a Royal Wedding as a 'big event'. I mean, I like the fact we have a monarchy, don't get me wrong, but I don't like celebrity culture, it bugs me. Oh, the F-35 finally started getting somewhere. Does that count as news? Yeh, I guess it does. Budget cuts. Lots of them. And tax is going up on January 4th, again.
What else would you like to know? Or, more specifically, what else would I like to tell you? God's great, that's about all I can think of.
Oh, my goal for this year. Three posts per week, which I think is a perfectly reasonable aiming point. Possibly more, if exciting things happen. I shall try and talk a bit more about the world outside of my own life too, which has the added bonus of making me pay attention to things outside my own life. It's too easy, especially while in Cambridge, to loose all touch with the real world. I observed a few weeks into term that it would be quite plausible that London was flooded completely, or World War Three broke out, and we wouldn't know about it. So it's worth checking in with the BBC every now and again :)
Bye for now :)
What's happened this year? I 'won' Nanowrimo for the fourth year running, with an end total of 113,114. Finished at Cardinal Newman, started at Christ's College Cambridge. Learnt lots about early modern social and economic history, including the fact that you apparently don't capitalise early modern. Also discovered that footnotes are impossible and incredibly annoying. Essays would be so much more fun without footnotes.
Got my A-level results. Made lots of new friends. Joined a new church in Cambridge, which I now find myself missing while I'm at home. Went to two airshows, the first time I've ever been to one. Sunderland was amazing, Southport was wet, and the commentators much harder to hear which was a shame because the commentating was very good at Sunderland.
The 'big' politically events of the year: coalition government, student protests, Harrier got retired :( (my favourite modern aircraft), what else is worth mentioning to any future historian? Nick Cameron and David Clegg of the Con-Dem party are useless liars, and I think there's a case to do Nick Clegg via the Advertising Standards Agency or for breach of contract or something. The expenses scandal. It was cold and England collapsed in a big heap of snow, even though there wasn't that much snow. Anything else? I guess there's the Royal Wedding announcement, but that's not that important. Do you like my value judgements, random future historian who just happens to be using my blog as a source? I'm afraid I'm probably quite atypical, but I really don't care about a Royal Wedding as a 'big event'. I mean, I like the fact we have a monarchy, don't get me wrong, but I don't like celebrity culture, it bugs me. Oh, the F-35 finally started getting somewhere. Does that count as news? Yeh, I guess it does. Budget cuts. Lots of them. And tax is going up on January 4th, again.
What else would you like to know? Or, more specifically, what else would I like to tell you? God's great, that's about all I can think of.
Oh, my goal for this year. Three posts per week, which I think is a perfectly reasonable aiming point. Possibly more, if exciting things happen. I shall try and talk a bit more about the world outside of my own life too, which has the added bonus of making me pay attention to things outside my own life. It's too easy, especially while in Cambridge, to loose all touch with the real world. I observed a few weeks into term that it would be quite plausible that London was flooded completely, or World War Three broke out, and we wouldn't know about it. So it's worth checking in with the BBC every now and again :)
Bye for now :)
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Flight 103
Featuring a former Mossad agent turned antique dealer, Sam Green's second book (at least, I think it's his second book, give me one sec to check... It's his second fiction book featuring Sam Woolfman, he's written non-fiction before) is a fast-paced, enjoyable read. An interesting enough plot with an intriguing conspiracy theory about the Lockerbie bombing, it actually manages to weave together two investigations without either becoming drowned out. There's a bit of a romance thrown in for good measure too--although it's not really much more than the standard romance thrown into a thriller.
It feels real, and it's rather unputdownable. What more could you ask for in a thriller? Woolfman is perhaps not the most well developed character I've found in a thriller, but having said that I thoroughly enjoy Matthew Reilly's work and someone's said of those books 'the characters don't live long enough to have personalities'... The antiques business side is also convincingly written, as is the conspiracy involving a cover-up by the Catholic church.
In fact, my only worry with the series (I enjoyed Max, the first one too--although I don't seem to have reviewed it, sorry), is that by setting the story at a definite point Sam Green is going to struggle to cover more modern conspiracies etc. Characters set in real time unfortunately age. I hope that there're plenty more issues in the recent past to turn over and rewrite. (The ageing problem is also present in James Barrington's excellent series, where the main character served in the Falklands war, and who knows how old Jack Higgins Sean Dillon is now, but that's not quite as much of an issue as they're set less at a definite time with definite events).
