I'm taking a moment to consider why exactly I don't deeply sympathize with Cersei Lannister. She's lost very nearly as much to the game as any of the other contenders. Two people she cared very deeply about died within two books. She had a loveless arranged marriage. She's a mother who is motivated to protect her children. She's a woman who is attempting to hold her power against men who would rather she not have it.
Those traits all point to a character I should like. And yet, she kills with so little thought over such petty purposes. She tries to take revenge on people who have done her absolutely no harm. She sees everyone around her more as a potential threat than a person. And despite all her loses, despite all the deep personal grief a person in her situation should feel, she's motivated only by rage, jealousy, and thirst for power. She's not angling to get her daughter back from the Martells. She's not focused on investigating the recent murders. She has no interest in the threats the Wall is facing.
And because of all of this, she is left in the dark against ever increasing dangers around her. She believes she can hold power by force and by cloak and dagger tactics. But death is coming for King's Landing from all sides, and she's too foolish and selfish to notice it. She dismisses the idea that there are dragons in far away lands. She dismisses the fears of the brothers of the watch. She is oblivious. And because of all of that, there will be even more war and death. Stannis Baratheon at least has the sense to see that the iron throne is worthless in a winter full of white walkers. But instead of sending help to the wall, she plots against their efforts. She does not care about their purposes.
And I think that's the real reason I hate Cersei Lannister, more than any of the other things she's caused to happen.
I'm only halfway through this book, and I can already see that it's only going to get worse for them all from here.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Cersei Lannister is the reason we can't have nice things
Still working on this book. It's a lot to chew on. But here are my thoughts so far on Game of Thrones in general.
I hate the Lannisters. Okay, Tyrion is awesome. Jaime is okay in small doses. But the rest of the adults in that family? They can go straight to the white walkers. Especially Cersei.
She's paranoid. She's selfish. She's obnoxious and hateful. She hasn't got a kind word to say about anybody, including her own family and friends.
And this is a world where there are tons of likeable characters.
I love the grand majority of Tyrells. Margaery is very bright and sweeter than a cupcake. I mean, yeah, she's playing politics, but that's the whole plot of the book. Everybody's playing politics, at least she does so in a way that's kind and not terribly bloody. Then you've got Margaery's grandmother who is so incredibly sharp and witty. A truly kicking older female character is always a welcome surprise in this media climate. And of course there's Loras who's a cool knight and who had this really interesting romantic storyline.
Then there's the Starks, who are to the last man understandable if not likeable. You've got Ned Stark, who was a man of principle. I give him a little bit more credit than most people because I believe I know who Jon Snow's mother is. You've got Catelyn Stark, a tough but flawed woman. And there's Sansa, the brave prisoner who struggles to stay afloat politically. There's even Arya, the child with a warrior's spirit. If you count Jon Snow as a Stark, then the Starks have one of the coolest characters in the game.
My favorite house is House Targaryen, which has more evil in its history than most of the rest of its competitors, and yet somehow they still manage to have some of the best characters as well. The famous and acclaimed one for fans of the show is Danaerys Stormborn (the Khalessi), but there are plenty in the books as well. Can't tell you who they are without spoiling things for you, but they are seriously very cool.
The Lannisters? They have Tyrion, who is clever and who champions the weak and the maltreated. They've got Jaime, who is a flawed man who made some bad choices, but who has also done some heroic things. And that's basically all there is nice to say about them. Tywin Lannister was a cruel, cold father to his children. Cersei craves power and manipulates and isn't afraid to have people assassinated to reach her goals. Joffrey is easily the most warped character in the whole lot, killing and torturing people for fun. And they form alliances with all these petty lords and knights like The Hound and The Mountain.
The Greyjoys, the Martells, practically every house I've witnessed in this book series has more good in it than the Lannisters.
Practically all my favorite characters are in one way or the other working against the Lannisters, most of all Cersei. I know I'm only on the third book. I know there's a whole additional book to go before I'll have read the series. I've been told they get better. But I really, really hate those Lannisters.
There was a moment on the show where I started to feel some empathy for Cersei, as she was sitting on the iron throne with Tommen (her young son), preparing to poison her own son to spare him from dying a more painful death. In that moment, I feared for Cersei Lannister, which is a testament to the quality of the show.
