I'm an independent writer with a love for science fiction and cosmic horror! Check out all of my free works here, and if you like what I'm doing, I'd love it if you'd check out my longer works.
This is one of those books that has been retold, adapted, and parodied so many times that I thought I knew what I was getting into, and was very, very wrong.
Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus was first published anonymously by Mary Shelley in 1818. Her name wasn’t publicly attached to the book until a French edition was released in 1921. The version I read was an 1831 edition with an additional foreword by Shelley herself, which told about how, when, and why she originally came up with the idea.
One of the things I saw during my last library trip was a few Ian Fleming/James Bond novels! I didn't really have a preference, so of the three they had on the shelf, I picked Diamonds Are Forever. This is the fourth Bond book, published originally in 1956.
I'm not a big Bond fan, but I can't help but recognize the long history of popularity that the James Bond movies have had. I've seen a couple of them a long time ago, Goldeneye and Skyfall, I think, and bits and pieces of a few of the older ones (my dad likes them but also isn't a huge fan).
So I was curious what the books were like! Are they as action-packed as the movies? Are they solid novels or does the cinema help push them into the limelight?
I'm finally getting around to finishing the Skylark series! Even though Skylark of Valeron had a pretty definitive ending back in 1934, apparently lots of readers, including Frederik Pohl, wanted more Skylark, and in 1965, Doc Smith agreed. He serialized the new book, Skylark DuQuesne, in IF Worlds of Science Fiction and collected into a book in 1966.
It was Smith's last book before he passed away.
Like a lot of Smith's stuff, the book starts with a crazy revelation--the method Seaton and company used to keep DuQuesne and the bodiless intelligences out of trouble turns out to have a fatal flaw, and probably won't last very long. This kind of reframing or even retconning is a pretty common element in Smith's sequels, so it wasn't too jarring. In fact, the reason given and the logic behind it is subtle but surprisingly sound.
I felt like I had been neglecting science fiction, so I went hunting around last weekend. There's a book of some of the early Hugo-winning short fiction, and first up there was The Darfsteller, by Walter M. Miller, Jr. Well, I went looking for alternate copies of that novella and everywhere I looked the covers recommended Miller's classic novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz. Sometimes loudly. I figured I'd check it out.
I've heard of it but I had never read it until a few days ago!
What I found was a very solid book, with excellent worldbuilding, and with very good tone, characters, ideas, and perspectives. But the "very good" elements each fell slightly short of excellence for a specific reason, but more on that below.
"Playful" isn't a word you usually connect to murder mysteries, except maybe in a sadistic, Jigsaw-kinda way, but for this book, I really mean it. Soji Shimada pops in twice to tell you to sit down and solve the mystery before you go on, and the solution is so clever and out there that you might never get it!
The Tokyo Zodiac Murders is a classic Japanese murder mystery from 1981. I read it in grad school maybe 15 years ago, and it's been hard to get a copy affordably until recently, since the book had such limited printings in English. Fortunately, a recent printing makes this book accessible at a relatively low price, which was just the opportunity I was waiting for.
There is more to Jules Verne's famous book about traveling into the Earth than I thought! This is what I learned when I went back to the second issue of Amazing Stories and saw the first part serialized there.
The original was published in French in 1864, then re-published in an expanded version in 1867. Then, the first English version was released in 1871, but here's the kicker: that first English version was drastically altered from what a straightforward translation would have been! The character names were changed, which may have been forgivable, but the structure of the story was actually pretty different, too. That "localized" English version was Journey to the Centre of the Earth.
I was going through some Amazing Stories and found out that they reprinted H.G.Wells's classic The Island of Dr. Moreau. I had never read it before, so I thought I'd give it a try!
The book was originally published in 1896, and there's a famous 1996 film that I never saw, but I did hear a bit about. Still, I knew little enough that the story was a bit of a surprise.
It combines a shipwreck story--a popular form back in the day--with dark, biological science fiction. It's written from the point of view of Edward Prendick, an English natural historian.
I was writing an essay and I needed a name for a fictional European country. If you've seen my videos, you'll be familiar with the "Read Mises" poster in the background, and I thought of his "Ruritania" that he used for some of his examples.
But I was struck with a thought: Surely, Mises had the creativity to come up with a fictional country name, but did he? After a little digging, I found that the name Ruritania dates back to this adventure novel from 1894, by Anthony Hope. This book was so popular that it spawned a slew of imitators, satirists, and parodies, but the name "Ruritania" also got used in scholarly writings, too!
This week I sat down with a collection of Kull stories by Robert E. Howard called Kull: Exile of Atlantis. I read and reviewed The Shadow Kingdom a while back, and I thought it might be fun to go through a bit more Kull and see what I thought.
It's such a shame the Starship Troopers movie came out when it did, because I saw that and dismissed the book for way too long. Finally, I picked up a copy around ten years ago and damn if the book isn't a whole different animal.
This was the most ambivalent the Foundation series ever made me. Second Foundation is the third book in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, and it was the last one for nearly thirty years. This book was serialized in 1948 and 1949, and novelized in 1953. The next book didn't come until 1982. So this was the conclusion of Asimov's vision until publishers begged him for more.
Another video I forgot to post here on the blog. I read Walter Scott Story's fan-fiction "The Sequel" aloud a while back, and I posted that, but forgot to post my reading of this Poe classic.
