Reviews and Comments

How have I been completely ignorant of this? It's a visually stunning series of noir-stories set it an increasingly complex setting, and that uses anthropomorphic animal characters in a way that actually serves a purpose other than making them distinct of each other or cute. The stories are all complex, and instead of being "whodunits", they're gradually unwinding tales of morally amibigous characters, corrupt people in power, and everything you would expect from a proper noir. It uses the most interesting parts of the time period its set in. It doesn't at all shy away from handling serious matters (murder, rape, abduction of children, nazism), but it handles these dark themes in a way that doesn't feel cheap.

This collection consists of the first three stories, and while I'm not able to read them in their original language, the English translations seems really well done - and the lettering is perfect. It's large enough to serve proper justice to the art (even though every single frame could easily have been a page of itself), and it's kind enough to let you know what songs and texts people are quoting within the stories themselves.

While the memoirs of a former Oxford English Dictionary chief editor is not a page turner in the traditional sense, it's still a good read. John Simpson takes you through his working life from starting at the dictionary all the way until he retired, with only small glimpses of his personal life from time to time. You follow the dictionary in a period of complete change, from card indexes in storage, to a digital version, up until the online resource it's mainly known to be today. It focuses a lot on the mentality behind the lexicographic work, the reasons behind the choices made and the process of adding and revising defintions. But it never delves too far into any given subject, and he (consciously) stays away from lists of examples. Throughout the book, some words are highlighted and used as an excuse to geek out about etymology and language history.

This might sound as a really boring read - and I'm sure that's true for some - but Simpson manages to write about it all in a way that actually makes it quite accessible. Even if you're not crazy about lexicography. Simpson's dry wit is quite charming, too.

While the memoirs of a former Oxford English Dictionary chief editor is not a page turner in the traditional sense, it's still a good read. John Simpson takes you through his working life from starting at the dictionary all the way until he retired, with only small glimpses of his personal life from time to time. You follow the dictionary in a period of complete change, from card indexes in storage, to a digital version, up until the online resource it's mainly known to be today. It focuses a lot on the mentality behind the lexicographic work, the reasons behind the choices made and the process of adding and revising defintions. But it never delves too far into any given subject, and he (consciously) stays away from lists of examples. Throughout the book, some words are highlighted and used as an excuse to geek out about etymology and language history.

This might sound as a really boring read - and I'm sure that's true for some - but Simpson manages to write about it all in a way that actually makes it quite accessible. Even if you're not crazy about lexicography. Simpson's dry wit is quite charming, too.

Jeg hadde venta en kjærlig (om noe spydig) gjennomgang av "gammeldags" populærlitteratur, men dette var krasse saker! Willy Dahl argumenterer ikke bare for at disse gamle krimbøkene var dårlige i sin tid, men at det er en bjørnetjeneste for samfunnet å trykke dem opp på ny igjen (noe som ble gjort da boka ble skrevet). Han anerkjenner den historiske konteksten bøkene ble skrevet i, men kanskje nettopp på grunn av historien så er han særlig kritisk til hvor fascistiske, rasistiske og ukritiske disse bøkene var. Alt dette sementerer han med en hel rekke eksempel, som til tider blir unødvendig lange utdrag.

Det er riktignok litt beskrivelser av naive plottelement og slikt, men stort sett er dette en grundig, kritisk verk som peker på ideologien som kommer frem i disse gamle bøkene. Den gir dem ikke æren for tendensene i samfunnet, men hevder at det i alle fall ikke var irrelevant at de mest leste bøkene, også blant unge, inneholdt tydelig anti-semitisme.

Willy Dahl argumnterer godt, men kunne gjerne kuttet litt i utdragene han har med. Jeg kunne gjerne også hatt mer om hvordan han (genrelt) tenker at slik lesninger av populærlitteratur kan avdekke noe om samfunnet de er skrevet i - men kanskje finner man dette i boka denne er en slags oppfølger til.

I've been meaning to learn more about English linguistics and grammar, and when I stumbled over this book, I thought it'd do for a neat introduction. I guess in that sense, I was a bit disapointed. It doesn't delve that far into the grammar, but rather touches upon several aspects of the (British) English language. But in the end, that probably made the book way more readable. It's obvious that Potter is aiming at a wide audience with this book, but that doesn't stop him from enjoying himself. In almost every chapter he has a section where he throws out a long list of examples of whatever he's talking about. These lists does break up the flow of reading, but it does brings his examples home.

The book is a bit dated, but most of what he writes probably still holds true. He makes some predictions that are a bit off the mark, but more often than not, his predictions are dead on.

