Friday, 1 February 2013

I Can Make You Read (Faster)



Confused as to what this is all about? See the first post here.

Another one down (and I promise that not all my posts will be sorry attempts at puns on the book title)! As I mentioned in my last post, I was worrying that getting into one of the longer books was going to put me behind schedule. With just a few days left of the week, I faced either falling behind and having to play catch-up, or switching tracks and powering through something a little more manageable.

Predictably, I plumped for the latter, so to see out the week, I ploughed through Charlie Brooker’s ‘I Can Make You Hate’, a collection of his acerbic columns and occasional TV segments from the last three-or-so years.

The cover alone is worth the price of admission

Got my cheeky personalised copy! I thought he was drawing a toucan. He mocked me when I asked if that's what it was. It was a special moment.

It’s a great read, particularly if you, like me, enjoy listening to (reading) a good, well-constructed, unbridled rant. That said, I don’t think this is really a book that’s intended to be read all in one sitting. The sheer amount of bile that had condensed on my face after powering through such a volume of well-put-together, surreal metaphors or ridiculous put-downs was almost overwhelming. 

For all of his reputation for misanthropy, Charlie Brooker actually comes across as quite a reasonable guy. A middle-aged, slightly bullshit-worn geek with an uncanny talent for putting the stupidity of many aspects of the world into perspective with a clever turn of phrase, in such a way that might be wholly depressing if it weren’t so funny. So there you go, he’s a man who transforms some of the scream-inducing ridiculousness and horror of the world into comedy. Isn’t that hilarious?

If you’ve come across any of Brooker’s other work, you know what to expect. If you haven’t, you really should, and this certainly isn’t a bad place to start. Though if you really want to see arguably the best thing he’s done (in fact, one of the best things on television in 2011), go and watch the first series of Black Mirror. Go on! Now! It’s only three sub-hour episodes - it’s ‘The Twilight Zone’ for the smartphone generation, and is horribly depressing and insightful, in a rather cathartic way. With a new season on the way in the next few weeks, there’s no better time to start. 

Genuinely creepy tube poster, but very excited for series 2.

Enough raving for now! I’m already moving on to the next one, so, more updates on they way!

Another gratuitous picture of me with the author, making it look like I spend a disproportionate amount of time hanging around with writers. If only.





Week 5
5/52

Fragile Things - Neil Gaiman (2006)
The Night Circus - Erin Morgenstern (2011)
The Revolution of Saint Jone - Lorna Mitchell (1988)
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - John Le Carré (1974)
I Can Make You Hate - Charlie Brooker (2012)

Currently Reading:
The Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follett (1989)
Looking For Jake and Other Stories - China Miéville (2005)
Currently Listening To:
Jobs - Walter Isaacson (2012)


Remember you can follow my reading exploits on Twitter on #GRaBaW, where I post slightly more regular updates.

Monday, 28 January 2013

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Reader


I’m back! I’ve been wanting to do a write-up on the latest book since I finished it last week, but haven’t been able to find the time. Before we move on to John Le Carré’s spectacular Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, here’s a quick update of where I’m at.  



It’s week five, and I’m currently on schedule, with four books ticked off. I’ve had quite an easy ride so far, with some fairly short books (the longest being The Night Circus, clocking in at almost 500 pages), so I thought I’d use the early lead to try and get further into one of the longer ones, so I’ve been cracking on with Ken Follett’s Pillars of the Earth (recommended by @littlebentley). I’m enjoying it, but the problem is, with a page count of around 1.5k, combined with the same lack of time that’s lead to me not posting here, I’m not much more than a third of the way through. 

So I’m faced with a choice – either pick a softer (read:short) target for this week to stay on target with my number, or press through with Pillars of the Earth and catch back up. I’m currently favouring the former, but watch this space (and Twitter).

I’ve picked up a lot of little bits about Le Carré’s books over the years. I especially remember badgering my Dad with questions about them on the many occasions he was reading them, but the only thing I really took away was the mysterious figure called ‘Smiley’. I watched The Cambridge Spies, which led me to make a bold start on the 1979 Tinker Tailor… TV series starring Alec Guinness, but (at the time) 
I found it too dry, and gave up quickly.

Launching in earnest into Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I finally got to meet George Smiley for real, and my first impression was that, oddly incongruous with the mysterious spymaster image I had in my head, he came across like a depressed, middle-aged accountant. This actually was part of the pleasure of the book – watching this apparently unassuming figure transform as he is pulled back into his old world of ‘the circus’ (SIS/MI6). 

