Ian C Robertson

If you have read my review of "The Bat" (Book 1 in this series) then you will know that I opted to listen to this ahead of my planned read because I enjoyed Book 1 and, you might have inferred, that I was engaged by Harry Hole as a character (vomit and all). So, was that the correct decision? Absolutely! This is a better book than Book 1.
The plot here is complex and you need to listen to each part carefully. The threads are all there (as they were in "The Bat"), so there is no slight of hand Shaitana-like revelation of the Agatha Christie type, here. In fact, like "The Bat", the perp' is no surprise when revealed, but the why and what for is worth the wait. (Spoiler alert), not every mystery is put to bed here, so I am expecting the unresolved part to feature in future installments.
The plot here is much more Larsson-like. There are neo-Nazis and corrupt officials scattered generously throughout the Norse public service. However, it has it's own distinctive feel. Perhaps it's because Harry's vice (drink) is so much easier to relate to than Blomkvist's (women he has no bases to aspire to - Australians call this "punching above your weight"). We can all have more drink than we need, but can one ever be fortunate enough to love every woman one might have wanted to, especially when one is me? I like Harry more than I liked Blomkvist. I liked this book a lot. My only regret is that (like Larsson) it seems that Nesbo's women don't get a good run in this Scandavian crime genre. Maybe that will change in Book 4. For now, I have had to deliberately stop myself from reading Book 4.
Again, Sean Barrett is very good; proving he can do German accents, too.
Read it at your peril, because you may be compelled to read the next installment, too!

This title came to me by indirect recommendation. Someone I know, who knows that I'd enjoyed the Millennium Trilogy, suggested I read "The Lepoard". I went to download it only to discover it is Book 8 in the Harry Hole (pronounced Who-Lehr) Series. So I went looking for Book 1. And here it is.
Then, to top things off, it turns out to be set in Sydney, Australia! Go figure? Surreal. Immediate download required.
It starts well, with plenty of detail written in an engaging way. It is not Larsson, so don't come at it with that expectation. However, the research is impressive. Nesbo (pronounced Nes-Bore, or close to that) writes of the indigenous issues that remain a blight on the social and justice systems of my country. He wrote of the Mabo Case that dispelled the legal fiction of terra nullius (that there were no settled people here when the Brit's arrived). These are issues that many Australians don't understand enough. However, like many eastern Europeans, this Scandinavian understands and appreciates the indigenous population of this country better than most Australians. He certainly understands it sufficiently well to write about it with empathy, authority and accuracy. I was impressed by this alone, and I remain impressed.
Then the plot explodes. A little murder and a bit of drugs in the sexually ambiguous 'Cross becomes a full scale hunt for a serial killer. I could say (disingenuously) that I picked it early, but the truth is that I knew (from the blurb) that Harry was looking for a serial killer and I was looking for him or her, too. I thought about the eventual culprit, but I dismissed it (because I was cleverly distracted by the narrative). When the perp' is announced, I wasn't surprised, but that didn't diminish the enjoyment of the book. It just made me want to read the next one! (By the way, the next one, The Cockroaches, has yet to be translated into English and is not available in audio at the time of writing).
Sean Barrett's narrative and characterisation are very good. He gets the Oz accent right, fortunately (because nothing annoys me more in audio than a parody of an Australian accent). I am not sure about the Norse accent, but I get the impression that he has opted for substantially his own tone for Harry (which is sensible, I think). I thought he and Jo (pronounced "You" according to his webpage) Nesbo captured Harry's alcoholism very well. The back story for this was well developed, too.
Overall, I think it is a well above average crime thriller. Larsson, it's not, but it is engaging enough for me to change plans from the book I intended to listen to next and say, "On to Book 3, then!"

The last Stephenson I listened to was disappointing, but this was not. A relatively early novel, it shows all the promise that the author has since delivered in titles such as the Baroque Cycle and Cryptomnicon. True it is co-written with Stephenson's uncle (a historian and teacher of history, albeit under a pseudonym), but the detail and the thought that is apparent in the narrative and the plot is pure Stephenson, as we now know him.
The plot is complex and clever. Having just returned from India, I found the Institute's trials particularly ominous, conscious as I am of how easily this could occur (if it has not already). Similarly the main plot line - how easily might this occur? Having just read Chris Mooney's, "Republican Brain", the GOP - Democratic nuance was entertaining, too.
Most of all I loved the characterisation. With a book this long there is no excuse for bad character development and you will not find this one wanting. William A Cozzano is a terrific character (he appeared in my mind's eye as a benevolent incarnation of the Commodore from Boardwalk Empire), as is Ffloyd Wayne Vishniak. Despite his status (as a Jedi of the Dark Force), I like Cy Ogle, too.
As to the performance, Oliver Wyman is an inspired choice. Besides the incidental double meaning his name brings to a well know management consulting house (not without significance in the context of Ogle's operations), his voices were spot on; entertaining, comic or sinister, as the need dictated.
I thoroughly enjoyed the returned to this genre. If you are a Stephenson fan, I think you will too. If you haven't read him, this is a good place to start.

