April 30, 2012

Old Nathan


Old Nathan
Old Nathan by David Drake

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Pretty good. I like the way David Drake writes, but the Tennessean dialect as written really annoyed me. People talking that way doesn't bother me, but it's so unnatural to read it that it made it hard to concentrate. Drake fans should read it, as should anyone who likes reading about magic but in a more realistic setting.



View all my reviews

April 20, 2012

Bios


Bios
Bios by Robert Charles Wilson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Like many sci-fi stories, this one was based around a single concept (which I can't really talk about or it'll spoil the book). There's not really anything wrong with that, but it does tend to make the characters' stories less compelling. In such a short book it's hard to to really work up much emotional connection to the characters, although the author does sketch out a reasonable back story for the two main characters.

This book is well-written and interesting. It might have been better if it were longer, which is not something I say too often. But with more length he might have developed some of the ideas better. I just feel like the denouement could have been expanded a little.

All in all, if you're a fan of sci-fi or just Robert Charles Wilson, I'd certainly recommend this book to you.



View all my reviews

The Crossing


The Crossing
The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



Well, that was a sad story. Folks who really can't stand to read books where people don't come away happier in the end than at the beginning probably shouldn't read this one. I still liked it. McCarthy's writing was still powerful and vivid, but there was a lot more concern for the actual story in this than there was in All the Pretty Horses.

In short, this book deals with a young man named Billy Parham crossing into Mexico (thus the name) three times. To put it succinctly, he meets with tragedy each time. This is not a feel-good book, but as usual from McCarthy, it's beautiful and well worth it.



View all my reviews

April 17, 2012

Run Toward the Nightland; Magic of the Oklahoma Cherokees



Run Toward the Nightland; Magic of the Oklahoma Cherokees by Jack Frederick Kilpatrick

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Pretty interesting stuff. He included the texts of many incantations and the music of some which were to be sung. His notation system for the Cherokee language leaves something to be desired, as there's no pronunciation guide provided with this book. I suppose the author presumed the reader would have previous familiarity with his writings. The spells and author commentary provide much insight into how the Cherokee view the world and their place in it. For example, a Cherokee home (at least when he wrote the book) was rarely locked when the owner was out, but it was definitely warded against evil intruders.

Interesting reading for those who want to know more about how Cherokee people thought, but not for those wanting to know more history. Also, if one were looking for real Native American magic, this is it. Not only do you get the text of the spell, but the instructions as to how it is to be cast. Unfortunately, Cherokee magic done in English has no potency, so too bad for all the witches out there who were hoping for some new spells.

If the book had gone one for three or four hundred pages, it would have been far too boring and bland, but it clocks in under 200 so the average reader should be able to get through it without too much trouble.



View all my reviews

April 10, 2012

City At The End Of Time


City At The End Of Time
City At The End Of Time by Greg Bear

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



This is an interesting book, but overall a pretty difficult read. Others have pointed out that this is a retelling of William Hope Hodgson's The Night Land. This is true, in a way. Bear even mentions that book obliquely in a passage where the speaker says something to the effect of he went in search of a man who wrote of The Last Redoubt, only to find that he'd been killed in WWI. The plot is not really a redo of that book, however. While both books deal with a city that stands alone against the forces that wish to destroy what little remains of humanity, that's about the end of the similarities.

This city, we soon come to find out, stands as the last bastion of humanity in a universe where time itself is running down. The Chaos has eaten away all the rest of the universe except for the three cities of humanity which remain. It's not a bad setup, really. While you could imagine that there might be some celestial salvation for the people in The Last Redoubt, there will be none for those living in The Kalpa as the universe breathes its last breath. In one of these cities, part of the story follows two "ancient breeds", beings who are designed as throwbacks to earlier variations of humanity, although the time when humans held fleshly form was so long ago it cannot even be counted in the trillions of years. These two breeds, Jebrassy and Tiadba, are determined to break out of the boundaries of their world and go forth beyond the city walls to find out what lies beyond. Meanwhile, at a time which is roughly the present, three travelers of ambiguous origin and intent come to Seattle, where they are drawn for some purpose, although they don't know what.