Much of the story is told through ‘flashbacks’, in the form of Smiley’s memories, combined with going over a series of files. The principal plotline therefore can seem to advance quite slowly, with large sections of the book devoted to the backstory – but it is this that builds the circumstances on which the dramatic conclusion can be reached. 

If you enjoy a ‘proper’ spy thriller (none of this Jack Reacher, superman protagonist, stuff), then definitely pick this up. It forms part of a trilogy (the ‘Karla Trilogy'), which I definitely want to get into further at some point), and Smiley appears in several other books set before the trilogy – so there’s plenty more if you like it!

Having read the frankly ridiculous(ly awesome) cast list for the recent film of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I’m really excited to see it, and see how it stacks up against the book. 

So there we go. As I said last time, not a review, just a cluttered collection of thoughts and impressions, but hopefully something to pique your interest. 

Right, back to medieval cathedrals.



Week 5
4/52

Fragile Things - Neil Gaiman (2006)
The Night Circus - Erin Morgenstern (2011)
The Revolution of Saint Jone - Lorna Mitchell (1988)
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - John Le Carré (1974)

Currently Reading:
The Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follett (1989)
I Can Make You Hate - Charlie Brooker (2012)
Currently Listening To:
Jobs - Walter Isaacson (2012)

Friday, 18 January 2013

The Stories So Far...

As promised in my first post, I’m going to share my thoughts on what I’ve read so far. It’s currently week three, and I’m on schedule, with three books down and well into a number more (helped by taking a long flight last week!).

I’m not intending on writing full-blown reviews on every book I read (that would be a whole project in itself, I feel!), but I plan to share some of my thoughts about each one in some form, and hopefully get into some sort of discussion on them, because this is obviously something that makes reading infinitely more interesting. This is doubly important where the books are recommendations. If you’ve got your book onto my list, I want to compare notes and see what made you choose it.

First up to start off the year was Fragile Things, by Neil Gaiman (2006). Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself on Twitter) is one of my absolute heroes, and probably my favorite author of all time (you’re certainly going to see more from him on here!). I've always been particularly enamoured of his short stories, which always remind me how great a format that is.
That was a good day...
You find yourself caught up in a story within just a few lines, without the need for lengthy setup or preamble. Almost inevitably, you’re left with questions, or sometimes just a faint sense of confusion - wanting more than just the glimpse into the world you’ve just seen. Often, the shorter the story, the more you'll want to dwell on it.

You can probably tell from my gushing just what I think of Gaiman’s writing in general. Long story short - the book’s subtitle says it all: “Short Fictions and Wonders’. It’s a collection of literary ephemera and oddities, and there should be something for everyone here. (Also check out his earlier short story collection, Smoke and Mirrors). 

Second is The Night Circus, by Erin Morgenstern (2011). It says a lot about this one that I read all 450ish pages in one non-stop sitting - though this is the book I read on the flight, so you might argue that it just says that I had nothing else to do for 7 hours (not true, by the way). The Night Circus was recommended by Georgia, and I found myself rapidly engrossed (the flight went by VERY quickly). If you enjoy beautifully evocative ‘phantasmagorical fairytales’ (much is made of the senses, and how they can be misdirected and deceived), then definitely pick this up (and don’t plan on putting it down for a while).

The third (and currently final) book is The Revolution of Saint Jone, by Lorna Mitchell (1988). This can best be described as ‘Feminist Science Fiction’. The book is set on a distant future Earth (with still-recognisable place names ‘The Yukeys’, ‘Strylia’) where rational science and mathematics have merged with religion (forming The Church of the Rational Cosmos - the Krischans). The story sets up the contrast between the sanctified 'Krischans', striving for a rational, id-less, emotion-suppressed state of Zen, and the 'Ethnics' who represent a more 'primitive' social group (though one that seems closer to our own than the enlightened Krichans).

This was an interesting read, but one that, if pushed, I’d say I didn’t really like. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy reading it, I’m just not entirely sure what I think of it. I could see that all sorts of analogies were being drawn and points were being made, but I found the setting too 'remote' to be able to grasp and engage with these properly. The sheer number of words and concepts created for the sake of the setting was overly distracting and distancing from what it was trying to convey. 

http://xkcd.com/483/


Right in the last chapter, though, Mitchell really hits the reader over the head with what it’s all about, but it’s all in a very Ayn-Randian way which feels like it would be more suited to a pamphlet essay that a dialogue. If you’re interested in something a bit different, maybe take a look (it’s short!), but otherwise, I’d probably pass.

