StephenH

Well worth a listen

Revisado: 04-01-23

Overall, Harl does a great job of covering the Ottomans from Antiquity (before the Tutks enter Anatolia) to the establishment of the modern Turkish.state. Notably, he doesn't wade into the conservative reactionary policies of the Erdogan regime, rolling back the vision of Ataturk.

Harl isn't perfect, however. He's very much a cheerleader for the Ottoman Empire. While his exuberance makes for a better listen and some of his argument is combating the view of the Ottomans as the "sick man of Europe," listeners may feel he crosses the line when discussing the Greek deportation and the Armenian Genocide. He does sound like an apologist, and the argument that a genocide wasn't intended and Turkish actions reflected the times doesn't sit well

Harl seems to have spent significant time in Turkey and, from his comments, he is married to a Turkish woman. In this light, his viewpoint is perhaps understandable. Whatever the issues, these lectures are worth a credit.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Needs some work at the end

Revisado: 02-28-23

Redshirts is a well developed short story with the nostalgic feel of Ready Player One. In fairness, the plot line is very different from One but there's the same tongue in cheek, not taking itself seriously tone. This sense is heightened by sharing the same narrator, Will Wheaton. He's good but again, it's the same sardonic style. Wheaton is well-matched to the material but this seems his only narrative voice And, it helps to be something of a Star Trek geek to appreciate Redshirts.

While a clever, humorous story, the wheels come off in the final chapter. Suddenly, Scalzi tries to wax metaphysical / philosophical and it just doesn't work with the rest of the text. Moreover, the codas add no value. I listened through the first and not seeing the point, nor enjoying the ramble, I didn't bother with codas two and three.

I'm on the fence recommending this one. Had it been packaged with a couple other short stories, I'd say, yes, read this. But the codas were off-putting and the story loses steam in the final chapters (I'd given a better rating had I reviewed at the story's midpoint).

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Not bad - but you can do much better

Revisado: 01-25-23

As Liulevicius recognizes, the literature of the First World War is vast; unfortunately (for him), this means you can skip his lectures and find other, better listens. Essentially, Liulevicius offers a social / cultural history of the war, which could be described as how the war affected the way people felt and thought and the opposite, how the way people thought and felt affected the war. As I listened, I found the lectures problematic but rather than a litany of problems, I will sum up in two main points.

First, Liulevicius does not - perhaps cannot - speak intelligently about the war itself. Obviously, this is very odd: 36 lectures about a war but very little military history. Instead, he offers rather prosaic tropes you have seen in movies: three men on a cigarette (bad luck!!!), shaking the hand of a partially unearthed corpse, the heroics of Sergeant York, etc. Battlefield descriptions are almost comical to the point the listener is embarrassed for the lecturer, e.g., his simplistic description of men running trench to trench at Verdun. In the earlier lectures, the word "disaster" is used so often that the listener begins to wonder if the word means the same to Liulevicius as the word is defined in a dictionary or through common usage; more erroneously, he often describes fighting as "murder" although the combatants are soldiers and - presumably - all are armed and capable of self-defense. A 21st century mindset shows through when Liulevicius describes soldiers as "fighters," a euphemism used by the current media to describe terrorists and other irregular combatants. Again, while I do not think it is purposeful, this language is a disservice to the soldiers who fought honorably for their countries.

The shortcomings in military history naturally lead to the other main problem with the lectures: Liulevicius is clearly biased. World War I ended more than 100 years ago; there are no living veterans of the war and very few people alive today were directly impacted by the war's events. This should be sufficient distance in time to encourage a balanced history. Nope. Intentionally or not, the lectures describe a war between the white hats and black hats (good guys and bad guys, if you prefer) or, more succinctly, Germany is the one and only bad guy. Britain and France can do no wrong, Russia, czarist and bolshevik, get a pass (in general terms and certainly in regard to war guilt), Austro-Hungary is largely forgotten, and the Turks almost slip by except for their abuse of the Armenians, Italy and Japan - who??? Thus, negative descriptions are reserved for the Germans. A few examples are illustrative. When discussing the refusal of the major powers to seek a negotiated settlement to the war, Lloyd George is a "wizard" and Clemenceau is a "tiger," but German plans to continue the war are "frightening." The British get a pass for an indiscriminate blockade of German ports that starved to death tens of thousands - this was just a logical extension of total warfare - but the Germans are "evil" to start cursing the British when greeting each other, supposedly replacing the friendly good morning. Unable to distinguish between German solders in the trenches and Nazis of the later interwar years, Liulevicius claims Sturmtruppen were psychopaths who loved battle and killing, ignoring that German tactics of firepower and movement (the reason the German raised and retrained these soldiers) are now part of modern infantry training manuals. Even if these tactics were not part of basic infantry training around the world, it is hard to believe Germany could have raised seventeen battalions of psychopaths (this is number of sturmtruppen units). Very similarly, the so-called Red Baron was a narcissist interested only in maintaining his record number of aerial kills - apparently, everyone else was blameless - and it seems telling that the only other aviator which Liulevicius mentions is World War II villain Herman Goering. It's unclear why Liulevicius cannot offer a more balanced view; it is possible that he subscribes strongly to the German war guild thesis, he may be influenced by his personal family history, or his brand of history tends to extrapolate conclusions from a small set of data. In other words, he read Ernst Junger's battlefield memoir and assumes Junger is representative of all German troops.