If you're looking for an interesting and unputdownable thriller, this is a great choice.
It feels real, and it's rather unputdownable. What more could you ask for in a thriller? Woolfman is perhaps not the most well developed character I've found in a thriller, but having said that I thoroughly enjoy Matthew Reilly's work and someone's said of those books 'the characters don't live long enough to have personalities'... The antiques business side is also convincingly written, as is the conspiracy involving a cover-up by the Catholic church.
In fact, my only worry with the series (I enjoyed Max, the first one too--although I don't seem to have reviewed it, sorry), is that by setting the story at a definite point Sam Green is going to struggle to cover more modern conspiracies etc. Characters set in real time unfortunately age. I hope that there're plenty more issues in the recent past to turn over and rewrite. (The ageing problem is also present in James Barrington's excellent series, where the main character served in the Falklands war, and who knows how old Jack Higgins Sean Dillon is now, but that's not quite as much of an issue as they're set less at a definite time with definite events).
If you're looking for an interesting and unputdownable thriller, this is a great choice.
Nanowrimo 2010
Gosh, I really haven't posted in a while, have I?! Well, apart from that last post I put in a few moments ago, but that's not what I meant. I haven't told you that I had my fourth Nanowrimo attempt, and my fourth win in November. Wonderful fun.
My novel was entitled Firejuggler, and I managed to write the entire thing in the month. My official word count was 113,114, which I reckon was a pretty intriguing number to come up with with absolutely no way of being able to tell what would come out the official word count machine since Open Office is rather more generous in counting words (and don't ask me how a word count can be different depending on who counts it--it's a mystery that puzzles me as well). It actually went surprisingly well. I had one character which showed up, then I decided I didn't want it, then I figured that actually, I did need that character after all. I did that last year as well actually, with a similar sort of character. Hmm. I also had a couple of other unexpected characters, and the grand scheme of the plot appeared when I was 60,000 words in, and then when I was 100,000 words in, and trying to actually follow a plan I realised that actually, the plan had it all wrong and the conclusion would be reached in an entirely different manner. So that needs smoothing over, and there's one or two extra scenes I need to bob in, but it's remarkably intact, considering the whole thing showed up in a month and that I started with a scene and two main and one minor characters. The rest of it just appeared as I wrote (and as I pondered it too, I guess).
Nanowrimo really does represent a remarkable creative event. There'll be another one next year, and I strongly recommend you get involved if you've ever considered writing a novel. Or even if you do write novels. It forces you to write and not worry too much about those niggling little details and the words that you can't spell and the occasional clunky sentence, and instead to tell a story. And let's face it, even if you've got the best writing in the world, if your plot is utter drivel no one's gonna enjoy it (the reverse is also true--although I'm more likely to persevere with an interesting plot and bad/mediocre writing than good writing and no/boring plot).
Should I tell you a little more about Firejuggler as it turned out to be? Oh, actually, I had the title right from the start as well which is pretty unusual for me. My story folders are full of things like 'Football Start.4' and 'Nutmeg's First Day' and 'Random Story'....
Sha is a firejuggler, but he wasn't always a wandering entertainer. Once, he was a respected soldier in the Royal Army, but after the Protector took over England, things for Sha have gone from bad to worse. Persecuted not only for his ties to the 'ancient regime' but also for his refusal--indeed, his physical inability--to give up practising the highly addictive fire magic, he's serving the resistance movement as a messenger as well as doing 'tricks' to earn coin. Until he discovers that the princess, rightful heir to the Naablian throne, is not dead as everyone thought but is very much alive, even if she doesn't know who she is and is utterly oblivious to the magic bubbling up inside her, ready to explode from her when the protective curse laid upon her at birth to prevent her using it until she turns eighteen. Princess Graci is forced to leave her home, embark on a rather perilous journey, and learn about the magic Sha insists she should have known about from birth, that she should have been taught about so that she can control the addictive impulses of the magic. The trouble, as she rapidly realises, is that Sha himself is heavily addicted to the magic. While it makes him a powerful practiser, it also leaves him with headaches and vulnerable to apparently random destructive whims.
And I think that'll do as a plot description. There are soldiers, dragons, plots, arguments, and orphans involved too, but I don't want to make my summary too complicated now do I?