Is it possible that Cersei will become a more sympathetic character? I highly doubt it.
I hate the Lannisters. Okay, Tyrion is awesome. Jaime is okay in small doses. But the rest of the adults in that family? They can go straight to the white walkers. Especially Cersei.
She's paranoid. She's selfish. She's obnoxious and hateful. She hasn't got a kind word to say about anybody, including her own family and friends.
And this is a world where there are tons of likeable characters.
I love the grand majority of Tyrells. Margaery is very bright and sweeter than a cupcake. I mean, yeah, she's playing politics, but that's the whole plot of the book. Everybody's playing politics, at least she does so in a way that's kind and not terribly bloody. Then you've got Margaery's grandmother who is so incredibly sharp and witty. A truly kicking older female character is always a welcome surprise in this media climate. And of course there's Loras who's a cool knight and who had this really interesting romantic storyline.
Then there's the Starks, who are to the last man understandable if not likeable. You've got Ned Stark, who was a man of principle. I give him a little bit more credit than most people because I believe I know who Jon Snow's mother is. You've got Catelyn Stark, a tough but flawed woman. And there's Sansa, the brave prisoner who struggles to stay afloat politically. There's even Arya, the child with a warrior's spirit. If you count Jon Snow as a Stark, then the Starks have one of the coolest characters in the game.
My favorite house is House Targaryen, which has more evil in its history than most of the rest of its competitors, and yet somehow they still manage to have some of the best characters as well. The famous and acclaimed one for fans of the show is Danaerys Stormborn (the Khalessi), but there are plenty in the books as well. Can't tell you who they are without spoiling things for you, but they are seriously very cool.
The Lannisters? They have Tyrion, who is clever and who champions the weak and the maltreated. They've got Jaime, who is a flawed man who made some bad choices, but who has also done some heroic things. And that's basically all there is nice to say about them. Tywin Lannister was a cruel, cold father to his children. Cersei craves power and manipulates and isn't afraid to have people assassinated to reach her goals. Joffrey is easily the most warped character in the whole lot, killing and torturing people for fun. And they form alliances with all these petty lords and knights like The Hound and The Mountain.
The Greyjoys, the Martells, practically every house I've witnessed in this book series has more good in it than the Lannisters.
Practically all my favorite characters are in one way or the other working against the Lannisters, most of all Cersei. I know I'm only on the third book. I know there's a whole additional book to go before I'll have read the series. I've been told they get better. But I really, really hate those Lannisters.
There was a moment on the show where I started to feel some empathy for Cersei, as she was sitting on the iron throne with Tommen (her young son), preparing to poison her own son to spare him from dying a more painful death. In that moment, I feared for Cersei Lannister, which is a testament to the quality of the show.
Is it possible that Cersei will become a more sympathetic character? I highly doubt it.
Monday, January 6, 2014
A Waiting Game of Thrones
Tonight the ground is under a blanket of snow, and my instant coffee and I are under a blanket of blankets. Baby, it's cold outside. Temperature tomorrow doesn't look good, either. Winter isn't just coming, it's here.
I remember when good old Ned Stark first said "Winter is coming," on a Game of Thrones, the television series. It's an amazing family motto. The phrase is truly ominous and full of meaning. That said, I am beginning to feel that winter in "A Song of Ice and Fire" is dragging its feet.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a fantasy book series by acclaimed author George R.R. Martin. He has been called the modern Tolkien. The series has five entries so far, with a sixth coming out in the near future (no date so far). The books are about rival factions attempting to secure power. Many of these factions are vying for the Iron Throne, some are only attempting to solidify control over smaller regions, and many individuals are scratching and clawing just to stay alive in the wake of the others.
I'm 282 pages into A Feast For Crows. I began reading this book because I'm becoming impatient. Season 4 of a Game of Thrones cannot come fast enough. I had attempted to read the earlier books, but I became somewhat stymied because the books were very much like the series. I felt like I'd seen it before, and those books are very long. Surely, if the first season was basically the first book and the second season was basically the second book, then it stood to reason that the third season would be the third book and the fourth season would be the fourth book.
No. No, that isn't how it works. Best I can understand, the third book was stretched out so it could feature in season 4, possibly to give the author more time to work on "Winds of Winter." I've read some concern in the past that the series may catch up with the books if they aren't careful, and that would be bad because there would be a longer hiatus between seasons.