So, that’s it so far. Next time it will be a little more focussed, as I’ll only be trying to cover one book, not three. I think I’ve had it easy so far, between plane rides, short reads, and favorite authors, so I’ve got some ways to go yet. 

What do you think? Have you read Fragile Things, The Night Circus, or The Revolution of Saint Jone, and want to set me right/agree vociferously? Take it to the comments below (though let’s keep it spoiler-free for those that haven’t read them yet). 


Week 3
3/52

Fragile Things - Neil Gaiman (2006)
The Night Circus - Erin Morgenstern (2011)
The Revolution of Saint Jone - Lorna Mitchell (1988)

Currently Reading:
Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy - John Le Carré (1974)
The Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follett (1989)
Currently Listening To:
Jobs - Walter Isaacson (2012)

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

2013: George Reads a Book a Week (and maybe even blogs about it)

I use Sepia filters to compensate for my poor photography...
So it turns out that I'm terrible at blogging. Seriously. The number of times I've started and stopped at this is slightly unreasonable. I'm hoping that now that I've got a project to loosely hang things around that I'll update this slightly more often - stranger things have happened. Enough self-pitying navel-gazing about an inability to stick with something - on to some sort of point.

This year, I've decided to read more. In the year and a half since I left university, I've accumulated an increasing number of books, many of them gifts, and most of them generating some sort of excitement at the prospect of getting between their covers. The trouble? Despite the best of intentions, I've been terrible at actually getting any reading done, always allowing myself to get distracted by other pursuits. Then, shortly after the new year, after reading on Gizmodo the story of this man, I thought of way to get myself reading a great deal more.

Now, I'm not crazy - I didn't want to put all my other interests on hold for a year by trying to read quite that many books, but it gave me a starting point. My rather more conservative goal is to read a book for every week of the year. Fifty two should actually be totally achievable, so I'd like to push that out a bit further if it goes well.

This wouldn't be a challenge, or very interesting, if I were just picking out short or familiar books - I want to push myself a little more than that. So I thought it would be good to get to know the reading tastes of my friends and family a little better. I've started collecting recommendations from people on the 'one book they think everyone should read'. Most people have responded to this with a tortured look and a list of three or four. If people have been able to narrow it down to just one, I've added it to the list and committed to reading it (not to say I won't pick up any of their others - I just won't commit myself to it!). This should considerably broaden what I'm reading, and lead me to (hopefully) interesting things I would never have selected myself.

Graphic novels, audiobooks, etc. all count. Books I've already read don't, unless I decide it was so long ago that I can't remember it. Note also, I'm not trying to read each one in a week - only to end up with at least 52 at the end - I'm keeping several on the go at once, but I'll try and keep roughly to schedule throughout.

So there it is. It's week three already, and I'm on schedule with three down. If you're interested, I'll be posting updates here with what I'm reading, how it's going, and my thoughts and impressions on each book. I might start posting the ongoing reading list I'm accumulating as well.

No spoilers, please

Right, that's quite enough from me for now - there's reading to do. It would be good to see some engagement in the comments, or on #GRaBaW (George Reads a Book a Week) on Twitter, which might actually give me a reason to keep updating this ;) - follow, share, shout calculated expression of discouragement at me - just show me that someone's reading! I also might move this blog to a new domain at some point, seeing as the title doesn't contain nearly enough puns, but watch this space.

For now - happy reading!



Now I'm using black and white! I'm an arrrrtist!

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

TWIT on copyright

Just a brief note - I actually want to talk about this in more detail when I have time, but this is the best discussion on the current state of copyright and the web, including SOPA, which I've heard.

Definitely worth a listen, even if only the first 40 minutes of the show.

http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/332

Friday, 7 October 2011

Why OnLive is amazing (and why it isn’t)

A few weeks ago, I managed to try out OnLive – the new Cloud Gaming service which launched in the UK last month. I’ve known about this for a while, and have been looking forward to having a go with it, but I’ve had some serious scepticism about certain aspects of the service.

My first impressions weren’t amazing. Having created my account and installed OnLive onto my PC (running Windows 7), I found that I couldn’t get onto the service right away – the servers were full. Given that it was the first few days of the new service, it would be harsh to damn them for that, but it does highlight one underlying flaw of the cloud gaming model – the fact that is it possible for the service to be over capacity. Presumably, this will be mitigated as the early period dies down, and the company grows, but it is a possibility.

I got on within about half an hour, and loaded up a free trial of a few different games. I had some difficulty, being on a WiFi connection (though not a particularly slow one), which made getting things started quite tricky, but not impossible.

I tried out a few different games – notably Batman: Arkham Asylum – which I’ve played to death on the PS3 – and Borderlands – which I had never picked up before. Even with a fairly basic connection speed, the experience really worked. The games played well; the video quality was nothing to write home about, but I think it was still better than my fairly old machine would have handled Arkham Asylum – though I’m interested to see how well it up-scales on a better connection. Having the OnLive menu overlay, one of the great things about consoles, worked really well. The biggest ‘wow’ factor came from the instant start-up of a game – no waiting around on install times. Trying out a game was painless.

A day or so later, I picked up a Full Playpass of Deus Ex: Human Revolution (Augmented Edition) for £1 – a start-out bargain. Again, it played really well – the odd bit of pixilation, but nothing severe, and it looked reasonable. I was quickly hooked.

But it’s after this that I came across the major limitations of the service. Firstly, since I was using the connection at someone else’s house – with capped data usage, I had to be very cautious about how long I used the service for. It really eats through your bandwidth. Secondly, as I keep mentioning (can you tell it’s bugging me?), since I have not internet at the moment, I can’t get back playing for another few weeks.

As I say – these are limitations rather than flaws, and something you just have to accept if you want to use this style of service – but they are frustrating. OnLive isn’t for those with capped data (and, to be fair, the kind of person who will use OnLive will probably be the kind who wants unlimited use anyway). Likewise, it’s my problem being offline, not theirs. But neither of these would be issues if I were playing a ‘real’ copy of the game, not to mention the usual murky sense of ownership of digital content.

These were some of my original misgivings about OnLive, and I’ve experienced them both pretty swiftly. Despite that, I still absolutely love the service. I can’t wait to get back on, and that’s a good sign. I’m going to write about this again in a few weeks, when normality is restored, and come at in from a different angle, when I should have had a pretty speedy new broadband connection put in.

Sunday, 7 August 2011

L.A. Nah?

When I first heard about L.A. Noire, I was pretty excited, especially given just how incredible Rockstar's last offering was – Red Dead Redemption was really incomparable, and genuinely pushed the boundaries of gaming as entertainment. Now, you could at this point, rightly, say that L.A. Noire has been out for some time now (in fact, it was released way back in May), but I've got enough thoughts about the game that I want to air out that I'm going to talk about it anyway!

L.A. Noire is the baby of Team Bondi, and published, as I said, by Rockstar – a relationship that's come to the fore over the last month, as Rockstar announced that they won't be publishing Team Bondi's next game – a dispute over the working conditions at the Australia-based developer. (IGN article here)

The style of the game itself is fairly close to the other flagship games Rockstar has released over the last decade – sandbox, third-person action, with a large part of the game built around driving. Despite once again switching horses for cars, L.A. Noire is more like Red Dead Redemption than Grand Theft Auto, in that it sets out to create atmosphere above all else, in this case painstakingly reconstructing 1950s Los Angeles, and, as you work out from the title, drawing heavily on the film noir genre. The similarity of the title to 'L.A. Confidential' is no coincidence either – the game is stylistically and thematically very similar to the film.

In contrast to the other GTA-style games though, the gameplay is about detective work rather than action – in fact, it's perfectly possible to skip the action sequences entirely if you have trouble with them. The two main mechanics are investigating a crime scenes and interrogating suspects. These are, broadly speaking, well executed, but the interrogations in particular have some frustrating issues, which I'll come onto in a moment.

Investigating a crime scene involves walking round the area, listening for the telltale music jingle when you stumble across an investigable object. There are also random items thrown in, unconnected to the case, which struck me as being a good idea – it would make separating out genuine clues from random garbage harder. But this idea isn't really followed through. Picking up one of these objects, it is possible to tell immediately whether they are bona fide evidence for the case, or just yet another cigarette carton thrown in for flavour – either from a spoken comment from the protagonist, Cole, or simply because of the absence of the on-screen help prompt, reminding you how to examine an object (and do we really still need these to appear after 4+ hours of playtime?). This leads me to question their inclusion at all – they don't serve to make the case more challenging, only the investigation more time-consuming.