Dette er trolig det beste skuespillet jeg har lest av Bjørnson så langt, selv om slutten beklageligvis ikke levde opp til resten av stykket. Kort sagt handler det om en politiker (Paul Lange) som er dyktig, men ikke tåler motstand særlig bra. Tore Parsberg er ei dame i livet hans, som via slektsskap er involvert i politikk, men personlig er mer opptatt av Paul Lange som person. I stykket kritiserer Bjørnson politikere for det negative miljøet i politikken, og viser hvordan dette går inn på en av aktørene (til tross for at han er dyktig og godt likt). Tora Parsberg er stykkets moralske ledetråd, da hun ser gjennom det politiske spillet.

Det er verdt å nevne at stykket er basert på hendelser i Bjørnsons liv, hvor en av hans venner (tidligere statsminister Ole Richter) gikk gjennom noe liknende som Paul Lange, og Bjørnson var en av de som ble kritisert for å ha ødelagt for vennen sin. På den måten er stykket et slags oppgjør med det som skjedde, men ikke et forsvarsskrift. Bjørnson erkjenner hans rolle i det hele (gjennom karakteren Arne Kraft), men stykket er mer et forsøk på å forstå hva som skjedde i Richter/Langes hode, enn et forsvarsskrift.

Første del av stykket er grei nok, mens midten er et klart høydepunkt, hvor vi får se det politiske umiljøet i all sin kvalme. Siste del begynner bra, men blir etterhvert forutsigbar, og innsikten/forståelsen Bjørnson viser blir etterhvert utroverdige og uoverbevisende. Men jevnt over var det vel verdt å lese.

Denne boka klarte ikke å fange meg. Jeg liker selve premisset, og tror at det kunne ha danna utgangspunktet for en veldig interessant (og unik) thriller. I likhet med f.eks. Dan Brown-bøker er det stor fokus på research, og å trekke fiksjonelle tråder mellom virkelige ting. I denne boka er researchen på plass, men jeg tror kanskje jeg hadde foretrukket å lese det som ei bok om planter i folketroen, heller enn som en slags spenningshistorie.

Bokas ulike kapittel er enten formet som brev, rapporter, dagboksnotater eller del av en avhandling. Det kan rikitgnok fungere helt greit, men jeg synes ikke at utføringa holdt mål. Uansett hvilken sjanger teksten skulle forestille, var det vanskelig å tro på det som en "autentisk" tekst, men heller som et dårlig tilslørt forsøk på å berette en historie (noe det da faktisk er). Jaja.

Jeg tror at det er et bra utgangspunk for en bra bok her, og det er jo mange som liker den. Men jeg klarte ikke å la meg rive med.

Where Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything" leads you through all the big questions about the origins of our worlds (and the people who made the discoveries), this book tries to examine the history of every day life. It's stuffed full of fantastic anecdotes, interesting fun facts and a perspective of history that's new to most of us. More than anything, it highlights how many people has played a big part in shaping our world, and that small inventions and ideas can have big consqeunces in the life of many.

What Bill Bryson did really well in "Short History..." was to tie together stories that on the surface are not that related, and give the a flow that was very easy to follow as a reader. Bryson is a great story teller. In this book the gimmick is that he uses his own house as the basis and structure of the book. This does not really work, and I feel that it to some degree ruined the flow of the book. There's also several sections where I found myself losing interest in the stories told. This is not suprising in such a big book with so many different stories, but it never happened in "Short History...". Perhaps it's easier to grab my attention with the people who discovered how the world worked, than the people who discovered how asymmetrical architecture should work?

And as always with these kind of books: I wish I remembered even a percent of what I read. It's super interesting, but nothing sticks. Oh well.

This book combines a great premise and a great setting. It's filled with characters that all have interesting quirks (mostly due to many of them being gods), and there's lots of really fun episodes in the book. There's a twist, there's a climax, there's a love story and there's a journey. There's lots of things to like, and I really understand those who love this book.

So I feel like I have to defend not loving this book, as it does so many things right. It's a fine book, and I liked reading it. But maybe it just doesn't resonate as much with me as with others? I'm sure Shadow's (lack of) personality was intentional, but it doesn't make for an interesting journey to follow. The people he meet are all intersting, but they seldom evolve beyond the side characters that they are. The grand scheme turns out to not be that interesting, and as it's revealed, everything kind of just blows over, and that's that. I liked that the book was slow, and focused more on the little things than the big picture. I loved how it used myths, and the universe that's created. It all made for a nice read - but not much more (to me). I might be a bit harsh, but this is a big book with quite a reputation, so I expected more from it than what it delivered. I did like it though, and I do reccomend reading it for anyone who is on the fence.