And basically, after that, not much makes sense. I hate to put it that way, but even at the end it seems hard to understand exactly what happened. That Chaos had squeezed time from both the end and the beginning, destroying history and futurity at the same time, is strange, but understandable. But aside from the fact that the architect of the universe's salvation planned to basically cause a new one to be born, it's hard to understand how that plan was supposed to happen. I really didn't understand what the sum-runners were, what the point of the numbers was, who the Livid Mistress was or why she was collecting people, and how the collectors had partners that could do things like control wasps, fire, or whatever. He gave no real explanations, just lots and lots of details that shed no light.

As far as whether the plot was compelling in any way, it really wasn't. For one, jumping back and forth between points of view of people for whom nothing was happening hardly drove the story along, and it was probably about halfway through the book when any significant events actually occurred.

Now, this review probably makes it seem like I didn't enjoy the book, but if I hadn't enjoyed it at all, I certainly wouldn't give it three stars. I felt that the story was a good idea and Bear's writing was actually fairly smooth. The characters actually seemed to have their own personalities so they were easy to identify. I didn't always know what was going on, but I thought his descriptions were pretty good and the book was very inventive, so I enjoyed it well enough.

All in all, it's a bit too long for being so incomprehensible. I can only take that in shorter doses. I have never read another Greg Bear, although I did skim through Blood Music a while ago. I guess you might have a more favorable opinion if you're a big Bear fan, or not. I would not recommend this to anyone who's not a hardcore sci-fi fan, and probably not most of them. If you're into seriously apocalyptic sci-fi, this might be something to add to your reading list.



View all my reviews

April 04, 2012

The Talisman


The Talisman
The Talisman by Stephen King

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



I don't know. I like the story, as I almost always do with Stephen King's books, but there are some aspects of the writing I really hate. I don't know if it's his upbringing or just the way he writes, but sometimes it just sounds so terrible to me. "Put some bop on the radio, Jackie-boy" is what Jack's mother says to him, and while I can imagine that someone, somewhere, has said something like this, it sounds unbearably cornball to me. On top of that, he can't make the villains seem threatening to save his life. "Sunlight" Gardner is a parody of a televangelist. It's not that I have a problem of him making fun of the Jimmy Swaggart-Robert Tilton types, it's that he doesn't do it well. I know King is unfamiliar with evangelicals, but the only way you would know Gardner is charismatic is because King says no, not because he comes across that way.

Another problem I had with the book overall is that I have no idea why Jack's mom keeps running from Sloat. Why didn't she just hire another lawyer and appoint him guardian over the investments that would become Jack's when she died? Why didn't she go to a hospital? It's not like they weren't rich. On top of that, Jack's mom is just annoying. Pretending there's nothing wrong and running away! Come on, lady, that's no way to take care of your kid.

I don't really have a problem with much else, except it's seriously awkward to keep hearing "white" equated with good and "black" equated with evil. Sure, I know it's been done before (and is a recurring theme in King's fantasy) but when he says "the good, the white" as if the two are automatically the same thing just makes me want to shout out that it's a super-hackneyed cliche.

Oh yeah, and Parker doesn't really sound believable as a Southern black man. I know King didn't grow up with too many people of color around (I mean, Maine, really) so I don't know why he thought he could write a believable voice for one. Not that he's not a sympathetic character, and on the side of good, it's just he also sounds really corny and makes me cringe a bit.

Other than that, I really don't have a problem with the story itself. Kind of a modern hero's journey in the classic mold (as Joseph Campbell described it) set mostly in modern America but sometimes in a fantastical world. The more human and real King keeps it, the better. That's what he's exceptionally good at.

I'd still recommend it to most King fans, and possibly fantasy fans depending on what kind of fantasy they like. But there are definitely some folks for whom the drawbacks will be too overwhelming.



