The Mentalist Season Five Finale Review – “Red John’s Rules” or is it “Red John Rules?”

The Mentalist 4.19: “Pink Champagne on Ice” – we’re getting into the home stretch for season four and I honestly have no idea where they are going with Patrick Jane. From the description, this is a stand-alone so we probably won’t get any forward motion on Red John. But, we might get some Jane backstory.

Why am I still watching this show? The mysteries aren’t clever and Red John is now, basically, God. Red John is the most ridiculously over the top, unrealistic, omniscient serial killer ever created. Any ounce of believability was lost when Red John 1) read Jane’s mind and 2) knew what Jane would do before he did it, i.e. narrow down the 1,300 people Jane has shaken hands with since his wife died to seven. These two events are so inconceivable I can’t think of words to describe it. Red John, help me out here. What exactly am I thinking? What will I think in a few minutes?

I’ll tell you what I’m thinking. Thank you, Bruno Heller for freeing up an hour of Sunday night television. There is no way I am wasting another minute watching your show. You have mishandled the Rigsby/Van Pelt relationship to the point where Cho is the bored stand-in for the audience. His antipathy toward the entire thing is exactly what your viewers think. We lost investment in them two seasons ago. Your law enforcement professionals couldn’t investigate their way out of a paper bag with a gaping hole in it. You have had outside characters tell Jane, Lisbon and the viewer over and over this season about how they are “a little in love with each other” instead of organically building sexual tension between the two. I’m not going to waste time complaining about your pedestrian mysteries. I’ve wasted enough time on this show already.

I might watch the series finale, whenever that may be, just to see how it is wrapped up. I won’t need to see anything before because I doubt the solution will make a bit of sense. Unless, of course Red John turns out to be Jane. If this was Showtime, HBO or even FX, that twist might be a possibility. But, CBS doesn’t have the imagination to pull that off. I don’t think there is any way for Heller to stick the landing. That’s too bad, because the beginning was a promising start.

 

About these ads
****

April Reading Round-Up – “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

The month of mysteries is behind me and I do not regret it. I can’t remember why I thought I would.  My one regret is I only read two books from my To Read list (The Cater Street Hangman, Leaving Everything Most Loved). I blame that on the library. I got sidetracked by the “New Mystery” section by the front door and didn’t make it upstairs.

I read ten books in April, nine mysteries, on graphic novel. The best of the bunch is probably Say Nice Things About Detroit, though I gave The Cater Street Hangman a higher rating. Confusing, yes. But, I have a theory. Since I am reading so much, the books that are unique in some way will stand out in my memory. My initial reaction for Say Nice Things About Detroit was four stars, a rating I still believe in. With The Cater Street Hangman, my initial reaction was five stars, but I can’t remember why. The reason most likely lies in the fact that Perry’s book is so similar to other books I have enjoyed that I am inclined to give those types of books (historical mysteries) better ratings. I am also influenced by my appreciation of Perry’s body of work. But, because I have read so many books like The Cater Street Hangman, the specifics of the book don’t immediately leap to mind later on. Whereas Say Nice Things About Detroit does because of it’s uniqueness in relation to what I usually read.

Anyway. Enough of that. In May, I am reading romances! Woo-hoo! I gave romances up years ago, when I was newly married and I realized my husband was never going to be a shirtless shipbuilder on Nantucket Island and to keep comparing him to these types of men was doing my marriage a disservice. Now, seventeen years on, my husband is a sexy sports business consultant and can stand toe-to-toe with any romance novel hero. At least I hope he can.

I’m not going to make a list of books since history says I will ignore the list. I’m thinking of going to Half Priced Books and seeing if they have a bundle of romances to buy. Just roll the dice. What I will read: Major Pettigrew’s Last Stand (currently reading and loving it, for book club) and probably a Georgette Heyer or two.  Feel free to recommend romance novels/authors in the comments.

“This email is going to be a rough f*^$#@g ride.”

If, in all of the life changing drama from last week, you missed the awesomeness that was the Sorority Girl e-mail, Funny or Die is here to fill the void. As gut-busting hilarious as it was to read the letter, it’s even better to watch Michael Shannon’s (Boardwalk Empire) dramatic reading of it.