My novel was entitled Firejuggler, and I managed to write the entire thing in the month. My official word count was 113,114, which I reckon was a pretty intriguing number to come up with with absolutely no way of being able to tell what would come out the official word count machine since Open Office is rather more generous in counting words (and don't ask me how a word count can be different depending on who counts it--it's a mystery that puzzles me as well). It actually went surprisingly well. I had one character which showed up, then I decided I didn't want it, then I figured that actually, I did need that character after all. I did that last year as well actually, with a similar sort of character. Hmm. I also had a couple of other unexpected characters, and the grand scheme of the plot appeared when I was 60,000 words in, and then when I was 100,000 words in, and trying to actually follow a plan I realised that actually, the plan had it all wrong and the conclusion would be reached in an entirely different manner. So that needs smoothing over, and there's one or two extra scenes I need to bob in, but it's remarkably intact, considering the whole thing showed up in a month and that I started with a scene and two main and one minor characters. The rest of it just appeared as I wrote (and as I pondered it too, I guess).
Nanowrimo really does represent a remarkable creative event. There'll be another one next year, and I strongly recommend you get involved if you've ever considered writing a novel. Or even if you do write novels. It forces you to write and not worry too much about those niggling little details and the words that you can't spell and the occasional clunky sentence, and instead to tell a story. And let's face it, even if you've got the best writing in the world, if your plot is utter drivel no one's gonna enjoy it (the reverse is also true--although I'm more likely to persevere with an interesting plot and bad/mediocre writing than good writing and no/boring plot).
Should I tell you a little more about Firejuggler as it turned out to be? Oh, actually, I had the title right from the start as well which is pretty unusual for me. My story folders are full of things like 'Football Start.4' and 'Nutmeg's First Day' and 'Random Story'....
Sha is a firejuggler, but he wasn't always a wandering entertainer. Once, he was a respected soldier in the Royal Army, but after the Protector took over England, things for Sha have gone from bad to worse. Persecuted not only for his ties to the 'ancient regime' but also for his refusal--indeed, his physical inability--to give up practising the highly addictive fire magic, he's serving the resistance movement as a messenger as well as doing 'tricks' to earn coin. Until he discovers that the princess, rightful heir to the Naablian throne, is not dead as everyone thought but is very much alive, even if she doesn't know who she is and is utterly oblivious to the magic bubbling up inside her, ready to explode from her when the protective curse laid upon her at birth to prevent her using it until she turns eighteen. Princess Graci is forced to leave her home, embark on a rather perilous journey, and learn about the magic Sha insists she should have known about from birth, that she should have been taught about so that she can control the addictive impulses of the magic. The trouble, as she rapidly realises, is that Sha himself is heavily addicted to the magic. While it makes him a powerful practiser, it also leaves him with headaches and vulnerable to apparently random destructive whims.
And I think that'll do as a plot description. There are soldiers, dragons, plots, arguments, and orphans involved too, but I don't want to make my summary too complicated now do I?
The Whig Interpretation of History
This was one of those 'historiography' books that people say you should read when you're studying history so that you understand the subject. For those of you who aren't historians, historiography is effectively the study of history--and the history of history. It can be quite interesting, it can be rather dull. Most books that I've read so far (actually, make that: the two books excluding this one) are in the rather dull and slightly incomprehensible category. This one was in the 'actually, that was rather interesting and well written' category.
Apparently, this book was rather influential, although the 'whigish' method of history which was criticised was beginning to fall out of favour even before its publication. At any rate, some of what's said seems like common sense to me now, based on what we've been told about doing history in lectures etc, but I am beginning to wonder whether seeing what I know about history in this book is like (hopefully!) seeing what a preacher talks about in the Bible.
At any rate, it's a nice short book (fall on the floor stunned!) and apart from a criticism of Lord Acton in the final chapter of the book does a remarkably good job of attacking ideas and principles rather than specific historians. In short, unlike Evans' 'In Defence of History' and one or two other things I've looked at, it doesn't feel like the historian has a personal grudge they want to settle with a fellow historian they fell out with at high school. (Although Evans' 'In Defence of History' is still a pretty decent book, and for those of you who happen to be studying history might have noticed, a rather standard authority in terms of historical practice, even if it does confuse the issues of postmodernism rather more than it helps clarify them). Sorry. That was a rather long digression from what was meant to be a review of 'The Whig Interpretation of History'. Wait, I should be using italics, not quotes... One of the many things I have discovered about footnoting while at Cambridge is that I can never seem to manage to follow all of the little rules at once. And so I have apparently yet to submit an essay which has the footnotes done completely right. But anyway. That's even more of a digression.
