Books of 2007 – #7

  • Recently finished: Judas Unchained – Peter F. Hamilton – Here’s the problem with 1000+ page genre epics – the culmination of the story can’t compete with the journey of reading. And having spent 2370 pages getting there, PFH conducts an intergalactic genocide in a couple of sentences. Ho-hum. Also, once you’re done reading, the plot holes start filling with the muddy waters of doubt, so it’s best just to move swiftly on to something completely different. And much, much shorter.
  • Just finished: Going Under – Kathe Koja – Well, this was shorter. 1100 pages shorter, in fact. With far, far less words on each page, and some slightly sinister design tweaking of the chapter numbers. The writing was lovely, although it’s left me feeling unsettled. Though that could also be down to the cheesey fish bake thing I had for dinner. Also, my Dad came home drunk tonight. Hurrah!
  • Currently reading: Permanence – Karl Schroeder
  • Next on the list: Kafka on the Shore – Haruki Murakami
  • Book of the year so far: Blindsight – Peter Watts

“Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts.” –

James Nicoll

Peter Watts interviews – 1, 2, 3PW’s website – And if anyone wants to buy me PW’s first novel, Starfish, that’d make me super happy. Or suicidal. One or t’other. Or possibly both. Buy it and we’ll find out…


9 thoughts on “Books of 2007 – #7

  1. Schuey19

    Not meaning to give you a heart attack, but, currently reading the Bourne Trilogy as i’d previously only read Supremacy – and considering just how different that was to the film wanted to see if Identity was closer?

  2. Let me know how those Bourne books are, there are a stash of them at the library, and I’ll yoink them if they’re any good.

    And Geoff, you should compile a list of half-read books, and then we can compare it to the number of half-drunk cups of tea I’ve left in precarious places.

  3. ruthie

    talking of books, and because you’re not on line (hopefully you are at the post office) and because i’ve never got round to leaving any comments here, thanks for lending me the The Rotter’s Club. i’m totally loving it, especially the genuine woodchip on the cover, so do keep recomending books which aren’t million page nerdathons

    general blog question: why (oh why) are the dates on your posts all the wrong way round? why? it is an instant turn off. if you want me to click on stuff, saying “links for 2007-01-16” is not the way to do it. i don’t know what that means. ta (pedantic of levenshulme) x

  4. All the linky goodness is done automatically by, from stuff I’ve looked at that day, and sadly apart from manually editing each post after it’s been published, there’s nowt I can do about it.
    Don’t read the sequel to the Rotter’s Club, btw, it’s poo.

  5. The reason the links are displayed in reverse order is one of ordering.

    Theoretically, computers always store links like that. Basically, it stores the dates as single integers, which it then ‘splits up’ with hyphens to create a date. It can then sort the numbers to create lists in date order.

    If it were to store dates ‘properly’, it wouldn’t be able to sort them. See below:

    20070101 – 1st Jan 2007
    20070102 – 2nd Jan 2007
    20070408 – 4th Apr 2007
    20071207 – 12th Dec 2007
    20080101 – 1st Jan 2008

    As to why doesn’t translate the dates into a more readable format, that’s anyone’s guess. Most likely is that they’re an international company, and the differences in, for instance, the way the UK and US write dates mean that its not worth picking any one style.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s