View all my reviews

March 30, 2012

After The Trail Of Tears: The Cherokees' Struggle For Sovereignty, 1839 1880


After The Trail Of Tears: The Cherokees' Struggle For Sovereignty, 1839 1880
After The Trail Of Tears: The Cherokees' Struggle For Sovereignty, 1839 1880 by William Gerald McLoughlin

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



What an amazing book! Histories of the Cherokee people tend to go up to the Removal and no further, as if Cherokee history ends at that point. Of course, that's not true. The Removal can possibly be said to be the most important single event in Cherokee history, although the event with the most damaging legacy is the passage of the Dawes and Curtis Acts collectively, as they illegally abrogated over two hundred years' worth of treaties between sovereign nations and ended the United States' recognition of the Cherokee tribe (as well as all others) as sovereign nations. Unfortunately, there are many, many fewer books about the Cherokee after the Removal than there are about the Cherokee before it.

This book goes a long way towards filling in the gap between the Removal and current times. As the title states, it specifically covers the years from 1839 to 1880 (the end date seemed rather arbitrary, but it was as good a place to stop as any). 1839 is the year that the Removal began, and although the author does cover it, it's really the starting point for McLoughlin's story of the Cherokee in their new homeland in Indian Territory.

For those who haven't read any Cherokee history whatsoever, this book may not be the best starting point. It doesn't absolutely require foreknowledge of major actors like The Ridge, his son John Ridge, John Ross, Elias Boudinot, Stand Watie and others of note, but it certainly is useful to have some of that knowledge even if it's only because it's easier to keep track of who's on which side. McLoughlin doesn't take a lot of time to build the back story, so it's probably not obvious why The Ridge was such a formidable leader and had so much influence even though he was never Principal Chief. Also, understanding the century and a half of Cherokee history (especially their dealings with white men) before the Removal would explain why there was a faction of Cherokees in favor of moving the tribe West.

In any case, the book quickly moves on to the efforts to rebuild the nation and deal with the factionalism that really only ended once the nation had been destroyed by the US in the early 1900s. Not only was the enmity between the Ross and Ridge factions deadly to members of both parties, it proved to be the focal point upon which the nation broke during the Civil War. But even aside from that, the early Cherokee settlers (those who had voluntarily moved as early as the 1820s) regarded the latecomers as potential usurpers of what they considered their established nation. Dealing with this degree of factionalism within the Cherokee nation consumed much of Principal Chief John Ross's time and efforts up until his death shortly after the Civil War.

McLoughlin covers this period of time in great detail. One of the best things about his book is that not only is he always talking about the national political situation, he gives an overview of what life was like for ordinary Cherokees at the same time. Obviously, the poor full-blood farmers had lost most of their possessions during the Removal and were expected to restart their lives as farmers in a new land that presented them with incredible challenges. They had been moved to worse farmland where the soil and vegetation as well as the climate were different from what they knew. They had no farm implements, no livestock, no seed, and not enough healthy people to put in all the work necessary even if they'd had the tools to do it. For a time they reverted to their oldest crafts, making earthenware pottery to serve and cook food in, as well as carving wooden utensils.