The Whig Interpretation of History is remarkably well written, and constantly tied down to a specific historical period--for most of the book, the Reformation and Luther, though other bits receive mention. The basic argument is that abridged history becomes, almost by default, very 'whiggish' in its tone and outlook, showing the great 'march of progress' and smoothing over historical complications by relegating everyone to either pro or anti progress. So, for example, the Catholics were reactionaries trying to preserve a corrupt old order and Luther was a revolutionary thinker who brought about religious liberty and created the modern rights to freedom of worship. But Butterfield makes the point succinctly that in fact, history is rather more complex than that. Luther wanted, ideally, an equally dominating religious autocracy on slightly different lines to the Catholic set up. What really created religious toleration was the clash of ideologies. An interesting point, and certainly one that seems viable.
History, Butterfield argues, is complication. And from what I've seen of it since starting A-levels it certainly seems to be. People defy neat categorisation. For example, how would a historian in fifty years time slot me into their equations? I'm studying at Cambridge--therefore I'm of an academic turn of mind. I'm a young female who happens to have a thing for aircraft and builds Airfix models--usually the stereotypical preserve of older men. I'm a Christian, but not a member of the 'established' church--both churches that I go to (up here in Preston and down in Cambridge) are 'free' churches with an emphasis on salvation by grace. Spirit fill churches, would probably be the best way of describing them. Aren't people who are 'intelligent' meant to be atheists too? Whenever the library does a display of 'books for men' and 'books for women', I find half the books on the men's stand are ones I've read, and I've rarely read any on the women's stand. Oh, and I live in a 'nuclear' family--mum, dad (been married for nearly 30 years) and younger brother. Aren't we supposed to be in a society where most people don't live in that sort of family? At any rate, you could classify me in any one of several dozen methods, and the same is true of any person. Societies have multiple layers of meaning and interaction, and it's impossible to completely unravel the complexities of our own time, let alone in the past when we have to start relying on sources that by their very appearance and survival tend to be atypical.
So, I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a very interesting book that also happens to be well written and isn't excessively long. In short, a wonderful historiography book to take a look at. And perfectly comprehensible.
Apparently, this book was rather influential, although the 'whigish' method of history which was criticised was beginning to fall out of favour even before its publication. At any rate, some of what's said seems like common sense to me now, based on what we've been told about doing history in lectures etc, but I am beginning to wonder whether seeing what I know about history in this book is like (hopefully!) seeing what a preacher talks about in the Bible.
At any rate, it's a nice short book (fall on the floor stunned!) and apart from a criticism of Lord Acton in the final chapter of the book does a remarkably good job of attacking ideas and principles rather than specific historians. In short, unlike Evans' 'In Defence of History' and one or two other things I've looked at, it doesn't feel like the historian has a personal grudge they want to settle with a fellow historian they fell out with at high school. (Although Evans' 'In Defence of History' is still a pretty decent book, and for those of you who happen to be studying history might have noticed, a rather standard authority in terms of historical practice, even if it does confuse the issues of postmodernism rather more than it helps clarify them). Sorry. That was a rather long digression from what was meant to be a review of 'The Whig Interpretation of History'. Wait, I should be using italics, not quotes... One of the many things I have discovered about footnoting while at Cambridge is that I can never seem to manage to follow all of the little rules at once. And so I have apparently yet to submit an essay which has the footnotes done completely right. But anyway. That's even more of a digression.
The Whig Interpretation of History is remarkably well written, and constantly tied down to a specific historical period--for most of the book, the Reformation and Luther, though other bits receive mention. The basic argument is that abridged history becomes, almost by default, very 'whiggish' in its tone and outlook, showing the great 'march of progress' and smoothing over historical complications by relegating everyone to either pro or anti progress. So, for example, the Catholics were reactionaries trying to preserve a corrupt old order and Luther was a revolutionary thinker who brought about religious liberty and created the modern rights to freedom of worship. But Butterfield makes the point succinctly that in fact, history is rather more complex than that. Luther wanted, ideally, an equally dominating religious autocracy on slightly different lines to the Catholic set up. What really created religious toleration was the clash of ideologies. An interesting point, and certainly one that seems viable.