Use your headphones. This is So Totally Not Safe For Work.

I can’t get it to embed. Follow the link below. Sorry.

michael-shannon-reads-the-insane-sorority-letter?rel=player  

 

I would also like to request that this become a celebrity meme. Wish list of others I would like to hear read this: Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Dame Maggie Smith (as the Dowager Countess), Dame Diana Rigg (as Oleanna Tyrell), Patrick Stewart, Kieran Shipka, Amy Poheler, all the actresses from Bridesmaids, Jennifer Lawrence, Angela Lansbury, Betty White, Matt Damon, Ellen Degeneres.

Just to name a few.

Who would you like to hear read it?

five books

Book Review – Driven by James Sallis: “Everything is interesting. You just have to look closely.”

Driven-by-James-SallisSynopsis: Driven is the sequel to Drive, now also an award-winning film. As we exit the initial novel, Driver has killed Bernie Rose, “the only one he ever mourned,” ending his campaign against those who double-crossed him. Driven tells how that young man, done with killing, later will become the one who goes down “at 3 a.m. on a clear, cool morning in a Tijuana bar.” Seven years have passed. Driver has left the old life, become Paul West, and founded a successful business back in Phoenix. Walking down the street one day, he and his fiancee are attacked by two men and, while Driver dispatches both, his fiancee is killed. Sinking back into anonymity, aided by his friend Felix, an ex-gangbanger and Desert Storm vet, Driver retreats, but finds that his past stalks him and will not stop. He has to turn and face it.

It isn’t often when the blub on the back of the book does a better job of clarifying a story than the actual story does. That is the case with Driven (★) , however.  Sallis’s mid-century crime novel writing style – think Chandler, Hammett, Cain – isn’t well suited for a book that builds so specifically on what came before. This isn’t like other mystery “series” where the character continues in similar, but wholely contained, situations.  The events in Driven are driven (heh) by what happened in Drive. Unfortunately, for readers that haven’t read Drive or seen its movie adaptation, you don’t realize that until the end. Then, the motivation of the unseen antagonist comes from nowhere. The journey to that point is a mighty windy road that makes little sense even on its own.

So, why am I giving this novel three stars? Because I like Sallis’s style. I have an affinity for that clipped, brief writing style, probably because it is so different from my own. I would like to emulate it, but I have always been wordy. You should hear my voice mail messages. I marvel when an author says so much with so little. Though I don’t think Sallis did a good job of bringing the back story forward soon enough in Driven, he did an excellent job of fleshing out his characters with very few words. I love that. It is a skill I’m working on.

Sallis has a series of novels set in New Orleans which sound interesting and will read. Besides LA, I cannot think of another city in the US that would fit the noir writing style better than New Orleans. I checked Driven out of the library because it was short, I fully admit. But, man. What a find.

***

Book Review – Call for the Dead by John LeCarre

le_Carre_Call_for_Dead_PenguinAfter setting my reading goal yesterday, I hurried to the library to check out some books on the list. I walked out with five books, not one of them on my list.  In fact, I never even made it past the “New Mysteries” shelf at the front of the library.

The first book I chose was Call for the Dead by John Le Carre, his first novel and the novel that introduces British spy, George Smiley.  I do enjoy Le Carre’s characters and his writing style. It was especially fun to meet three characters that play major roles in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.  However, Call for the Dead suffers from the same weakness so many classic mysteries/spy/crime novels do: the reader doesn’t know enough information to solve the mystery. I suppose I should say astute readers will know know who the real spy is, but there just isn’t enough information for the reader to know the details until Le Carre tell us. Which means the main character, George Smiley, tells the reader the solution. In fact, Smiley tells us, then just to make sure we got it, he writes it all out in a report for his superiors.

Call for the Dead is ridiculously short at 157 pages, which despite the above shortcoming, makes it worthwhile. At the very least, it’s not an entire waste of time.