I confess that I selected this book because I thought it was more about genetics than it is. In truth, it barely touches upon the topic, and then principally from a group selection perspective which the author correctly acknowledges is out of vogue. Having said that, I was moderately interested in the content.
It is far from revolutionary. Different people are differently disposed to think in different ways. This means that each of us has our own in-built bias. That bias makes us prefer certain things over others. It predisposes us to accept certain arguments and it might enable us to accept as true that which is objectively false. None of this is new. Applying it to political psychology might be new, but it is hardly surprising.
Some of the studies are interesting, but without the detail of the testing it is hard to gauge their objective application beyond the test circumstance. And I say all of this as a self confessed "small l, liberal". Does this make me a contrarian or a paradigm liberal? I don't know. I suspect that the psychology of pigeon-holing people doesn't help make that judgment any easier; merely easier for the examiner to analyse.
I stopped worrying about the psychology of what I do a long time ago. Maybe that makes me a conservative. I work in the law. Perhaps that makes me authoritarian. I think I am a lot of many things and made up of many personality traits. That's what makes me human.
I think there is a worthwhile message in this book. Unfortunately, despite a concerted attempt to be balanced, the title is a real set-back. It looks like a device to sell books, and it is not the message of the book. The language is unnecessarily pejorative. The book is better than that and it would have benefited from omitting the rhetoric. This is most correct of the conclusion which even the author recognises as "kum ba yah".
Of course, I am not living in the USA. Politics in Australia is marked by a sameness (nearly everyone, on both sides of the political divide, is a moderate by US standards). There are the truth deniers, but generally we shake our heads and ignore them so they can follow their own truth. We have a Christian Right, but it does not come close to the US, and we have no equivalent to the Tea Party. All of this allows me to be immediately more complacent even though I know that in 15 years we will have what the US has now. I lament that happening, but I remain a true liberal to the extent that I continue to believe that good argument usually wins. Good argument does not equal truth. Maybe you have to be a lawyer to accept this conundrum. I don't know the answers, but I don't think reading this will hurt your chance at understanding. Just suspend your judgment, bite your annoyance down from time to time and it is a worthwhile listen. No complaints about the performance.

John Donne, amongst others, wrote that comparisons are odious. My experience of Scott Turow's recollections of his first year at Harvard Law School suggests that this is not always true.
I went to Law School in Australia in the early 80's. My first two years (here we once split the first year of law over two years in combination with part of a sympathetic second degree, in my case Commerce) bore very little resemblance to his. In some ways heading his memoir I felt like I'd been deprived the trial by ordeal that he endured. Like all competitive people I suspect, I am not sure whether I am glad or disappointed by this. Having said that, some of the themes he described were common; the bright eyed wonder when I actually enjoyed it, the searching for relevance and the diametric pull between the lure of the dollar and the demands of a system intended to promote a just result. Overall I found his insight rivetingly interesting and I paused to wonder at his maturity at 26 to write an account which is as profound as I regard it to be.
Holter Graham's performance was good too. He delivered it convincingly and consistently with the young Turow's emotions laid bare on the page. In a work of this sort I wanted him to be the vehicle for the words, which is what he was. He could have lost the listener if it became about him, but he did not allow this to occur.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to note the lengthy postscript that Turow adds at the end of the audio. It added appreciably to my enjoyment of the original text. The audio interview was so-so, but Turow's own observations on being a lawyer rang a strong and resonant chord with me. I personally endorse what he says about the role of the practice of the law and its continuing disconnect with the way young lawyers are taught.

My time at law school was punctuated most Sunday nights by another installment in the life of this less than glamorous, ever so cynical and brilliant Old Bailey "hack". I recall him being disparaged by many of my lecturers, many of whom had never steeped foot in a Courtroom save for the day they were Admitted. I laughed then as I laughed these last two days listening to the lovable old rogue weave his magic over juries and judges alike. Now a full quarter century later I can only marvel at the accuracy of the atmosphere Mortimer captures between the covers of these wonderfully entertaining books. I should not be suprised given Mortimer's pedigree (he was a Queer Customer after all, and it wasn't one gifted from the bottom of a Corn flakes packet). This was a perfect antidote for being banged up sick for two weeks. It filled the emptiness of being out of a Courtroom where I have spent half my life. I enjoyed it all over again, as I am sure that any person who has grown up in the common law system will, too. If you're in the US, then some of the niceties might strike you as odd. I confess that some of them strike me as odd, and I have practiced in a British-like system for nearly my whole life. Persevere with it, please. It is worth the effort.
Robert Hardy is an accomplished actor. He brought to the re-telling all that can be expected. There were occasions when I thought he was Hilda (SWMBO)! Of course he cannot truly be Rumpole because there was but one of him (Leo McKern), but he is a very suitable Junior indeed. It's hard to recall when a book made me smile and laugh out loud on such a regular basis. I recommend it to all, but particularly if you have a familiarity with the law (either side of it).