History, Butterfield argues, is complication. And from what I've seen of it since starting A-levels it certainly seems to be. People defy neat categorisation. For example, how would a historian in fifty years time slot me into their equations? I'm studying at Cambridge--therefore I'm of an academic turn of mind. I'm a young female who happens to have a thing for aircraft and builds Airfix models--usually the stereotypical preserve of older men. I'm a Christian, but not a member of the 'established' church--both churches that I go to (up here in Preston and down in Cambridge) are 'free' churches with an emphasis on salvation by grace. Spirit fill churches, would probably be the best way of describing them. Aren't people who are 'intelligent' meant to be atheists too? Whenever the library does a display of 'books for men' and 'books for women', I find half the books on the men's stand are ones I've read, and I've rarely read any on the women's stand. Oh, and I live in a 'nuclear' family--mum, dad (been married for nearly 30 years) and younger brother. Aren't we supposed to be in a society where most people don't live in that sort of family? At any rate, you could classify me in any one of several dozen methods, and the same is true of any person. Societies have multiple layers of meaning and interaction, and it's impossible to completely unravel the complexities of our own time, let alone in the past when we have to start relying on sources that by their very appearance and survival tend to be atypical.
So, I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a very interesting book that also happens to be well written and isn't excessively long. In short, a wonderful historiography book to take a look at. And perfectly comprehensible.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Nanowrimo 2010
Well, in just under four hours, the annual event of literary mayhem begins. National Novel Writing Month 2010 looks set to be the largest so far, and it's not too late to start now. Who needs a plan anyway? I still haven't decided which of the two ideas I have buzzing around pestering me to write. In fact, I haven't finished writing the story that I really ought to get finished before November begins yet...
So what, I hear you ask (or at least, I hypothetically pretend that you ask), is National Novel Writing Month? Well, it's basically a challenge to write 50,000 words on a new novel in the month of November. That works out at 1667 words per day, which is easily doable, trust me on that one. I've managed it three years running, and I hope to make this a fourth consecutive 'win' (all finishers who verify their wordcount before midnight, local time, on November 30th, are winners). The site is currently very slow, but that's because novellers all over the globe are checking in as they set off on the adventure of a lifetime. Or at least, the adventure of the year which doesn't even require leaving your chair.
If you have ever had any desire to write a novel, now's your chance. Don't miss out!
So what, I hear you ask (or at least, I hypothetically pretend that you ask), is National Novel Writing Month? Well, it's basically a challenge to write 50,000 words on a new novel in the month of November. That works out at 1667 words per day, which is easily doable, trust me on that one. I've managed it three years running, and I hope to make this a fourth consecutive 'win' (all finishers who verify their wordcount before midnight, local time, on November 30th, are winners). The site is currently very slow, but that's because novellers all over the globe are checking in as they set off on the adventure of a lifetime. Or at least, the adventure of the year which doesn't even require leaving your chair.
If you have ever had any desire to write a novel, now's your chance. Don't miss out!
Monday, 18 October 2010
Raising Atlantis
Yup. I've read another book involving the discovery of Atlantis as its central theme. And while you might think I'd be getting a little tired of that idea by now, I have to say this version is remarkably interesting. For one thing, the romance is a little more thought out than 'fit girl + fit guy + adventure = everyone chucks their clothes off', which is always encouraging. In fact, in the whole trilogy (what can I say, it was enjoyable, the library happened to have all three of them hanging about so I've now read them all...) there isn't any major throwing off of clothes. Which is quite exceptional for a thriller. Anyway, that minor digression aside, it's got a very interesting plot, and a fascinating main character (or main two characters in fact--Sister Serenghetti is a fantastic character and definitely more three dimensional than a lot of women in thrillers--or characters in general in thrillers). A different decision of locating Atlantis than any I've seen before, and an interesting location for it at that.
Lots of excitement, the sciency and historically stuff is plausible enough (I confess I'm no expert on ancient history or on science, but it certainly made sense), and... lots of excitement. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and there's an interesting twist on the archaeologist main character. He's a rather discredited bloke amongst the scientific community, a bit of an iconoclast, and also an astro-archaeologist. In other words, he looks at how the stars line up with ancient monuments, because although he doesn't believe in it the ancients did and so he uses star systems etc to get inside their heads. Also, having a nun as a second main character is fascinating, and she's a believable, realistic character to boot. Actually, she's not really a nun any more, but that's by the by.