 

virginia-woolf-a-room-of-one-s-own-teatowel-1355-p-600x600

March Reading Round-up – Non-fiction: “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” ― Mark Twain

In my February Reading Round-up, I set a goal to read non-fiction in the month of March, and even made a list of what I would read. I did surprisingly well, reading six of the nine. One was so horrible I abandoned it (The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas; that’s 10.99 I’ll never get back), one I couldn’t find (Goodbye to All That) and one I completely forgot about (Storm of Steel). I am three books behind in my Reading Challenge, but not because of non-fiction. No, I blame the book I’m reading now, Wolf Hall, by Hilary Mantel.

Wolf Hall is my book club book for April so I decided to start reading it the last week in March, since it is somewhat long. Good lord. Why am I still reading this book? It is dull, the writing style is distracting, I don’t know who she is attributing dialogue to half the time and, on the whole, I find the entire book to be pretentious. I’m pretty sure it is about to become the top book on my Abandoned Pile.

Since I liked having a “theme” in March, I am doing the same for April. The problem is, I can’t decide what genre to read. After re-reading On Writing by Stephen King I had the urge to focus on his work. Problem is, he writes some pretty long books. I have to catch up on my challenge and King isn’t going to let me do it, I’m afraid. I can blow through YA books pretty fast, but am not that interested in reading that genre now. I thought about reading plays and poetry (Shakespeare, American playwrights, poets) but that might be more of a challenge than I need. I could always pick books from the 1001 Books list (the shorter ones, natch), but again, probably more challenging than necessary when I’m three books behind. The logical solution, since I’m in the middle of writing a mystery, is to read mysteries and crime fiction. The problem there is the last couple I’ve picked up I’ve hated. Or, maybe I should read romance this month. I haven’t binged on Romance in years. Seriously, since I first got married. The potential prob there is my writing has a tendency to skew a little romantic; if I read pure romances for a month there is no telling what I’ll write.

Hmm. Decisions, decisions.

Okay, I’m going with mystery/crime. I’m probably going to regret this.

When I was at Barnes and Noble the other day, scanning books I found interesting with my GoodReads app, the app stopped working. Part of me wonders – conspiracy theory alert! -  if B&N hasn’t figured out how to block that from happening in their store!  They shouldn’t block me; I do it so I don’t forget. Not so I can buy it cheaper somewhere else. I have lately been buying everything at a brick and mortar store, i.e. there. But, if I can’t remember what I liked, I can’t buy it, now can I?

Anyway, below are a the mysteries on my To Read List:

  • Leaving Everything Most Loved by Jacqueline Winspear
  • Three Graves Full by Jamie Mason
  • The Most Dangerous Thing by Laura Lippman
  • A Share in Death by Deborah Crombie
  • A Grave Talent by Laurie R. King
  • Pronto (Rayland Givens #1) by Elmore Leonard
  • Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing
  • The Cater Street Hangman by Anne Perry
  • Curtain by Agatha Christie

Have a good Mystery recommendation? Leave it in the comments.

 

 

Eleven_This_Little_Finger_HB2

Sunday Night TV in 11 Bullet Points

The Walking Dead

  • The exit of Glen Mazzara as The Walking Dead show runner might not be a bad thing. It is a serious problem when, after 15 episodes, your main character is TSTL.
  • I was seriously bored for the first 40 minutes of the episode. It wasn’t until Merle got a bottle, cranked up Motorhead and started luring the walkers that things got interesting. That’s a problem. What’s the biggest problem with that is the episode was written by Scott Gimple, the show runner for season four.
  • I hate to say it, but Glen giving Maggie a ring is akin to a lowly private talking about his girl back home in a war movie. I wouldn’t be surprised if he dies in the season finale. Someone significant needs to die and it won’t be Michonne, Darryl, Rick, Karl or Andrea. It better not be Carol.

The Good Wife

  • I wish John Noble’s storyline hadn’t been told in flashback. I wanted more of him, besides sitting in a chair across Alicia’s desk.
  • I was totally distracted by the fact that JM must have been wearing a wig for the flashback scenes.
  • Please, God, let the election storyline wrap this season. If Peter wins, then runs for national office and I have to suffer through another election storyline, I might bail on the show.
  • Alicia chose Peter. Interesting. Would have been nice to see more interaction between the two besides booty calls in the campaign bus.
  • I totally called the lie about the GPS system. Either these shows are dumbing down or I’m incredibly prescient.

The Mentalist

  • Grace is back and they aren’t hiding her behind desks, boxes and water coolers anymore so the actress had her baby. Yea for her.
  • The mystery was boring, but at least LaRoche came back to help. That was fun.
  • Is the homeland security guy Red John? I kinda think so. He’s obviously in league with him and I think Jane may finally realize it. If not, he’s TSTL, as well.
  • What a waste of Donna Murphy.
TwitterBird

To Review or Not To Review. Wait, is that a question?

Yesterday, I took a break from writing and read Stephen King’s On Writing (★★★★★ the best book on writing I’ve ever read) tried to beat Word Welder and perused Twitter, where I saw a provocative tweet from an author I follow.

As I search through her bloated Twitter feed and wonder when she finds the time to write between re-Tweeting every review of every one of her followers’ books, I discover she must have deleted the tweet. Which is interesting, because it seemed like very few people on her feed disagreed with her.

Basically, she said if you don’t like a book, don’t review it, just move on to the next book. I disagree, so I replied. And this exchange occurred.

My first thought was her reply explained a lot. She considered my disagreement arguing, which I didn’t intend it that way and, reading it again, I don’t think it comes across that way. But, I know how comments/tweets get lost in translation on the internet. I am also very familiar with the culture of argument online, trolls, etc. So, okay. She doesn’t want to engage, I don’t particularly either. I’ve got better things to do with my time that stroke the fragile ego of an “indie” author. I’ll get to that later.

First, I want to talk about her opinion that only good reviews should be published. What horse shit. Can you imagine if that attitude was propagated throughout our culture? You know that restaurant where you found a roach in your beans? Forget about it. Eat somewhere else. Remember that car that spent more time in the shop that in your garage? Buy another one. Get horrible customer service from your cell phone provider/internet company/clothing store? Don’t say anything because it might hurt someone’s feelings. They’re just doing their jobs. So what if they are shitty at it?

Of course, I understand that reviewing pop culture (books, movies, television, music) is subjective. What is one person’s favorite book/movie/tv show/song of all time is someone else’s nightmare. Usually a bad restaurant is a bad restaurant is a bad restaurant. Not so with entertainment. But, doesn’t everyone involved in entertainment understand this? Being universally liked is impossible and trying to achieve that unattainable goal is just going to make you miserable.

But, writing reviews when you dislike something is just as important as writing one when you like it. Maybe more so. I’m looking at a portable bluetooth speaker I bought my husband for Christmas. When I was shopping for it I read reviews, good and bad, of a few different ones. Because there were a variety of reviews and opinions I was able to make an informed decision about my purchase. It is the same with books. If all I read are glowing reviews how am I going to know that the characters are thin, the dialogue is stilted but the descriptions and story are great. If character and dialogue are important to me, I’m going to pass. If I’m more interested in descriptions and plot, I’ll buy it. If one person says the dialogue is stilted, then I’ll know it’s just their bugbear. If many people say  it, well that’s what we call a trend and should be taken seriously. But, without a variety of reviews to choose from, I can’t make an informed decision.

Last year I was searching for a Kindle book to read. I think I went to the best seller page, maybe the free page. I don’t really remember. But, I saw this book with 4+ stars and an interesting description. The reviews were positively glowing, so I bought it and read it. The book was okay, but in no way was it a 4+ star book. Being generous, I would give it three stars. Good, not great. Entertaining and mindless. Perfect for people who don’t want to think too hard. I don’t think that’s a bad review. According to my twitter friend up there, I should probably keep my mouth shut and move on to the next book. Possibly she would prefer I only talk about the things I loved about the book. That would have meant no review at all and I think someone will benefit from the review.

Now, I think Amazon reviews are a pretty good gauge of the quality of any of its items, books, power tools, shoes. Whatever. If there are enough reviews for a legitimate sample. (Can’t think of what that’s called, some statistic thing. I’m a writer not a numbers gal.) It turns out this particular book was self-published through Amazon. It had a decent sample size, over 100 at least, which is why I trusted the good reviews. With all the stories over the last year about authors skewing their own ratings with good reviews, I can’t help but wonder if this author got everyone she knows, is related to or has shaken hands with in her life to give her book a good review. It seems that is the norm these days, which ruins the legitimacy of online reviews and makes every purchase a crap shoot.

Possibly the problem is the subjectiveness of ratings. I’m a bit harsher than most, I suspect. If I enjoy a book, I’m going to give it three stars, love a book = four. I only give five stars to books that change my life in some way or books that I will read again and again. When I give one and two star reviews, I always try to be constructive and give concrete examples of what I didn’t like.  To do less than that would be petty and, in my opinion, that is crueler than giving a well-thought out negative review. If the author reads the reviews, they should be able to get something from it. That is, of course, if they are accepting of criticism. Which, obviously, my twitter friend isn’t.

Which brings me to the second part of this post: should authors read their reviews? I would imagine it is almost impossible not to. Since I am not published, traditionally or independently, I have no idea what I will do when that situation occurs. Knowing myself, I imagine I will be too excited about being published to avoid the reviews. After all, I am writing so people will enjoy my work. I will want to know if I’m doing my job. (I know Mark is going to disagree with me and say I should be writing for myself.) You know what? I expect there to be plenty of bad reviews.  I expect to be flamed and trolled. I expect people to go into my blog archives, pick out my old reviews and then talk about how my novels suffer from all the things I was super critical about. Of course, if they do all that, if they make that big of an effort, I will be thrilled. Whether or not it was the reaction/emotion I wanted, they sure as hell felt something after reading my book. I hope I will read these negative reviews, think on what they say and, agree or disagree, move on. Won’t the bad reviews make the good ones (that aren’t from friends and family) even sweeter? Again, I have no idea how I will react. I can’t wait to find out.

I imagine Mark saw my tweet yesterday, because pretty quick, he tweeted this quote:

And, that pretty much sums it up. I hope I can follow this when I get published, in whatever form that may be. Unfortunately, the tweeters below don’t subscribe to that theory. I could be wrong, but I don’t think any of them have the success of John LeCarre.

Absolutely be kind. My guess is this is her modified tweet of her original “don’t post if you don’t have something glowing to say.”

All I have to say is this: if you are that thin-skinned you’re in the wrong business. I’ll also go out on a limb and guess she is self-published. It’s called vanity press for a reason.

I can’t imagine the audacity of asking someone to take down a bad review. Wow. Of course, there can be exceptions; if it is profane, obvious trolls, etc. Other than that, I’d say no.

Petty, much? Congratulations, you have become what you abhor.

 

book_pages_400-300x225

Laugh, Think, Cry, Twitter – Actually, I don’t know what this post is about. You’ll like it, though.

normal_tech_typewriterkeysI suppose it’s official. I suck at building a writer’s platform. At least is the prerequisite for building a platform is regular posting about interesting subjects. Because I am 1) not a Type-A personality, 2) have to have a full 8 hour complement of sleep each night and 3) have a life, I have to pick and choose which tasks to focus on. I can either write, which is what I love, what keeps me sane and you know, what will actually get me published. Or, I can concentrate of building a platform through social media, writing organizations, networking online, entering contests, etc., etc. My absence from the Swamp these past few weeks makes it obvious I’ve chosen writing.

Best decision ever.

 

 

I linked to the wrong twitter person there. Sorry bout that.

 

 

Getting a little cocky, I know. Then, it hit me. Writer’s insecurity and self-doubt.

 

 

So, I took a break and read about Jon Hamm’s penis.

 

 

Which as it turns out, was exactly what I needed to do for this to happen.

 

 

Shockingly, there wasn’t one bit of sex in that output.

Yesterday, after 3000+ words, I hit the first turning point. So, last night, I took a break and watched the last 4 episodes of “Veep” Season 1, and laughed my ass off.  Then, I watched the 30 for 30 doc about Jim Valvano and the NC State Wolfpack 83 championship and cried. When Valvano was dying of cancer, he gave a speech at the ESPYs and said everyone should do three things every day. Laugh, think and cry. Done, done and done. Valvano was right, I felt totally awesome. Accomplished. Attuned to myself and the world around me.