However, the Cherokee survived and prospered, eventually stabilizing and gaining some semblance of normality. Unfortunately, at the same time, the US was falling apart over the issue of slavery. Now, one of the lesser known aspects of Cherokee history is that there were Cherokee slave owners. The majority of Cherokees certainly did not own slaves, for the same reasons that most poor Southerners did not own slaves. Among the Cherokee however, there was no common feeling between the class of poor full-bloods and the richer (mostly) mixed-bloods (such was the common terminology at the time). When the US erupted into civil war, the Cherokee were caught between a rock and a hard place. The Cherokee Nation's leaders in the Ross Party and the majority of full-bloods (which means the majority of people) had no desire to side with the Confederate States. The reality, however, was that they had no power to resist the coercion of the Confederacy to side with them as the Union had no ability to project military power that far West and South at the time (or at least not the will to do it). In addition to that, the Ridge Party (led by Stand Watie, Ridge's nephew) was attempting to use John Ross's resistance to siding with the South as leverage with which to oust him from power, aided by the Confederacy. Ross decided that the only way to keep the Cherokee Nation in his party's hands was to at least temporarily side with the South. This may sound like a crass political ploy, which his opponents did accuse him of, but at the time the Ridge Party was petitioning the US government to separate the nation into two because they were tired of the "tyranny" of Ross and the full-bloods (this despite the fact that Ross was the representative of the majority). Ross saw this as a prelude to the destruction of the nation and determined that it would not happen. If that meant the nation had to side with the South in order to survive, he would do it. The Cherokee, as it happened, did not side with the Confederacy for long. Almost immediately after forming a couple of brigades, the one consisting primarily of full-bloods deserted. The anti-slavery, anti-Ridge Keetoowahs began organizing and fighting Watie's Confederate soldiers and supporters on their own. Eventually, Ross was willingly captured and went to Washington, where he affirmed that he'd only submitted to siding with the Confederacy under duress.

The Civil War, despite being a white man's war, split the Nation once again by reinforcing the division between the Ridge and Ross parties. This division, as well as the struggle to once again rebuild the nation, is the topic of much of the rest of the book. Eventually, as McLoughlin details, some reconciliation was achieved, but the Ridge supporters remained alienated from the leadership of the nation for the rest of the Cherokee Nation's history, right up until it was dissolved. Their original dislike for Ross stemmed from his staunch refusal to consider removal, which led to the treasonous Treaty of New Echota in 1835. After that, their contempt for Ross's government led to outright hatred when some Ross men (without his knowledge) assassinated Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot. Not only were Watie and the other slave-owning mixed-bloods looking out for their economic interests when they sided with the South, they were seeking to use the conflict as a means to unseat Ross from power. When that was unsuccessful, after the Civil War their party morphed into opposition of the Downing government based on the fact that many of the wealthy mixed-bloods felt that their interests would be better served by some apportionment of the land and US citizenship, which naturally the full-bloods were dead-set against.

McLoughlin's book captures the complexity of Cherokee politics in this time wonderfully. He substantiates his arguments with plenty of evidence, and presents both sides in an unprejudiced light. This is exactly the kind of book that is necessary to give a counterbalance of all the stories of the Plains Indians during the same time period which is the image most Americans have of Natives post-Civil War. The story is not one merely of the inexorable expansion of Americans into Indian territory, but how the Indians dealt with whites all along as equals, or even as a method to gain influence in their own political systems. It is instructive and informative, and should be required reading for anyone looking to learn how Native societies deal with the encroachment of white societies.

The book's subtitle would imply that none of the history after 1880 is covered, but the author actually does go into a little bit of what happened up to the early 1900s. Obviously, as he says, the time of allotment and everything that happened during that is enough material for a book on its own (which unfortunately, he did not write), but he sketches out a rough image of what occurred. The story ends, basically, with the Cherokees left almost entirely landless, poor, and second-class citizens of a nation that didn't want them so much as it wanted their land.

All in all, this book is well-written, well-researched, and very, very informative for the student of Cherokee history. I highly recommend it.



View all my reviews

March 06, 2012

A Princess of Mars


A Princess of Mars
A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



Well, that was really pretty good. Aside from some stupidity about how the Tharks became more bestial because of owning property in common (a fairly obvious reference to then current socio-economic theories advanced to explain why some people were "lower" on the scale of civilization) and talking about "savages" (aka Apaches) in the first part, the book was incredibly imaginative and so far ahead of its time it's a wonder that it hasn't been directly adapted into a movie until now. It's fairly obvious, however, that it inspired a lot of the sci-fi that came after it.

Burroughs may not have known that there was no possibility of life on Mars (or at least, nothing of that high an order), but he certainly didn't limit himself to what he thought might be possible. This is wildly speculative sci-fi here, and it's all the better for it. The story is not incredibly deep, nor is John Carter a very deep character. He's no cardboard hero though. What's surprising is how amorally he approaches just about any situation. Burroughs obviously wasn't concerned with character development, just a rip-roaring adventure story. In my eyes, he succeeded admirably at that.

Of course, this may not be enough for other readers, especially those who aren't fans of the adventure genre. I am, admittedly, a fan of things like Conan the Barbarian and Solomon Kane, so this book is definitely aimed at readers like me. It's certainly not high literature. The prose is never the kind of writing that would win awards. It's not awkward either, though, just serviceable.



View all my reviews

February 08, 2012

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: The Illustrated Edition


Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: The Illustrated Edition
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: The Illustrated Edition by Dee Brown

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



All books are a product of their times, and some age better than others. The question is, despite its immense popularity, is this book still relevant? I hope to answer that question in this review.

Despite the books incredibly high marks from the vast majority of readers, there are those who strongly dislike this book, and I’m sure that’s amazing to most of the people who read this book because so many of them liked it so much. But it’s true, there are those other people.

Criticisms I’ve seen of this book include -

  • Too boring
  • Too repetitive
  • Too one-sided




It’s not really my purpose to go through and rebut each of these criticisms, but the reason I’m starting my review in this fashion is because I think each of these criticisms addresses both what people like and dislike about this book. Let me take each point in turn.

It’s too boring!
I can understand this point, although I don’t agree. Most histories involve a lot of details. Lots of place names the reader doesn’t know, which means they can’t relate to it. Lots of people names the reader doesn’t know, and more being added every few pages. And instead of building into a grand narrative, this book is just the same story over and over again. But the thing is, for each individual story, this book is a good history. Dee Brown really did his research. That’s why the book is bursting with details. I suppose that to some people, the more detail there is the harder it gets to read, whereas for others it adds flavor and depth to the history he’s telling. Personally, I’m in the latter camp, although I do get bored with histories sometimes. Of course some histories can be engaging, even humorous, at times. The style of the writers definitely varies from a “just the facts” voice to one that will paint a picture in the mind’s eye using descriptive vocabulary to give a more prosaic reading. Dee Brown, at least in this book, tends to be on the dry side, as far as prose. I believe the point is to allow the light to shine on the actors and events themselves, as well as providing a stark contrast between the author’s plain writing and the often much more lyrical voices of the actors in these events. I have not read any of his other books, so I really can’t offer an analysis of how he wrote. I will not say that I think everyone should enjoy his writing, but I do think people who complain of this book being boring because of the author’s writing need to find more patience. As for those who merely find the subject uninteresting, I guess it’s not for everyone.

It’s the same thing over and over again!
Well, yeah. I mean, that’s kind of the history of the American continent. White settlers wanted the Indians’ land and they took it by hook or by crook. The fact that this happened over and over and over again is no exaggeration, it’s just history. All well and good, you might say, but why go to great lengths to describe it over and over again? It’s all about the context. Back when this was written, books by White historians were still being written that described Indians as “savages”. And the American Indian civil rights movement really didn’t begin until the ‘70s, so when this book was written, the savagery, greed, and destructiveness of the White invaders had never been focused on before. It was important to demonstrate that what the colonizers had done was not atypical, that it had not happened just once or twice, and that it wasn’t the action of a few bad people. The point is, to the American Indian, history is the story of the Americans’ greed, racism, and genocide. Most Americans then did not (and most Americans now do not) learn much about American Indians other than that they had once been here. The only exposure most Americans got to American Indians at that time was through a bunch of racist, historically inaccurate movies. In light of the hundreds of years of racism suffered by the Indians and the decades of movies where they were the bad guys, the lesson that the real history was different would be a message that takes some repeating. This book is especially good for those who know nothing about the real history of the American Indian.

It’s biased against Whites!
Some people (pretty much White people) argue that this is a biased view of history, that it’s prejudiced against Whites, and more importantly makes them feel bad about themselves (no, they don’t say that last one out loud). In a sense these are valid criticisms. Not for the reasons White folk imagine them to be, though. As far as bias, it is. It is biased (in the sense of being weighted) towards seeing Native/Colonist interactions from the Native point of view. It’s not like there aren’t dozens of books written by White historians that either treat Indians like the “noble savage” or more likely, just “savage”. This book was explicitly meant as a counter to that bias, which is why its full title is “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West”. One might argue that this approach is not the proper or most effective way of countering such a prevalent bias in histories of the American Indian, but this book is meant as a shock to the system, and is aimed squarely at lay-people who didn’t graduate with a BA in History (or anything else, for that matter). If they were only going to pick up one book about the history of White relations with Indians, let it be this one.

Should you read this book?
I have to say that anyone who’s even remotely interested in American Indian history, the state of American Indians today, or American Indian politics should read this book. Somebody who is going to try to be an expert on any or all of these issues should read this book because it is a good history of the areas that it covers, and because so many other people have also read it. Someone who isn’t an expert and isn’t trying to be should read it because this is an excellent counterpoint to the standard studies of American Indian history (what little there is of it) given in public schools. Indians didn’t just go away, they were systematically destroyed. Of course, some of us did survive and are still surviving today. But that’s a different book.

Final thoughts
The history of the American Indians is complex. It’s never as simple as it may seem at first, and authors can, unfortunately, give the wrong impression just by writing the facts a different way. I’m not going to call myself an expert, but I am a Cherokee who has an interest in the history of his own people, and having read many books on the subject, I know more than most people about it. In order to demonstrate how the same story can be told in order to give different impressions, I’m going to write two accounts of the Cherokee Removal.

Story 1) In the face of increasing pressure from the Georgians, Major Ridge and many other prominent chiefs decided that the only way to survive was to move west to Indian Territory. The US government was prepared to offer the Cherokee Nation some 3 million dollars in trade for the lands they would be losing, as well as to pay the costs of transportation and some goods for the displaced Cherokees to begin their new lives in Indian Territory. The chiefs signed The Treaty of New Echota in 1835, clearing the way for removal. Despite ratification by the US Senate, Principal Chief John Ross adamantly opposed it and falsely informed his people that they would never be forced to move. After years of stalling, the Cherokees were forced to move and because of the lack of preparation, an estimated 4,000 Cherokees died on the way to their new homes.

Story 2) After the discovery of gold fields within the Cherokee Nation, Georgian trespassers demanded the removal of the Cherokees. The Georgians were generally jealous of Cherokee prosperity, as well as their high standard of living (upwards of 90% of Cherokees were literate, whereas something like 15% of Georgians were). They pressured the US government to take the Cherokee land. Upon signing an agreement with a small number of men who were neither representatives of the Cherokee Nation nor representatives of a majority of Cherokee people, the US government claimed the right to forcibly remove the Cherokees from their lands, and did so in 1838 resulting in what is now called The Trail of Tears, which resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokee, mainly the elderly and young.

The truth is more complex than either of these accounts, but neither of them is untrue. The fact is that the vast majority of Cherokees were innocent victims of an absolutely brutal government. The other fact is that Cherokees were complicit in allowing the removal to happen. Maybe it would have happened otherwise, or maybe they could have survived Jackson’s tenure as President and gotten one more sympathetic to their plight. The Ridges didn’t believe that would happen, and they took such actions as they believed necessary to save what they could of the Cherokee Nation. The Georgians thought that land was wasted on “savage Indians”, which they were still calling us despite the fact that we hadn’t fought in a war since the Creek War, read newspapers, and generally did things our White neighbors did. The Georgians might have just formed a militia and starting slaughtering Cherokees anyway. Either way, we were the ones who made a choice. We weren’t simply passive victims.

Now you may ask, what’s all that got to do with this book? Well, I told you that I was going to try to answer whether this book is still relevant. I’ve read this book a couple of times now, and my opinion is still that it’s a great book. It just so thoroughly smashes the established idea of the West that no one who reads this can ever after accept stereotypical Hollywood Indians who sweep in to kill White men and take White women. It destroys the idea that the Indians came from nowhere to enact violence and went nowhere after the Whites came. It rips away the idea of the Indian as a wild creature who fought because he liked it and replaces it with the Indian as a soldier who fought for his land and his people.