I can thoroughly recommend this book as an intriguing and edge-of-the-seat addition to the multitudes (well, four or five at the very least) of other books using the legend of Atlantis as their basis. Brilliant.
Lots of excitement, the sciency and historically stuff is plausible enough (I confess I'm no expert on ancient history or on science, but it certainly made sense), and... lots of excitement. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and there's an interesting twist on the archaeologist main character. He's a rather discredited bloke amongst the scientific community, a bit of an iconoclast, and also an astro-archaeologist. In other words, he looks at how the stars line up with ancient monuments, because although he doesn't believe in it the ancients did and so he uses star systems etc to get inside their heads. Also, having a nun as a second main character is fascinating, and she's a believable, realistic character to boot. Actually, she's not really a nun any more, but that's by the by.
I can thoroughly recommend this book as an intriguing and edge-of-the-seat addition to the multitudes (well, four or five at the very least) of other books using the legend of Atlantis as their basis. Brilliant.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
The Sanctuary Seeker
I joined the Cambridge library yesterday. I think I need to go back again today to take some books back. It's quite a nice library actually, although I have yet to fully figure out their filing system... Anyway. I happened to spot this one in with the thrillers, and it looked pretty good so I brought it home and started reading.
The historical background feels realistic. The characters are mostly interesting. The plot is pretty good. In fact, if that was all I was assessing this on, it'd be doing pretty well. Unfortunately, the actual writing itself isn't great. I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but it just doesn't quite read as smoothly or as interestingly as it might. I think perhaps it's with the characters where the problem lies: they're great, interesting people, but the author appears to have broken the cardinal rule of 'show, don't tell'. However, this is the first in a series (or at least, it looked like it was the first, and there were plenty more), so there's every chance that the writing will improve further on in the series. I hope so.
As an idea, it's brilliant. Set in 1194, Sir John de Wolfe, retired soldier of the Crusades, is the first coroner for Devon. But where does his jurisdiction begin and that of his brother-in-law (whom, incidentally, he can't stand) end? So basically, a crime series set in a world without fingerprinting, DNA, cars, or any of the mod cons that detective novels today take for granted. Going out to investigate a murder in a village takes quite some effort on horse back, especially when the village is in the middle of nowhere. In short, it's a very interesting construct, the historical background certainly seems real enough (I confess I don't know a lot about the period, but what I do know seems to tally), and basically it'd be an excellent book if the quality of the writing were a little bit better. So I'm hopeful for the rest of the series.
The historical background feels realistic. The characters are mostly interesting. The plot is pretty good. In fact, if that was all I was assessing this on, it'd be doing pretty well. Unfortunately, the actual writing itself isn't great. I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but it just doesn't quite read as smoothly or as interestingly as it might. I think perhaps it's with the characters where the problem lies: they're great, interesting people, but the author appears to have broken the cardinal rule of 'show, don't tell'. However, this is the first in a series (or at least, it looked like it was the first, and there were plenty more), so there's every chance that the writing will improve further on in the series. I hope so.
As an idea, it's brilliant. Set in 1194, Sir John de Wolfe, retired soldier of the Crusades, is the first coroner for Devon. But where does his jurisdiction begin and that of his brother-in-law (whom, incidentally, he can't stand) end? So basically, a crime series set in a world without fingerprinting, DNA, cars, or any of the mod cons that detective novels today take for granted. Going out to investigate a murder in a village takes quite some effort on horse back, especially when the village is in the middle of nowhere. In short, it's a very interesting construct, the historical background certainly seems real enough (I confess I don't know a lot about the period, but what I do know seems to tally), and basically it'd be an excellent book if the quality of the writing were a little bit better. So I'm hopeful for the rest of the series.
Some Observations
Being a student has led me to make some observations on life. Most of them are probably pretty obvious for people who have ever moved away from home.
1. If I want milk, I have to buy it. Preferably before I want it to put on breakfast cereal, because the shops aren't open when I have breakfast.
2. Dry brown bread is really not all that delicious. I should probably get some margarine.
3. What Heinz alleges is macaroni cheese is disgusting slop which I wouldn't inflict on... well, on anything. At all. Ever.
4. On the other hand, Heinz raviolli is actually fairly tasty.
5. I need to get something to put on a sandwich for tomorrow, or I will have to buy a sandwich. Buying a sandwich is more expensive than buying a whole loaf of bread and a tin of spam. In fact, I think it's at least twice as expensive.