The gist of my problem is season 3 of A Game of Thrones ends right in the middle of the third book. So, when I began reading A Feast For Crows, major characters were dead, other characters were thrown to the wind, and there are new characters I'm still not entirely sure about nearly 300 pages into the book. Also, major details are different between the books and the TV show. I knew that going into the book, but it still changes my reading experience quite a bit, to have these ideas about the series that aren't fully reflected in the actual material.
A Feast for Crows is slow reading, and metaphorically speaking, it needs more cowbell. Many of my favorite characters from the series are used sparingly if at all. Winter is taking forever to get here. There is a whole lot of gearing up for war and very little actual war.
I love the diverse landscapes over which the story takes place. I love the vast scope of the book, with all its strange, mighty, beautiful, and terrible characters. I love the conflict at the center of the tale. I love the strange dark magic, mysterious myths, and mortal struggles contained within.
It's an excellent book, but it's slow reading. I miss the characters that compelled my interest in this series. They're still floating around out there, somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, winter cannot get her fast enough. I've grown tired of these Lannisters and their petty paranoia. Bring on Jon Snow and all the little Starks. I want to revel in the dragonfire and cower in the wake of the white walkers.
When I finish the book, I'll come back and say more. And then I'm going to go back and read the third one, because clearly skipping it was a critical error on my part. Meanwhile, here are some interesting Song of Ice and Fire news items and fun stuff:
Five Game of Thrones Events to Look Forward to in 2014
Winter is Coming: Government Uses Game of Thrones to Warn Americans About Snow
If Lisa Frank Designed the Game of Thrones House Sigils
Japanese Editions of Game of Thrones are Incredible
English Town Will Change Name to King's Landing for Game of Thrones
I remember when good old Ned Stark first said "Winter is coming," on a Game of Thrones, the television series. It's an amazing family motto. The phrase is truly ominous and full of meaning. That said, I am beginning to feel that winter in "A Song of Ice and Fire" is dragging its feet.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a fantasy book series by acclaimed author George R.R. Martin. He has been called the modern Tolkien. The series has five entries so far, with a sixth coming out in the near future (no date so far). The books are about rival factions attempting to secure power. Many of these factions are vying for the Iron Throne, some are only attempting to solidify control over smaller regions, and many individuals are scratching and clawing just to stay alive in the wake of the others.
I'm 282 pages into A Feast For Crows. I began reading this book because I'm becoming impatient. Season 4 of a Game of Thrones cannot come fast enough. I had attempted to read the earlier books, but I became somewhat stymied because the books were very much like the series. I felt like I'd seen it before, and those books are very long. Surely, if the first season was basically the first book and the second season was basically the second book, then it stood to reason that the third season would be the third book and the fourth season would be the fourth book.
No. No, that isn't how it works. Best I can understand, the third book was stretched out so it could feature in season 4, possibly to give the author more time to work on "Winds of Winter." I've read some concern in the past that the series may catch up with the books if they aren't careful, and that would be bad because there would be a longer hiatus between seasons.
The gist of my problem is season 3 of A Game of Thrones ends right in the middle of the third book. So, when I began reading A Feast For Crows, major characters were dead, other characters were thrown to the wind, and there are new characters I'm still not entirely sure about nearly 300 pages into the book. Also, major details are different between the books and the TV show. I knew that going into the book, but it still changes my reading experience quite a bit, to have these ideas about the series that aren't fully reflected in the actual material.
A Feast for Crows is slow reading, and metaphorically speaking, it needs more cowbell. Many of my favorite characters from the series are used sparingly if at all. Winter is taking forever to get here. There is a whole lot of gearing up for war and very little actual war.
I love the diverse landscapes over which the story takes place. I love the vast scope of the book, with all its strange, mighty, beautiful, and terrible characters. I love the conflict at the center of the tale. I love the strange dark magic, mysterious myths, and mortal struggles contained within.
It's an excellent book, but it's slow reading. I miss the characters that compelled my interest in this series. They're still floating around out there, somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, winter cannot get her fast enough. I've grown tired of these Lannisters and their petty paranoia. Bring on Jon Snow and all the little Starks. I want to revel in the dragonfire and cower in the wake of the white walkers.