Feeling full of myself, I got in bed, picked up the mystery I’ve been reading, In the Bleak Midwinter by Julia Spencer-Fleming and, after two paragraphs, put it back down again. I was thinking again, when all I wanted to do was to escape. It was a good think, though. Because I realized something. Do you know what is my least favorite part of mysteries? Can you guess? No?

The mystery.

I am one-third of the way into In the Bleak Midwinter and don’t care one jot about the mystery. It isn’t because of Spencer-Fleming’s writing. She is an excellent writer. Love her style. I like her characters, though I’m not totally sold on the set-up (female priest helping male police chief solve crimes) long-term. I can buy the situation for one, maybe two books. But, for an amateur sleuth like a priest to constantly be involved in police procedures? I don’t buy it. Of course, this is all part of a larger problem I have with the amateur sleuth sub-genre and its plausibility.

But, that is not the point of this post.

The realization that the crime, investigation and solution – the defining plot of mysteries – is my least favorite part was a little disturbing, to say the least. After all, how can I expect to write a believable mystery when I don’t even like central part? It explains, however, why writing the investigation part of my mysteries has been such a challenge.

What hasn’t been a challenge, what has, in fact, been the easiest, most enjoyable thing to do is create Stillwater and explore the characters that live there. In my novels, the mysteries are there to inform the reader about the world and the characters, not the other way around. I want to create a world that readers can see, that they can relate to, that they wish was real so they could visit. I want readers to ache when my characters’ hearts break, smile when they are happy and get that little flutter in their stomach – you know which one I’m talking about – when the couple they’re rooting for inches closer together. I want to anger the reader when a character does something stupid, but also realize, “Yep. That makes sense, but damn it, I don’t like it.” I want the reader to think, “OMG, that throwaway line in the other novel meant something!”

How will agents and publishers respond to mysteries that are less about the crime and more about the characters? Am I shooting myself in the foot writing what I want instead of writing to the mystery market? I don’t know and I’m not going to worry about it. All I can do is keep writing what I want, hope it’s reads as good as it feels.

OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT OTHER STUFF

  • I must mention two books I recently finished. Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town (★★★★) by Nick Redding was an eye-opening look at how the economic realities of small town American contribute to the rise of meth and what one town did to combat its effects. Not a perfect book; Redding tries to personalize four citizens fighting the meth problem with mixed results and how these people’s personal lives were affected by meth is specious. Their problems weren’t directly related to meth, they were just people with problems that happened to be involved in combatting meth. Still, an interesting read and gave me great insight into small towns, which I need for research. The other book, Unbroken (★★★★) by Laura Hillibrand, you have probably heard of. I can sum it up easily: Olympic athlete goes to war, is captured by the Japanese, suffers horribly in a POW camp, struggles with alcoholism and anger when he returns, finds God through a Billy Graham revival and lives happily ever after, sharing his story and helping at risk youths. I don’t want to belittle the man’s story, or his experience, but by the end of the book, I didn’t like him much. He is the type of person that craves attention and it seems like he used his story to stay in one spotlight or another for the rest of his life. I could have totally read that wrong, since Hillibrand spends almost zero time on Zamparini’s life after 1947. From what she did say, I got the impression Zamparini was a horrible businessman, couldn’t work in a traditional job, so he used his story to rack up awards, speaking engagements and to create a camp for disadvantaged kids, the latter of which is highly admirable. The other part? Kinda makes me uncomfortable.
  • I’m listening to my music while I write and spending too much time skipping songs I don’t like. Need to cull the playlist. I also really need to go through and uncheck my Christmas songs.
  • Proof that Virginia Woolf was spot on in A Room of One’s Own: I’ve spent all week in our home office, my special writing place, being more productive than ever.
  • Despite the middling to bad reviews, I’m going to see Tina Fey and Paul Rudd in Admission.
  • The bad news with abandoning In the Bleak Midwinter is I am getting behind in my goal of reading 100 books this year. It doesn’t help that Wolf Hall (Jesus, it has 650 pages) is my book club book for April.
  • In good news, the latest Maisie Dobbs (#10, can’t believe it) comes out on Tuesday. Reliably good historical mysteries.
  • Also, Gillian Flynn has a new book coming out this  year. YEA!