6. College food is okay, but the curry is spicy. Thankfully I had a feeling it might be and avoided it. Oh, and the onion rings are kinda weird.
7. I have to go fetch water from the kitchen. I currently have none. Hmm... Dry bread makes you thirsty. I should perhaps go get some water. Which means finding my keys, closing the door, getting the water, coming back, unlocking hte door...
8. At some point, I will end up forgetting my keys. Probably in the middle of the night. Which will mean going to visit the plodge in my pyjamas. I'm not convinced that's a great idea...
9. I am now running out of observations.
1. If I want milk, I have to buy it. Preferably before I want it to put on breakfast cereal, because the shops aren't open when I have breakfast.
2. Dry brown bread is really not all that delicious. I should probably get some margarine.
3. What Heinz alleges is macaroni cheese is disgusting slop which I wouldn't inflict on... well, on anything. At all. Ever.
4. On the other hand, Heinz raviolli is actually fairly tasty.
5. I need to get something to put on a sandwich for tomorrow, or I will have to buy a sandwich. Buying a sandwich is more expensive than buying a whole loaf of bread and a tin of spam. In fact, I think it's at least twice as expensive.
6. College food is okay, but the curry is spicy. Thankfully I had a feeling it might be and avoided it. Oh, and the onion rings are kinda weird.
7. I have to go fetch water from the kitchen. I currently have none. Hmm... Dry bread makes you thirsty. I should perhaps go get some water. Which means finding my keys, closing the door, getting the water, coming back, unlocking hte door...
8. At some point, I will end up forgetting my keys. Probably in the middle of the night. Which will mean going to visit the plodge in my pyjamas. I'm not convinced that's a great idea...
9. I am now running out of observations.
Friday, 8 October 2010
Very Surreal Walk...
Well, I think I've settled in. I say that because I was sat in the Seeley (history faculty library, see, I now know these things, and that you don't search for the history faculty, you search for the Seeley library when you're looking for books!) and I thought 'right, time to go home'. So I'm guessing that now I think of college as 'home', it's time to say I've settled in :). Really enjoying life here, it's absolutely awesome.
I have a regular walk to make to get to the History Faculty over at the Sidgewick site, and it's so awesome. First: through college, out the plodge--and that's impressive enough I would like to add, as Christ's is a pretty awesome college, then down past the market and onto King's Parade. Through King's College, which is spectacular, then through the King's College fields, complete with cows, squirrels and ducks. Over the bridge, where you could basically have gone back several hundred years in time, and then out of King's at the other side and across a main road. It just feels really bizarre to be making such a switch between centuries.
I had a wonderful dinner tonight with my college family, and then we did the most awesome thing ever, although it was slightly terrifying to get up there. We went up on the roof and we could see out over the college and the city. What a view! Well worth the fact that I really don't appreciate ladders.
Had six lectures so far. Met lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people. Lectures have all been enjoyable, although the one earlier today on economics in Early Modern England was a little bit dull and in parts I thought the lecturer rather laboured the point. Still, I'm loving it. Part way through my first essay, due in on Tuesday morning (although I'll probably send it Monday night). Nearly the end of Fresher's week (ha, it's basically Fresher's couple of days, and then lectures start and we're still doing Fresher stuff). In some ways it's weird to think it's practically a week since I left Preston--sometimes it feels far longer, sometimes much more recent. I'll be glad when I've settled into a proper schedule though. I'm starting to get the hang of the whole 'I need to remember to eat, get milk, do stuff' thing, and getting to know the other people around. Good fun, rather exciting still.
Well, I can't think of anything much else to say and I'm really pretty knackered. Might do a little bit of writing, a little bit of reading, and go to bed. Night all :)
I have a regular walk to make to get to the History Faculty over at the Sidgewick site, and it's so awesome. First: through college, out the plodge--and that's impressive enough I would like to add, as Christ's is a pretty awesome college, then down past the market and onto King's Parade. Through King's College, which is spectacular, then through the King's College fields, complete with cows, squirrels and ducks. Over the bridge, where you could basically have gone back several hundred years in time, and then out of King's at the other side and across a main road. It just feels really bizarre to be making such a switch between centuries.
I had a wonderful dinner tonight with my college family, and then we did the most awesome thing ever, although it was slightly terrifying to get up there. We went up on the roof and we could see out over the college and the city. What a view! Well worth the fact that I really don't appreciate ladders.
