rating: 3 of 5 stars
Short story anthologies featuring established characters should, hopefully do two things: provide an introduction to the uninitiated and provide elements for the long term fan. I have only read one of the authors, Jim Butcher, before but have come out with distinct opinions about each work.
Butcher's The Warrior is not much of a story and I fear it wades too far into the overall metaplot of The Dresden Files for new readers. That said, it provides some great character moments, particularly at the story's conclusion, that I believe make it an intriguing story for even the unfamiliar. Read separately, I would give it three stars.
Simon R. Green's story The Difference a Day Makes is far more troublesome. Green feels the need to establish way too much of his, apparently overfull, cliche-ridden, world and has provided his character with an ability so unreasonably powerful as to question why he ever experiences any sort of challenge. Furthermore, the plot stumbles through basic steps, the tone is erratic, and the overall story is highly predictable. Read separately, I would give it one star out of pity.
Kat Richardson's story The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog, unsurprisingly the longest novella, was the real find for me in this collection. Richardson wisely abandons her protagonist's normal stomping grounds, making it highly accessible to new readers. Furthermore she carefully lays out an intricate mystery, leaves clues to decipher, and allows the reader to progress with the character throughout the story. Read alone, I would give it four stars.
Thomas E. Sniegoski's contribution, Noah's Orphans, about a fallen angel detective and the death of that Noah is somewhat entertaining, but relies heavily on its exotic characters, leaving little to be done by the average ordinary human. It feels out of place in a book titled Mean Streets, but isn't necessarily bad on its own. Read alone, I would give it three stars.
View all my reviews.
Your result for The Social Persona Test (What kind of man/woman are you?)...
The Frat Boy (NLAM)
Normal Liberal Alpha Male
Let's get it out of the way: You can be a giant douche sometimes. Not that this is intentional. Despite some hedonistic tendancies, you are quite well meaning, and will try and help out peers you see as socially impaired. Just keep in mind that this help is not always needed, and that, believe it or not, there is more to life than having a good time.
When dating, stay away from Beta Females; I know you don't mean to break their hearts, but it will happen. Look for the types you don't normally go for, as they will make a better match in the long run.
You are more NORMAL than QUIRKY.
You are more LIBERAL than TRADITIONAL.
You are more DOMINANT than PASSIVE.
When picking a date, consider: The Rarity (QTAF), The Renaissance Faire Wench (QLAF), or The FemiNazi (NLAF).
Avoid: Any Beta Females
(Image from week.com)
The first person I heard was Paul Rudd, usually phrased as "that guy from Clueless".
My wife says I look like Harrison Ford but she's biased.
A recent addition was Jeroen Krabbe
Pretty much you can go with any dark haired actor with a substantial chin and you'll probably see a resemblance.
I'll let Glenn Greenwald explain
"Along those ponderous lines, National Review is currently unveiling -- one by one, to keep the suspense level extra-high -- its list of 'the 25 Best Conservative Movies of the Last 25 Years.' One of its writers, S.T. Karnick...
... named the genuinely superb 1985 Terry Gilliam film, Brazil, as #22 on the list. When doing so, Karnick wrote -- and this is really a quote that appears in National Review's Corner (h/t Crust1):
Terry Gilliam’s Brazil portrays a darkly comic dystopia of malfunctioning high-tech equipment and the dreary living conditions common to all totalitarian regimes. Everything in the society is built to serve government plans rather than people.
The film is visually arresting and inventive, with especially evocative use of shots that put the audience in a subservient position, just like the people in the film. Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate.
Is it even theoretically possible for someone's brain to allow them to write that last sentence in National Review as listing the hallmarks of "a totalitarian regime" and "the worst aspects of the modern megastate" without simultaneously realizing that this is everything that same magazine has cheered on for the last eight years at least? Karnick is a rabid fan of 24 and finds discussions of how the show glorifies torture and "the opinions of ex-military and police officers who argue that torture is never effective and never justified" to be "absurdly tendentious" and "stupendously uninteresting."
I'm genuinely interested in understanding the specific thought process that allows someone like this to write a paragraph like the one above while remaining blissfully unaware of the glaring irony and internal contradictions. Though we all have the capacity for advocating inconsistent ideas in different circumstances, certain instances are so blatant that it's hard to believe the person's brain allows them to remain blind to it. Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer, in his probing study of the right-wing authoritarian mind and its capacity to embrace multiple contradictory beliefs at the same time, probably came the closest to shining light on this bizarre syndrome.
I'm a Wood Tiger which sounds a little more like me than the generic Tiger portion.
On the generic side "Tigers have a continual need to be challenged which may explain why they jump from job to job." - While I do have a need to be challenged, I've held the same job for
From the Wood Tiger section
"Not feeling the need to be in charge, Wood Tigers work well with others. Others enjoying being around Wood Tigers because they’re very giving individuals. They’re compassionate and willing to do whatever is necessary to help others. "
That sounds much more like me. Indeed, I might be too self-sacrificing. I keep wondering whether I should resolve to be more selfish in my New Year's goals.
Is this what "chick-lit" is? (For lack of a better term) Unfocused storytelling? Consideration and evaluation of tangentially related topics to the main flow of conversation? I don't know that I buy that.