This is a whale of a book. I think that I spent a few hours combing through various versions until I found this one, which was the first one that didn't seem to be significantly abridged.
The whole thing is over twelve hundred pages.
The translation I'm looking at is by John Ormsby, from 1885, and others have said this version is both "thorough and accurate."
An excellent video by a channel called Memovision crossed my feed the other day, and he did a great examination of the John Carter movie, made by Disney in 2012, and part of the reason why you aren't seeing these great pulp, public-domain stories made into movies.
Ostensibly Memovision's video is about the flop of the movie, but he did some digging and found out some stuff that must have been hard to find.
Go check out that video, because Liminal Spaces does a great job introducing it, giving a concise plot synopsis, and also showing off some really cool old horror paraphernalia!
This was quite an eye-opener. As I had been reading some of E.E. "Doc" Smith's books, someone mentioned to me that several of his concepts for aliens were very inspired by Edgar Rice Burroughs's Mars series (or, as I've learned, the "Barsoom" series), and never having read any Burroughs, I thought it might be fun to give the first book a read!
Hoo boy, this one hurts. It was a few years ago. People kept telling me that Solaris by Stanislaw Lem was a real classic of science fiction.
So I picked up a copy, and read it. I didn't really like it much, but it was short and I wasn't really looking too closely. Back on the shelf it went.
Until recently. I picked it up again. I figured, "Hey, I've been reading a bunch and reviewing a bunch and maybe I'll like it more on a second read." I was wrong. Dead wrong.
I really loved Foundation, so naturally I wanted to read the next book in the series, Foundation and Empire, fairly soon... What I found was a very different book from the first one, much more "concentrated," and with a very different tone!
In fact, one of the weak points of the book is going to affect the review, because Foundation and Empire's plot is littered with deliberate surprises, to the point that it's a hard book to review without major spoilers, but I'll try.
Before I start, I want to tell a little story. Back in the day when Borders had bookstores all over the place, I would often go to see what was on the shelves with friends. My friend Justin and I came up with a fun game to play with the later Dune sequels (the ones from after Frank Herbert died). We called it the "Dune check," and what we'd do was grab a Dune book off of a shelf, open it to a random page, and see if there was anything on that page that was written so weirdly that it was funny. I don't think we ever found a pair of pages that wasn't funny.
So, I was a bit skeptical going into Dune, and was pleasantly surprised to find that, while the writing is a bit clunky in places, it wasn't nearly as laughable as the later Brian Herbert books. As I've been leaning more into classic sci-fi, I thought it was worth giving Dune a real chance.
How is it possible that this is my first time reading Foundation? I enjoyed a bunch of Asimov's robot stuff when I was in high school, and I even think I read some of his non-fiction work. Yet somehow, Foundation always missed me. Whenever I would think of it, the library or bookstore I was in wouldn't have it. And so, many years have passed, and I'm finally reading it for the first time!
It's worth noting that Foundation, like a lot of the Lensman stuff, was originally published serially, even in the same magazine as some of it: Astounding Stories. But while the Lensman series is swashbuckling and practical, Foundation is much more cerebral and driven by clever plans with a lot more moral grayness floating around.
This first book in what would eventually become a series covers five specific points in time: the Founding, Founding+50 years, Founding+80 years, Founding+155 years, and one part that happens between 80-155 years later but is not exactly placed.
I found this book super interesting and very thought-inspiring. The five individual stories are loosely connected by the concept of "Seldon crises," which are major turning points in history.
Seldon is the great psychohistorian who anticipated the fall of the galactic empire, and the potential for a dark age of 30,000 years. His goal, described at the start of the book, is to reduce that dark age to a mere 1,000 years.
The book follows the movement of the Foundation from a twinkle in Seldon's eye, to a purely scientific endeavor, to a pseudo-religion, to a trading partner spreading good tech across the galaxy.
One interesting point of conflict is between the large-scale tech of the empire and the miniaturized tech of the Foundation. We see a fascinating example of economic warfare, as well as an expertly-planned intrigue that seeks to create control by limiting access to high-tech--less violent than the alternatives.
The most powerful scenes in the book involve one character outplanning another, yet the story still manages to avoid falling into the all-too-common pitfall of advocating centralized planning. I was honestly a bit worried Foundation would be a socialist disaster, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not.
Even Hari Seldon isn't really planning; he makes some good predictions and works hard to set up the right incentives early on, but he doesn't "plan" the actions of the Foundation in any meaningful way. He doesn't provide instructions but rather says each crisis leads to a constriction of choices, which I thought was an interesting take.
One point that made me laugh was Asimov poking fun at people playing science by simply reading and comparing old authorities, as opposed to doing their own experiments and research. In fact, there were quite a few humorous moments throughout the book.
I loved the point when some Foundation logicians broke down a politician's words during a meeting and determined that the whole thing was null content.
On the down side, I was a little disappointed to find there was almost no actual science in the book! Asimov mostly relies on minimizing detail on space travel and communication, throwing in the buzzword "atomic" here and there.
There were a few parts of the book that lapsed into very pulpy dialogue, reminiscent of Doc Smith's Lensman books. You may enjoy that or not, but it wasn't a significant chunk of the story.
To make one last contrast with Lensman, the action in Foundation is much less bombastic, punctuating important moments but not fatiguing the reader.
All in all, I greatly enjoyed my first look at Foundation. If you want to give it a try, check it out here. This is the version I got, a very nice hardcover containing the first three books.