When I finish the book, I'll come back and say more. And then I'm going to go back and read the third one, because clearly skipping it was a critical error on my part. Meanwhile, here are some interesting Song of Ice and Fire news items and fun stuff:
Five Game of Thrones Events to Look Forward to in 2014
Winter is Coming: Government Uses Game of Thrones to Warn Americans About Snow
If Lisa Frank Designed the Game of Thrones House Sigils
Japanese Editions of Game of Thrones are Incredible
English Town Will Change Name to King's Landing for Game of Thrones
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Different types of readers and an update
Different Types of Readers
I thought I'd share this fun link. Different people read different ways, because they have different needs and interests. I think I tend to flit between types D, E, and F.
I buy many more books than I have time to read, and I hold onto them over extended periods of time thinking I'll get to them all eventually.
I can become very emotional over the right books. I almost feel like the Harry Potter series is a part of my lifestyle, for example. Any time a new book or film comes out, I know I'm going to run out and consume it right away. That kind of committment to media can be an emotional roller coaster. But it's fun, and it's meaningful to me.
If I find something I don't like, however, I can be very critical about it to the point of hypocrisy. After that fourth Twilight book, I ranted about how poorly written it was. But I'm also a fan of Supernatural, and let's face it. Season 9 is so bad. I really had no room to talk about Twilight fans, in retrospect.
So, here's an update as to where I am with my reading at the moment. I'm most of the way through "Call of Cthulu" by HP Lovecraft. I'm a quarter of the way into "The Truth," by Terry Pratchett. And I'm several scenes into "A Feast for Crows," by George RR Martin. Like I said before, I like to switch around based on what I feel like reading at the moment. I'm most excited about "A Feast for Crows," but that's only because I've read "The Truth" before.
Also, I've preordered "Raising Steam." I'm a huge fan of Terry Pratchett's work, and I'm very excited about the new title in the series. Moist Von Lipwig is a terrific character, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he's up to this time. I hypothesize we're going to see some Steampunk elements in this one.
I thought I'd share this fun link. Different people read different ways, because they have different needs and interests. I think I tend to flit between types D, E, and F.
I buy many more books than I have time to read, and I hold onto them over extended periods of time thinking I'll get to them all eventually.
I can become very emotional over the right books. I almost feel like the Harry Potter series is a part of my lifestyle, for example. Any time a new book or film comes out, I know I'm going to run out and consume it right away. That kind of committment to media can be an emotional roller coaster. But it's fun, and it's meaningful to me.
If I find something I don't like, however, I can be very critical about it to the point of hypocrisy. After that fourth Twilight book, I ranted about how poorly written it was. But I'm also a fan of Supernatural, and let's face it. Season 9 is so bad. I really had no room to talk about Twilight fans, in retrospect.
So, here's an update as to where I am with my reading at the moment. I'm most of the way through "Call of Cthulu" by HP Lovecraft. I'm a quarter of the way into "The Truth," by Terry Pratchett. And I'm several scenes into "A Feast for Crows," by George RR Martin. Like I said before, I like to switch around based on what I feel like reading at the moment. I'm most excited about "A Feast for Crows," but that's only because I've read "The Truth" before.
Also, I've preordered "Raising Steam." I'm a huge fan of Terry Pratchett's work, and I'm very excited about the new title in the series. Moist Von Lipwig is a terrific character, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he's up to this time. I hypothesize we're going to see some Steampunk elements in this one.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Saving Mr. Banks
I haven't yet seen the film Saving Mr. Banks, but I've heard it's greatly inaccurate. Here's a documentary about Travers, author of Mary Poppins. Perhaps this can shed some light on who Travers was, and how different the truth might have been.
And another
And the trailer for the film
And another
And the trailer for the film
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Reading Widely
I mentioned this blog to the woman who inspired it the other day, and she gave me a piece of advice. "Read widely," she told me, "that's the important thing."
I will attempt to do this to the best of my abilities. I've noticed I have a tendency to chose fantasy novels, humor, and the weirdest things in reach. I will likely temper this with more Fitzgerald than Dickens, more Austen than Twain, and more Poe than Hemingway. This is a matter of taste. But I will certainly give the Dickens, Twains, and Hemingways of the world a second chance.