Liulevicius' conclusions about the war aren't very helpful (and he offers shaky evidence): some discussion of ideology (Liulevicius seems enamored with socialists and there is evidence of admiration for communists), the war cheapened the value of human life, and the need to centralize resources led to more powerful government control. All in all, if this Great Course is free and you are bored, give it a listen. Otherwise, spend your credit more wisely on something else.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Surprisingly good listen

Revisado: 01-23-23

I had few preconceptions when I added Sorrows to my library - it just seemed yet another fantasy title among Audible's many no name authors in the Plus catalog. I'll get to the point quickly: download this book before Audible starts charging a credit, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

The novel doesn't live up to the publisher's claims, Sorrow doesn't turn on its head the well-worn fantasy trope of a boy coming of age with awesome powers. The protagonist isn't an anti-hero, nor is the story told from the perspective of the villain. It's more accurate to say the protagonist would be considered evil by his community if they discovered his physical characteristics. If anything, the protagonist is more conscientious and has a stronger moral fiber than most others in his community. That said, Call has some interesting ideas and plot elements. Perhaps most importantly, Sorrow is well-written, without the problems of pacing, development, and plot holes often found with first time novelists. To some degree, the listener is able to anticipate some outcomes in the novel but I didn't find that this took away from my enjoyment. I'm padding my review score a bit because it's the author's first novel, but it's a solid 4.5 if not a 5.0.

I can't place where I've previously heard the narrator. He's good, providing distinct, appropriate voices to the various characters. He also voices monsters well, without exaggeration or odd embellishment. Moreover, his cadence properly paces the mood and action of the story. Kenny might have something of an easier time because there are few female characters for him to voice. Again, a job well done: 4.5.

Recommended - I'd be ok with spending a credit.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Part spy thriller, part romance novel

Revisado: 01-18-23

Three stars overall is a little harsh, Firewall is closer to 3.5. Generally, there are some interesting ideas here: a spy operating under a nonofficial cover gets caught up in the orbit of an Elon Musk-like "visionary." Unfortunately, the effort is not well executed and somewhat amateurish. The author resorts to exposition in the final plot reveal because he's failed to develop (apparently intentionally) the story adequately, and the lack of detail (or in some cases the detail he does provide) shows Watts is not an expert on the subject matter which colors his story. "Write what you know" is an apt cliche here

As a free listen - the title is currently available to Plus members - Firewall was ok entertainment, the kind of thing that might occupy you on your commute. I would have been disappointed to have spent a credit, however; you would not likely give Firewall a second listen. The title appears to be a one-off story; Audible hasn't made the first title free to entice listeners into buying the remaining titles in a series. I cannot speak to Watts' other titles, but this one can be skipped, especially if you will have to spend a credit.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A well-worn classic

Revisado: 01-12-23

I'll admit it: 2001 is boring. Part of the reason, of course, is that the film version is well-known and has appeared regularly on screen, large and small. It's part of Western culture. The film and print versions are very similar, although the print version is easier to understand. Rather than a brief scene with the monkey-men, for example, Clarke commits several chapters to their story. Similarly, rather than a bad acid trip scene when Dave arrives at the alien "world," Clarke focuses on traveling through the stars and Dave's transformation. Still, Kubrick's film has more tension and the interaction with HAL is more sinister. Oddly, the written version lacks the tension, the monolith doesn't feel threatening and Dave dioes not seem in peril, just a victim of almost fortuitous accidents.