The interrogations, though, are where the game was meant to shine – this was one of the big innovations of L.A. Noire, making a detective game be about detective work, rather than degenerating into the usual run-and-gun action game. But this is also where some major frustrations start to set in. Even now, I'm not sure whether these interrogations were badly designed, or if I was just bad at them – though I know I'm far from alone in having problems with them! There is a certain feeling of randomness to the interrogations – whether you're watching the suspect for tells, working from your evidence, or blinding guessing, it can yield about the same level of success – it's just hard to know what the game is expecting from you. 

This feeling is compounded by not knowing exactly what Cole is going to say. Calling 'Doubt' on a little girl because you don't think she's telling the quite whole truth leads Cole to threaten to drag her down to the station and have her up on charges... This just adds feeling of an extra level of removal from Cole's actions. 

The single biggest problem with the gameplay, though, is simply that it's too repetitive. I played through the game in just a few extended sittings, and while the plot is, for the most part, really strong, the gameplay can come to feel like something you've just got to get through. Investigations general follow the same kind of paths, and exploring crimes scenes and interrogations rarely vary from the normal formula.

The same is true of driving in between locations. There is the option built in to fast-travel by having your partner drive, and I found myself using this most of the time (if I hadn't, I'm not sure whether I would have stuck through the game for as long as I did at once). It's great to be able to push ahead with the investigations and plot without lengthy driving sections, but it also means that much of the feeling of the city, which Team Bondi spent so long recreating, is lost. There simply isn't enough to do outside of investigations – unlike the games which have come out of Rockstar in the past, where it's tended towards there being too much to do. Sure, you can follow up on dispatch calls over the radio, but these can actually be done through fast-travel as well. You can hunt out the Hidden Vehicle garages, but, since you don't seem to be able to save these vehicles for use, all that means really is that you can use them for whatever mission you happen to be on. Or joy-riding (though, as an LAPD Officer, the rampages that gave GTA games such replay value are off-limits).

I mentioned that the plot was a real strong point – and this is true. It's extremely compelling and largely well-written, but it does start to come apart in the last third to quarter of the game. As I said before, one of the innovations of L.A. Noire was to make it a game about detective work first, rather than action, and for the most part, Team Bondi has been successful – and this is precisely why the last mission in particular feels like such a let down. Obviously, I don't want to spoil anything, but it feels like the game takes a very strange direction, and becomes a bit rushed or blurred – I was left at the end feeling as if someone had turned over two pages at once.

Then there's Cole, the protagonist through whom you explore the game world. I found it very hard to play as Cole – this partly stems from the way that his backstory is revealed, piecemeal, in flashbacks after each case, meaning it's only later it the game you start to get a proper understanding of his character. I said before that there's a feeling of removal because you can't quite know how he's going to act, but it goes deeper than that – the bottom line is that I found it almost impossible to like Cole. I don't believe the developers intended for him to be all that likeable – he's a flawed character, certainly, but I do think that they've underestimated how important this can be in a game that's a story-driven as L.A. Noire. The player needs to get behind the character in some way, which I found I just couldn't do with Cole. This needn't mean they have to be a good or bland character – just look at John Marston.

This has developed into a rather extended picking-apart of L.A. Noire's faults, so let me bring it back in and clarify my position somewhat. Yes, L.A. Noire has some big flaws as a game, but I think some of these are actually magnified because of its general quality. If it were a worse game, I don't think people would need to focus quite so much on these problems – they could dismiss it more out of hand. With the exceptions already mentioned, the plot is fantastic – well written and compelling. The facial capture technology is a pioneering development in videogames, and well-implemented within the game. A lot of people have criticised the disparity between the body animations and the facial animations, but I didn't find this jarring while playing, though I did find it, bizarrely, quite hard to tell a lot of characters apart at first. I'm not sure if anyone else found the same thing.

So, in summary, L.A. Noire is a game I'd strongly recommend – though it might not sound like it. For all its flaws and frustrations, it's definitely worth playing – by the time the novelty of the gameplay has worn off, and it will, you should be engrossed enough to want to finish it. Team Bondi have nailed the atmosphere (helped hugely by the awesome soundtrack – worth a listen even if you don't play it), and it looks fantastic. I just still can't decide whether I like the game or not.