The greatest disservice that Hollywood movies that portray Indians as villains and books that portray Indians as victims is that they don’t make non-Indians understand that Indians are real people too, who cover the entire range of the human spectrum. We had great and noble men like Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and John Ross. We had men who did horrible things like Geronimo and Doublehead. But they were all real men, with real men’s wants, desires, and feelings (not to mention all the women who are just left out). That’s why Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a beginning to the discovery of the American Indian as a real person. It should be read by everyone whose knowledge of American Indians comes from Hollywood or misinformed school teachers.

PS: Specific to the illustrated edition, the additional essays and pictures really add a lot to the experience. For anyone who’s only read the original version, or anyone who hasn’t read it yet, get this one.



View all my reviews

January 09, 2012

11/22/63 by Stephen King

11/22/6311/22/63 by Stephen King
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Good god, this was an amazing book! I can't say for certain that it was the best of his I've ever read, but it may well be. I don't know what all to say, but damn, this book is just one of those that is going to stay in my memory for a while.

A lot of people equate Stephen King with horror (and perhaps the assassination of JFK could properly be regarded as that) but for his true fans, we know that he's far from limited to vampires, werewolves, and immortal extra-dimensional psycho-clown killers. I would say though, that this book, which can be regarded as sci-fi but might also fit into the historical fiction genre, is truly a breakout work, and is as far from horror as he is ever likely to get.

One of the things I have always liked about Stephen King is his ability to write characters. He usually manages to give them unique voices and interesting personalities. He certainly doesn't disappoint this time. Not only that, but the narrative just seems to flow so easily in this book. There's almost always a point in a King book where I wonder where the hell this is going and if all these words are really necessary, but there just doesn't seem to be any wasted space in this one. Not only does the narrative flow, this story is compelling! I rarely get so wrapped up in a book that I really don't want to put it down, but this is one of those times.

As a native Dallasite, this is the first book I've ever read that takes place in my home city, and it's more than amusing to see the names of streets I've driven dozens or hundreds of times. I have been to the 6th floor museum, seen JFK's memorial, and walked around the area. And of course, just driven right by it many times on my way elsewhere. Hell, I've even watched movies in the Texas Theater. Perhaps that makes this book resonate strongly with me because it does seem so real. But I think that any reader should get that feeling to some extent. The assassination of JFK is something that all of us are familiar with to a greater or lesser extent, and the names and places talked about in the book shouldn't seem strange or unknown to most readers. But even more than that, even if this was an entirely fictional book, it's so grounded in reality that it reads as a real event.

A lot of times, Stephen King gets in his own way with his narrative style. In other books (I remember a few particularly annoying instances in The Tommyknockers, my least favorite of his), his self-interruptions are so pervasive that what is meant to heighten feelings of dread and suspension simply destroy the flow of the narrative. King really doesn't do that in this book. Perhaps he likes to say "the past harmonizes" and "the past is obdurate" a bit too often, but even so it doesn't really get annoying.

Lastly, while I'm not entirely sure what a Texas accent sounds like to Mr. King, I am sure that he doesn't write it extremely well. Fortunately it's just words, not sounds, so it's just a source of amusement. The only other thing I noticed is that in a diner, the waitress asks George/Jake if he wants a piece of peach "pie" and I was like, what the hell is diner in Texas doing with peach pie instead of cobbler? Ok, I know there is such a thing, although nobody I know has ever made it for me, and I've never seen peaches made into a pie and I don't think I'd heard of such a thing until I Googled it after reading it in this book, but I can hardly believe that there would be peaches made into a pie in 1960s Texas.

Oh, and in the afterword he says that the Texas Theater is closed. This is not true. You can go there and enjoy some very unique films (indie and foreign) and catch some great live acts.

View all my reviews