And this was probably intended. What is not obvious in the film is clear in the book: an alien presence has seeded mankind at critical points of development, cultivating man's evolution. This is the plot. Had Dave died, this evolution would not be possible - at least until another human set out to follow the monolith.

The negative tone of my review (and the possible spoilers) isn't a recommendation to skip listening to 2001. Certainly, the reader can still appreciate Clarke's vision. Some of the plot points are typical in current sci-fi, but they wouldn't have been in the mid-1960s when the book was written. This is equally true of Clarke's description of space and space travel. Man had yet to walk on the moon, and NASA probes had yet to move beyond Venus. Computers remained the size of rooms and had barely moved beyond punch cards; your smart phone is much more powerful than the computers used on the Apollo spacecraft.

The narration is fine. Arguably, Hill has an easy job of it, voicing only a few characters and often simply narrating the story.

Recommended.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Scary in it's prescience

Revisado: 01-07-23

Something of sci-fi thriller, a story of a spaceship where the inhabitants don't realize the nature of their existence. Orphans has an interesting but familiar premise: what happens to society when it loses (or ignores) knowledge and basic subsistence is the immediate goal. I would have liked the story to have been fleshed out a bit more, perhaps more on the ship's past and the ending feels abrupt, as if Heinlein decided to simply write "The End" to conclude his novel

Orphans is brilliant in another way, however. Heinlein's exploration of human nature is troubling, emphasizing what people will sink to when their point of view is constrained by their environment. He's prescient in describing the current phenomenon of people rejecting facts, even those "in their face," when the facts don't agree with their preconceived notions and what they want to believe (flat earth society, "stolen" elections, etc.). Despite being one of the older Heinlein works that I've read, it feels the least dated

The narrator is good, voicing actions and different characters in appropriate ways. His job is made easier by the story lacking virtually any spoken female lines.

Recommended

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

For an American audience

Revisado: 01-02-23

Tier One is the origin story of a Mission Impossible style covert operations team, focusing mainly on a central Navy Seal protagonist. As an action thriller, the story keeps the listener's interest and the authors, assuming their bios are accurate, inject some credibility to an otherwise nearly unbelievable plot line. Here is where the book will lose some readers. The story is full of 'hoo-rah, the US military is #1, "special operators" are gods' hype AND the accompanying govt jargon. The "good guys'" worldview is also American -centric, firmly grounded in conservative (the international relations definition) ideology. Even some American readers might tire of American white hats vs. the black hats - there is no gray.

Porter is ok as the narrator. He begins with a very monotone "tough guy" voice which makes for an unpleasant listen. This voice is maintained even as circumstances change and other characters speak. This changes later, but then the way he voices a character differs from one part of the book to another. This isn't a huge issue but the performance could've been better.

Do you read Tier One? Sure, if you're an American and heavily bearded special operators in their yellow work boots and Oakleys are your thing. Otherwise, you should look for a more sophisticated thriller not so focused on the US government.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Classic fantasy

Revisado: 12-29-22

Three Hearts is a bit hard to rate. The story is full of standard fantasy tropes, drawing strongly from Twain's Connecticut Yankee (Anderson even directly references it) and more broadly from Arthurian tales, perhaps also from Tolkien. Yet, the title was first published 70 years ago when modern fantasy wasn't yet well established. It's worth noting LOTR was published around the same time by a small press and only after a long struggle. Few could've predicted it's success and impact.

So is Three Hearts worth reading? Yes. Given the familiar tropes, many fantasy listeners will wax nostalgic and, while predictable, will find the story bittersweet. Currently, the title is free to members, so it's well worth the while. When I first read Three Hearts as a kid, it did leave me wanting more about Ogier the Dane and this feeling remains.

Pinchot narrates Three Hearts well. He seems to have put his full effort into the reading - which is both positive and negative. Trying hard to capture the characters and give them voice is laudable, but the effort leaves some dialogue very difficult to understand. it's hard to appreciate a story when you don't know what's said.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A quick light listen

Revisado: 12-28-22

This is a collection of nine short stories, most less than ten minutes in length. The setting is more or less current day and the genre a mix of thriller, fantasy, and sci-fi. While entertaining, the collection feels a little derivative aa some of the stories have a similar "twist."

I've (more) enjoyed Weir's technical novels and the collection of Moriarty (Sherlock Holmes realm) short stories. This collection is different; it's bound by Weir trying to achieve the unexpected with some story elements left unsaid but easily assumed. I recommend this title - particularly if you've liked Weir's other work - but the total length is little over an hour; buyer beware.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña