I enjoy Sedaris' descriptive phrases, his offbeat sense of humor, and his unexpected candor about his own shortcomings as a human.
The only way and the best way this collection of essays could have been more enjoyable would be to excise the obsessive sexual references. They're not funny, clever, or quirky. They're just token and out of place, as if put there to show he's still virile - as if any of us need to be reminded that all men, whether they are straight, gay, bi, young or old, are usually thinking about sex - or perhaps to sell the book to the masses who care nothing for his prose or his velvety-smooth delivery in this audio book.
I did not spew coffee on my Mac this time, even when he spoke of Amy's gift of the crocheted owl mask. But it is comparable in pithiness and humor to Me Talk Pretty One Day and Dress Your Children etc.
Some Owls and Turtles, But Mostly Sex
Had to stop listening at the sixth story because the multiple sexual references became so tiresome his prose wasn't worth the slog through the sex.
I love Liam Neeson; I love Thomas Cahill's writing. But the audio was SO distracting I could not listen past the first 20 minutes. I thought it might improve, but it did not. It sounded as though Neilsen was rocking back and forth, toward the mic and away from it, as if he were stoned or high. I assume that's not the case because the sound engineers would have compensated for that.
I don't know; I couldn't stand to finish it. I will read the paperback I have tucked away in my bedside table.
I won't know until I READ it so I won't have to abide this horrid audio quality. It's an affront to Neeson and Cahill.
I am returning this book.
The three plots kept the story humming, whether it was waiting to find out what a suspect was going to say, what would put off the wedding AGAIN, or when Samantha would finally come to a boil and tell her no-good siblings to go home. The only disappointment in the book was that she never did.
She is able to pull off a Southern drawl EXCEPT she still can't say "pecans" properly (In Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, it's "puh-CAHNZ," not "PEE-canz." Don't pee in MY cans, thank you very much.
Very often, this series makes me laugh. I was touched by the story of the 16 year old prostitute and did not ever think about it being as bad in Nevada as it is everywhere else. However, I'm not really a "crier."
I may have rated it higher becaue it came on the tails of an audio book I didn't much like. Still, I did like this one and think it's one of her best.
I may just be tired of this genre in general. The protagonist and her love interest keep making the same stupid mistake over and over. Instead of talking openly, they act passive-aggressively towards each other and behave like eight year olds. Then, when they do communicate, it's with flowery language, which even in 19th century England would not be realistic.
I think I'm just done with this genre for a while. It was great while I was sick for six months, but now that I'm better, I need something with a little more meat. Instead of continually making something happen that could easily be remedied with a quick talk, Beaton should have chosen another device to heighten tension. The on again - off again engagement was fit only for middle schoolers.
The narrator seems to have lung problems. She has to take breaths several times per sentence, even when it's a short one. Her voice is quite raspy, which is usually interesting. Here, it just makes the possibility of an ill narrator more plausible. I can't keep my mind on the story.
I enjoyed, as usual, the little intricasies of Regency social mores and habits. I also enjoy the description of fashion.
The story held my attention until the third time he flew off the handle and left without asking questions and the engagement was off again.
Archer's characters are quirky and three-dimensional. There's a good mix of sane and crazy. I know very little about the casino world, but Archer's descriptions are so vivid that I never feel lost. She weaves story and setting extremely well.
Just as one story line seems to tie up, another unravels and usually in a most humorous way.
I'm not up on current popular stars, so I'm not a great person to ask how to cast this for movie, TV, or internet.
Amber Benson is a fine reader and handles Southern English well as one character. Her trouble comes in trying to deal with another accent besides Davis Way. The grandmother sounded as though she lived part of her life in Minnesota and part in New Jersey. As for No-Hair and Sanders, Benson probably should stop trying to sound like a man to save her vocal chords. The other women, including Fantasy, sounded as though Benson was pretending to be a fairy. And the TV news reporter sounded like a kindergartener pretending to be a fairy.Ms. Benson is a soprano who is attempting to sing alto, tenor, and baritone. One needs a plus-sized vocal range for narration of books with lots of characters. Sometimes the range comes with age. Save your fine voice, Ms. Benson, and stick with projects that have a smaller range required.But Archer's writing is spot-on. I look forward to Davis Way's next caper.
This one makes it into my top ten.
I enjoyed the fact that Mollusk gradually changed his attitudes toward other less intelligent beings. It HAD to be humans, after all, that he liked best. Otherwise, the audience wouldn't understand why anyone could possibly put up with us.
