Thriller

I enjoy James Bond films, and while awaiting the debut of Quantum of Solace, found From Russia with Love on the shelves of Kelly’s lake cabin I picked it up, curious to see how Ian Fleming’s character compared to those of the films. One look at the book and it is clear that Ian Flemings novels opposite to the political-military thrillers like Hunt For Red October and the book is marketed as a mystery. Yet the book contains no enigma- the Soviet plot to kill Bond is revealed in the exposition. Perhaps I’m expecting too much out of the 180 or so pages, and it may be that Bond without action scenes is an impossible sell for me. But I found the book underwhelming . The characters other than Kerim are nearly one dimensional, and after the exposition few even get the chance to show personality. The plot seems basic and there is little satisfaction in the way that Bond triumphs over his enemies. Worse, the book is full of the worst offenses era, full of Communist stereotypes, mysoginy, Eurocentrism and homophobia. Perhaps the elements that were once exciting, such as the 4 day ride on the Orient Express now seem banal in a world where Istanbul-London can be little more than a day trip. Whatever the reason, I highly doubt I will ever ponder any element in this book, save when I see the next movie and sigh in relief that I didn’t have to read the book.

** Murder, Magic, Malaise ** If Romantasy is court intrigue with a swooning heartbeat, this is its jaded sibling: Mysterantasy—suspicious deaths, arcane trickery, and protagonists too tired to care. Din, a detective who’d rather not chase another corpse, moves through a world where power, like rot, is ambient. His weariness isn’t melodramatic. It’s the flat exhaustion of someone who’s seen too many patterns repeat. Solving murders feels increasingly pointless. The system remains: “And the drop of corruption that lies within every society shall always persist.” ...

A goofy interpretation of CRISPR tech in the vein of face/off, combined with a future fugitive chase like Minority Report. At his best, Daniel Suarez stretches the bounds of believability to find a thriller such as in Daemon or Critical Mass , but here he overreaches into silliness. I nearly DNFed after the face swap, and wasn’t rewarded for sticking around.

Disappointing. A cross between Sicario and Dan Brown. A fever dream of the 2010’s, * what if all the conspiracies were true? * I’m no fan of the military industrial complex, but I’m also not a fan of simplified conspiracies that wars started to build a weapons system. Read The Last Good Soldier instead.

Takes on moral injury rather than themes of societal oppression, and I don’t know if the author did a worse job, or if I’m just sadly closer to the subject. Whatever the case, it didn’t resonate. Still enjoyed the world, appreciated the change in characters, and devoured the story. Going straight on to the last in the trilogy and that will round me out with Bennett’s ouvre.

The bloody seed of the metaverse exists right here.

After having been burned by Seveneves, I followed the advice of other reviews and read the first third of the book, until they enter the matrix. Definitely enjoyable. The second third gets into a digital Book of Genesis, and if I’m going to read creation stories, I still have the old testament to get through. I’ll stop here.

A thriller about a social tech company entering the Chinese market and rigging US elections? You have my attention. Welcome to Circles (not to be confused with Egger’s disaster of a novel the Circle): a company with 2 billion users, questionable boardroom politics, and based on this book, no female employees. It’s a breezy read, the premise is great, the plot and characters middling, but I still enjoyed it. The author gets lots of things wrong about a thinly veiled fictional Facebook (I.e. only 2 billion users? Not if I have anything to do with it! And while we’re at it, it’s ’terms of service’, not ’terms of use’), but the surprising part is that the book is engaging in a this-is-obviously-fiction-but-not-offensively-bad sort of way. ...

Meh. The commentary on the state of capitalism was much better captured in Capital in the 21st Century, and there were very few ideas not already introduced in the first book. I found the antagonists annoyingly single-dimensional, and nothing in the book was really interesting in the way that the first book was.

The ideas were great, and the pseudophilosophy was fun. Actually I found myself bored in the action sequences that seemed to jar with the more contemplative nature of the rest of the book.