Good news... and a rant
Apr. 18th, 2009 05:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsThe good news - Dad is off the cane already! He only takes it for when he'll be on his feet for a while, but otherwise he can walk unassisted and can drive again. (That last being particularly important to him.)
ETA: My review for The Prosecution Rests is up on Reviewing the Evidence.
ETA 2: Thank you to whoever nominated "Naughty or Nice" for a CoT award. However, I've declined it as ineligible - although posted to Teaspoon in '08, it actually dates to '06 in my journal.
And finally, the rant. Part of this is aimed at myself, because I only have myself to blame for picking review books in genres I don't like. But I have GOT to ask, even the people who like this stuff - is it really remotely realistic that the government is going to find all kinds of money and technology to "enhance" soldiers and nobody, nobody at all is going to spend a moment thinking about a failsafe? And just to ice the cake, they're going to give all these fighting enhancements not to loyal soldiers who volunteer, but to soup up the abilities of psychotic criminals, because they aren't "missing anything" if it doesn't work... but if it does work, you've just made your own enemy stronger, faster, deadlier, and given them a reason to hate you? And, as I just pointed out, forgotten the damned off switch.
I'm sorry, in what planet does this make sense?*
That hurdle over, I've got to deal with a publisher and author who don't know what "psychological horror" is. Psychological != physiological. Psychological horror messes with your head. It doesn't have to rely on blood and guts and gore because it is *messing with your head.* The minute you have to crack open a copy of Grey's Anatomy to figure out what's dripping off the ceiling, you have gone to physiological horror, dealing mainly in the surprise of what body part is going to go flying next.
And that's not horrible. It's scary, but it's not actually horror; it's just gross.
That the author has actually gone on Amazon and said "Don't buy this book, it's just too scary" is the final hubristic straw. Let me just say that I agree that he's half right.
*Presumably the same world in which an Important Hidden Secret lays dormant for century upon century until Mary Sue/Marty Stu comes along to liberate what has been unknown by all... except for the huge underground cabal that protects it, the other huge underground cabal that is trying to wipe it out, and the huge collection of artists who are working it into the architecture, murals, paintings, music, and crossword clues all through those centuries.
ETA: My review for The Prosecution Rests is up on Reviewing the Evidence.
ETA 2: Thank you to whoever nominated "Naughty or Nice" for a CoT award. However, I've declined it as ineligible - although posted to Teaspoon in '08, it actually dates to '06 in my journal.
And finally, the rant. Part of this is aimed at myself, because I only have myself to blame for picking review books in genres I don't like. But I have GOT to ask, even the people who like this stuff - is it really remotely realistic that the government is going to find all kinds of money and technology to "enhance" soldiers and nobody, nobody at all is going to spend a moment thinking about a failsafe? And just to ice the cake, they're going to give all these fighting enhancements not to loyal soldiers who volunteer, but to soup up the abilities of psychotic criminals, because they aren't "missing anything" if it doesn't work... but if it does work, you've just made your own enemy stronger, faster, deadlier, and given them a reason to hate you? And, as I just pointed out, forgotten the damned off switch.
I'm sorry, in what planet does this make sense?*
That hurdle over, I've got to deal with a publisher and author who don't know what "psychological horror" is. Psychological != physiological. Psychological horror messes with your head. It doesn't have to rely on blood and guts and gore because it is *messing with your head.* The minute you have to crack open a copy of Grey's Anatomy to figure out what's dripping off the ceiling, you have gone to physiological horror, dealing mainly in the surprise of what body part is going to go flying next.
And that's not horrible. It's scary, but it's not actually horror; it's just gross.
That the author has actually gone on Amazon and said "Don't buy this book, it's just too scary" is the final hubristic straw. Let me just say that I agree that he's half right.
*Presumably the same world in which an Important Hidden Secret lays dormant for century upon century until Mary Sue/Marty Stu comes along to liberate what has been unknown by all... except for the huge underground cabal that protects it, the other huge underground cabal that is trying to wipe it out, and the huge collection of artists who are working it into the architecture, murals, paintings, music, and crossword clues all through those centuries.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-18 10:59 pm (UTC)And that's not horrible. It's scary, but it's not actually horror; it's just gross
...which is why I find Stephen King so unrewarding. At least when Lane/Mortimore do it, it's kind of fun.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-19 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-18 11:37 pm (UTC)And in answer to your question? I like some of this stuff--that is, works in the genre that actually, y'know, pay attention to little reality-based principles such as "psychotic criminals =/= elite fighting units." But what you describe isn't realistic at all IMO for the reasons you point out and a lot of others.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-19 12:07 am (UTC)And that's my big issue. I can't suspend my disbelief - or my gag reflex - high enough.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-19 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-19 02:10 am (UTC)Exactly. (The Mummy, by the way, gets *much* better if you watch it with the director's commentary. Hilarious!)
I almost amended the post, but I'm going to keep the snarky comment about "best use of tax dollars" for the review.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-19 04:37 am (UTC)