Haven't tried them, but I will now.
My real life is poignant enough at this point with kids moving out and parents getting ill and dying. What I need is creative, humorous entertainment with a small helping of complexity. This delivers.
I'd like to meet Emperor Mollusk, but my teensy brain would probably explode.
I might recommend this if the person likes gushy romance.
Lisa Lutz or Carolyn Haines. Or I might wait until Bill Bryson's next book comes out on audio.
No, but she does a good job. I just don't like the heroine much.
No. I almost barfed over the sappy lovey-dovey conversations ("Say it! Say it aloud!" "My own love; my own true love.") . Maybe that was to emphasize the coolness of the protagonist. Or perhaps it was the correct tone for the 1920s. But even the interesting fact that one of the couples was gay didn't make it less "rolling-my-eyes-and-yawning-my-head-off." And when the heroine wasn't making any headway with her so-called investigation, she just jumped into bed, like that other girl might pick up a partner and go on the roof for a game of tennis.And seriously, what was the point of this "party," anyway? Did people really go to the homes of others they didn't really like that much, stay in their homes, eat their food, dance with them, and use their homes like a hotel for days on end? I understand that for half the book they were stranded by floods, but Phryne wasn't in a party mood even before that. Geez, Woman! Buy your own freaking house and go live in peace with your lover.But then there would be no murder mystery. Exactly. The entire premise of this book is ho-hum.
The best thing I liked about this book was the return of Savannah Reid. The least was the contrived heightening of tension and the lack of knowledge about 10 year old kids.
As to the first criticism, when a writer sets up tension, it should be undetectable. The ramping of conflict in this novel was blatant. Heres just one example: When Savannah is about to check on the threatened mom and daughter at 5:30 AM, she decides not to bother them because they need rest, despite the fact that she knows the violent ex-husband knows where they are and is actively looking for them. So she goes home, planning to spend two hours making sure that the guy that's with her is her client's brother. Seriously? And then, of course, they get abducted and Reid's in trouble with the police because she helped the ex find her client. I can't believe the reader is supposed to forgive the protagonist for being so stupid. No ex-cop would have hesitated to bang on a door at 5:30 AM.
As to the second criticism, I hate to say it, but no 10-year-old girl would be caught dead in a princess outfit. Even in the 1980s when I taught 10 year old girls, princess outfits were out of the closet by second grade. I understand the play because adults make you do it. But the 10 year old girls I know are already past that and on to leopard prints and leggings. Call it sad, but it's the truth. Perhaps in the 1950s or early 60s elementary school girls still played princess dress-up, but not since then. Watching Disney princess videos are a guilty pleasure that many elementary age girls would swear they weren't doing - they would be humiliated by their peers. The only reason they would be playing with tiaras and tulle would be in the context of a (gag) pageant.
Another thing, if that child is going to get to school by 7:30, which is when most kids have to get to school, that mama had better be up by 6:30 and would probably be up at 5:30 doing last-minute backpack checks for homework and lunch money. If her daughter rides the bus, it would pick her up even earlier and if the mom drives her, they still have to leave by 7 due to before-school traffic.
I see this use of children in novels a lot as a tool to heighten sympathy and tension, and I understand it. I also often see it being misused, as it was here. When an author uses a child character as a pawn to garner sympathy or to heighten tension, they are doing the same thing they are making their "bad" character do; they are de-personalizing the child and using them as a tool.
Lack of research into what 10 year old kids are really like and forcing her character to do things against her own character. I'll try one more book.
I will try to find another McKevett story with no children in it.
I'm a Southerner. The accent is pretty good. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish Savannah's voice from the mom in the story, but that's understandable, and she's not around for long, thanks to the protagonist not wanting to wake her client up despite the fact that her life is in danger. AAUUUGGHH! Makes me so mad!
I enjoyed seeing the change in Mrs. Budley from dependent and shy to strong and assertive.
I had not really thought much about the character of Mrs. Budley in Books 1 and 2. As usual, though, I liked the male aristocrastic leads best, even though they're basically the same character.
She does a great job distinguishing the various characters with subtle differences in dialect and tone.
I was able to do it in two "sittings" while driving.
I would if they cared more for plot than character
Something set in the 19th century
Hard-edged but loose
Yes; I believe I will stick with lighter fare like Janet Evanovich and Lisa Lutz
I had to quit listening because I couldn't believe she had sex with someone she thought might be dangerous. Idiot.
Report Inappropriate Content