Had six lectures so far. Met lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people. Lectures have all been enjoyable, although the one earlier today on economics in Early Modern England was a little bit dull and in parts I thought the lecturer rather laboured the point. Still, I'm loving it. Part way through my first essay, due in on Tuesday morning (although I'll probably send it Monday night). Nearly the end of Fresher's week (ha, it's basically Fresher's couple of days, and then lectures start and we're still doing Fresher stuff). In some ways it's weird to think it's practically a week since I left Preston--sometimes it feels far longer, sometimes much more recent. I'll be glad when I've settled into a proper schedule though. I'm starting to get the hang of the whole 'I need to remember to eat, get milk, do stuff' thing, and getting to know the other people around. Good fun, rather exciting still.
Well, I can't think of anything much else to say and I'm really pretty knackered. Might do a little bit of writing, a little bit of reading, and go to bed. Night all :)
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Fresher!
I am now a Fresher at the University of Cambridge! And my college is absolutely amazing. I couldn't get on the internet on my first night, but I wrote a post anyway. Here you go...
Had an awesome day. Everyone's very friendly. Met Tom and Tom who are my new next door neighbours. Both seem really nice. Met Kate--a NatSci (like half + of the college appears to be!), got on really well with her. Room is massive! Have a firendly tree which popped a branch in to say 'hi!' when I opened the window--had to push the branch out again when I wanted to close it. Room is all set up, though still seems a little bereft of posters--didn't realise how much space I'd have to stick tehm up. Bathroom is a fair trek, but at least it's same floor. Kitchen is diddy and smells a bit. Bed seems comfy enough--let you know about that tomorrow (NB: Bed is comfy, but didn't sleep on first night because of strange noises like tree tapping...). Though the way I'm beginning to feel, I could sleep on a broken park bench! Whole day is a whirl of names and faces. Good to have time to reflct though--went to Evensong in the Chapel, stunningly beautiful in all respects. And whilst it was pretty high church, I really felt that God was present with us. The choir! They were amazing.
Met my tutor, she was very nice, and (finally!) found some more history students. All seem friendly, can't wait to get to know them better. And to get started with proper college. Place (so far) seems to revolve around drinks and biscuits, orange juice being the alternative to both hot drinks and alcoholic drinks.
Dined in formal hall (though not in formal dress tonight). What a place! Half way through blurted out 'I want to live here,' realised abruptly that I do! The food was really good and all. Fruit salad, chicken with potatoes and peas, then delicious toffee cheesecake.
Then we were all herded into hte function room. Wow that place gets hot. Freshers Mingle, kinda fun but I'm knackered from mingling all day. I love my room, actually think being away from bathroom will be good in terms of noise. Night all!
Had an awesome day. Everyone's very friendly. Met Tom and Tom who are my new next door neighbours. Both seem really nice. Met Kate--a NatSci (like half + of the college appears to be!), got on really well with her. Room is massive! Have a firendly tree which popped a branch in to say 'hi!' when I opened the window--had to push the branch out again when I wanted to close it. Room is all set up, though still seems a little bereft of posters--didn't realise how much space I'd have to stick tehm up. Bathroom is a fair trek, but at least it's same floor. Kitchen is diddy and smells a bit. Bed seems comfy enough--let you know about that tomorrow (NB: Bed is comfy, but didn't sleep on first night because of strange noises like tree tapping...). Though the way I'm beginning to feel, I could sleep on a broken park bench! Whole day is a whirl of names and faces. Good to have time to reflct though--went to Evensong in the Chapel, stunningly beautiful in all respects. And whilst it was pretty high church, I really felt that God was present with us. The choir! They were amazing.
Met my tutor, she was very nice, and (finally!) found some more history students. All seem friendly, can't wait to get to know them better. And to get started with proper college. Place (so far) seems to revolve around drinks and biscuits, orange juice being the alternative to both hot drinks and alcoholic drinks.
Dined in formal hall (though not in formal dress tonight). What a place! Half way through blurted out 'I want to live here,' realised abruptly that I do! The food was really good and all. Fruit salad, chicken with potatoes and peas, then delicious toffee cheesecake.
Then we were all herded into hte function room. Wow that place gets hot. Freshers Mingle, kinda fun but I'm knackered from mingling all day. I love my room, actually think being away from bathroom will be good in terms of noise. Night all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)