In the more immediate future, I have an excellent selection of books at my disposal. I have "A Feast of Crows," which I have long been meaning to read. I have the complete works of Terry Pratchett minus a few of the more recent ones. I also have the complete works of HP Lovecraft, which I have always wanted to read but never had available. I will try to temper my fantasy and science fiction selections with some classics and some modern non fiction.
And here we come to my weak spot. True confession: I have difficulty soldiering through modern (not historical, fantasy, or science fiction) novels. Especially romance novels. There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking romance novels. There's nothing wrong with reading books like "The Lovely Bones," either. They just aren't to my taste. I suppose I'll have to confront this eventually. Maybe I'll force myself through a Nicholas Sparks book. But I hope I'll find one I like, and not just read books from this category I cannot abide for the sake of reading more widely.
I will attempt to do this to the best of my abilities. I've noticed I have a tendency to chose fantasy novels, humor, and the weirdest things in reach. I will likely temper this with more Fitzgerald than Dickens, more Austen than Twain, and more Poe than Hemingway. This is a matter of taste. But I will certainly give the Dickens, Twains, and Hemingways of the world a second chance.
In the more immediate future, I have an excellent selection of books at my disposal. I have "A Feast of Crows," which I have long been meaning to read. I have the complete works of Terry Pratchett minus a few of the more recent ones. I also have the complete works of HP Lovecraft, which I have always wanted to read but never had available. I will try to temper my fantasy and science fiction selections with some classics and some modern non fiction.
And here we come to my weak spot. True confession: I have difficulty soldiering through modern (not historical, fantasy, or science fiction) novels. Especially romance novels. There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking romance novels. There's nothing wrong with reading books like "The Lovely Bones," either. They just aren't to my taste. I suppose I'll have to confront this eventually. Maybe I'll force myself through a Nicholas Sparks book. But I hope I'll find one I like, and not just read books from this category I cannot abide for the sake of reading more widely.
Monday, December 23, 2013
A Study in Lavender: Queering Sherlock Holmes
I like to judge a book by its cover. This might be partly because all my life, people have been insisting I shouldn't, and partly because I am not Sherlock Holmes. I cannot determine which books are "good" by smell, taste, or weight. The only hope I have for judging books without having already read them* is by examining their exterior or asking someone else's opinion.
Based on the evidence at hand, I suspected A Study in Lavender: Queering Sherlock Holmes was a "good book." I reasoned it would have to be at the very least a relevant book. Sherlock Holmes is an immortal literary character who overshadows all other famous detectives, real and fictional alike. In recent times, there has been considerable debate about Sherlock's identity.
The BBC series Sherlock has struggled with this debate intensely. To understand the problem, you need a working understanding of a phenomenon called queer-baiting. The gist of it is that a depiction of a character implies LGBTQAI identification without actually intending to explicitly show or express the character's identity. This practice is intended to attract the LGBTQAI audience without offending homophobic or transphobic sensibilities. Basically, the practice exploits minorities for cash. In the early days of the series, many people believed Sherlock identified as gay on the show. That's certainly one easily accessible reading of the material. The words in context certainly give viewers the impression that he could be. But then Steven Moffat, showrunner of Sherlock, confirmed Sherlock is not gay, and that he had no intention of making this clear. And the series continues to exploit that community to this day. You can read more opinions about queer-baiting in fandom here and here.
This is an important problem because progress made today in media will affect what tomorrow's media looks like. Groundbreaking moments like this impact what can happen later. Queer-baiting makes no progress, it only gives the illusion of representation. I wish we had more Gene Roddenbery types and fewer Steven Moffats. I think pop culture needs more writers willing to "boldly go" rather than people who would prefer to capitalize on the status qua, and it certainly wouldn't hurt if actors took a stand as well. Without an acts of sabotage by William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols' continued performance as Uhura, an iconic television moment would never have taken place.
But back to the reason I chose this book. I hoped it would comment on BBC Sherlock. Though it is an anthology of short stories rather than an academic piece, there was a preface that gave some information about the history of Sherlock Holmes and the queer community.
It is hard to fault a book centered on characters as old as Sherlock Holmes and Watson for being somewhat outdated, certainly considering the time that has passed since its publication. The book states that BBC Sherlock "more or less flat out says Holmes is gay" which is unfortunately somewhat inaccurate. BBC Sherlock is notorious for leaving this impression in the first series and then turning away from it in the first episode of the second one.
The rest of the background given is intriguing and gives good context for a working understanding of the series and its characters.
Here is an opinion I've reached having read this book: A good mystery should be solvable with the clues the author has given you. In my consumption of this book, I realized my enjoyment was greatly hinged on whether I could solve the case as Sherlock did. There were stories in this anthology that were beautifully written with flawlessly constructed mystery plots, and then there were also a couple that I did not enjoy so much.
Some favorites contained within the anthology:
The Kidnapping of Alice Braddon by Katie Raynes
The Case of the Wounded Heart by Rajan Khanna
The Bride and the Bachelors By Vincent Kovar
I should also mention that many people enjoy an asexual reading of Sherlock Holmes, which is not represented in this particular work.
*Judging a book after you've read it is only marginally useful as you cannot then decide it was a waste of time and demand your time back, huffing about rip off authors. The best I can do at that point is to warn others or promote the book to those who might enjoy it. I think it's generally more useful on the individual level to judge the book beforehand.
Based on the evidence at hand, I suspected A Study in Lavender: Queering Sherlock Holmes was a "good book." I reasoned it would have to be at the very least a relevant book. Sherlock Holmes is an immortal literary character who overshadows all other famous detectives, real and fictional alike. In recent times, there has been considerable debate about Sherlock's identity.
The BBC series Sherlock has struggled with this debate intensely. To understand the problem, you need a working understanding of a phenomenon called queer-baiting. The gist of it is that a depiction of a character implies LGBTQAI identification without actually intending to explicitly show or express the character's identity. This practice is intended to attract the LGBTQAI audience without offending homophobic or transphobic sensibilities. Basically, the practice exploits minorities for cash. In the early days of the series, many people believed Sherlock identified as gay on the show. That's certainly one easily accessible reading of the material. The words in context certainly give viewers the impression that he could be. But then Steven Moffat, showrunner of Sherlock, confirmed Sherlock is not gay, and that he had no intention of making this clear. And the series continues to exploit that community to this day. You can read more opinions about queer-baiting in fandom here and here.
This is an important problem because progress made today in media will affect what tomorrow's media looks like. Groundbreaking moments like this impact what can happen later. Queer-baiting makes no progress, it only gives the illusion of representation. I wish we had more Gene Roddenbery types and fewer Steven Moffats. I think pop culture needs more writers willing to "boldly go" rather than people who would prefer to capitalize on the status qua, and it certainly wouldn't hurt if actors took a stand as well. Without an acts of sabotage by William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols' continued performance as Uhura, an iconic television moment would never have taken place.
But back to the reason I chose this book. I hoped it would comment on BBC Sherlock. Though it is an anthology of short stories rather than an academic piece, there was a preface that gave some information about the history of Sherlock Holmes and the queer community.
It is hard to fault a book centered on characters as old as Sherlock Holmes and Watson for being somewhat outdated, certainly considering the time that has passed since its publication. The book states that BBC Sherlock "more or less flat out says Holmes is gay" which is unfortunately somewhat inaccurate. BBC Sherlock is notorious for leaving this impression in the first series and then turning away from it in the first episode of the second one.
The rest of the background given is intriguing and gives good context for a working understanding of the series and its characters.
Here is an opinion I've reached having read this book: A good mystery should be solvable with the clues the author has given you. In my consumption of this book, I realized my enjoyment was greatly hinged on whether I could solve the case as Sherlock did. There were stories in this anthology that were beautifully written with flawlessly constructed mystery plots, and then there were also a couple that I did not enjoy so much.
Some favorites contained within the anthology:
The Kidnapping of Alice Braddon by Katie Raynes
The Case of the Wounded Heart by Rajan Khanna
The Bride and the Bachelors By Vincent Kovar
I should also mention that many people enjoy an asexual reading of Sherlock Holmes, which is not represented in this particular work.
*Judging a book after you've read it is only marginally useful as you cannot then decide it was a waste of time and demand your time back, huffing about rip off authors. The best I can do at that point is to warn others or promote the book to those who might enjoy it. I think it's generally more useful on the individual level to judge the book beforehand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)