I found this novel by searching under the "legal thriller" menu in the Audible Shop. Along with the Grishams, Patersons and others this lovely re-imagination of the life of the great orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, was thrown up.
The plot follows the story as told by Tiro, Cicero's secretary, the reputed creator of shorthand notation. It traces the years from Cicero's famous prosecution of Verres, the murderous and corrupt Governor of Sicily (then a vassal of Rome), to his popular defence of the former Governor of Further Gaul on similar charges to Verres (in the true traditions of the Bar and to prove that he was as patriotic as the next Roman). It concludes with his electoral race to the Consulate. All of this is punctuated by the now familiar trappings of power; the small deceits, the large manoeuvrings and the selling of principles to win the political race for Imperium, or political power. Firmly fixed in the language of the 20th and 21st Centuries, this entertaining story casts a more than interesting light on the birth place of modern politics amongst the Forum, upon the Rostra and amidst the Curia (Senate). It suggests that the old adage that there is nothing new in politics is correct.
One example will suffice to illustrate the adage. The device is to arrest power by the device of introducing "necessary" legislation. In Rome, at the time in question, the "stateless" terrorists were pirates. They owed allegiance to no single state, but they were determined to hold Rome and Romans to ransom. To combat them the titular military commander, Pompey the Great, proposed, by a conduit, to introduce the lex Gabinia. This law would give the "Commissioner" (intended to be and in fact confirmed to be Pompey) un-reviewable power to combat terrorism. It removed from a citizen the protection of the Courts (a right asserted by the call, "I am a Roman citizen". Ironically, it was Cicero, who made the right famous in his well known speech at the close of the Verres prosecution, who contrived to make the lex Gabina law to curry favour with Pompey). The parallels with the passing of the Patriot Act (and like legislation in other Western countries) is astounding. It remind me that Cicero was right to observe that a man who does not know his history is as a child who must repeat the mistakes of history.
As a lawyer, I found the text entertaining. I had my Plutarch and Speeches out along with my maps of old Rome. I say this because I'm not sure the text will have the same attraction to a non-lawyer. However, history buffs will appreciate the work that his gone into garnering together this factitious account.
As for Bill Wallis, I thought his performance to be exemplary. He reminded me of the first narrator I listed to on Audible, Charlie Simpson, who read Rosemary Sutcliff's "Eagle of the Ninth". I loved that too. Both are well paced and I thought the adoption of English accents (Cockney, Westland, etc.) was an appropriate metaphor for their Roman equivalents. That said however, an American audience might prefer an American metaphor.
Overall, I think this is a 3.5. I enjoyed it and will certainly listen to the sequel, "Lustrum".

I am a fan of Ian McEwan's works, but you wouldn't know that from the title to this review. I loved Amsterdam and Atonement, of course. However, I regret to write that title is unfortunately accurate.
I have been resisting the steadily increasing number of my friends who also liked Atonement, but who are now complaining about the quality of recent works (Saturday and Solar, for example). To them, I have staunchly defended McEwan's wit, intelligence and style. Alas, I can't manage that defence for Sweet Tooth.
Having said that, this is not a "bad" book; it's just not up to McEwan standard. The language is still good and his trademark character introspection is still there. However, the story is just plain bland. I disagree with those reviews that thought the "twist" was surprising. McEwan tried to give it away in the second Chapter and, by mid way through the book when he extemporises the evil of an unscrupulous ending, it is plain that is not what was going to happen here. By Chapter 19 (of 22) the "twist" was so obvious I could barely be bothered to listen to the last two Chapters. For all that, I won't give the ending away, except to say that the publishers' blurb is all you need to know about the plot. Those who care to listen can judge for themselves.
As for the lovely Juliet Stevenson, she gives a wasted, but accomplished performance, as one would expect. The truth is that I was reluctant to pick up this book because of the last few from McEwan, but the narrator's credentials convinced me otherwise. She at least, was not a disappointment.
A fair review would give this 2.5 stars overall, but because I can't do that, I've rounded it up, for old times sake.

I apologise if you've read my previous review of the William Hope production, but what follows is essentially the same down to the Performance. Skip to there is you've read the other review.

The Book
What can I say? It is one of the best known plots of modern times. It is regarded as a modern American classic, alongside "Grapes of Wrath", Huck Finn's Adventures and Scout's wondering at her father's integrity. But for me, it has always been missing something. I know it's about soulless people for whom, what it looks like is more important than what it is. So of course it is missing something. That's the point! But still, there's something I can't put my finger on that separates this from the true "Greats".
I just read Melinda's review (which I always read with interest). She gets it, but I don't. For me Fitzgerald has so successfully dismissed these glitzy cut-out figures, that I have no empathy for any of them, not even Dan. That leaves me this: awed by the language, but not so hot about the story. And, isn't it all about the story? Anyway, who am I to criticise the book. It can't have been too bad because I listened to two versions of it over a day!
Overall, I think my prejudice is not a good guide. I love the language, but I could easily never read this again. I wouldn't say the same for Wrath, Mockingbird or Finn, and certainly I will read Of Mice and Men again, hopefully many times.

The Performance
I listened to this version of the tale second. I started with the William Hope version, then saw the Jake Gyllenhaal one advertised. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying Hope's performance, because I listened to both from "cover to cover". However, maybe because I was looking for something more, I thought I would listen to this production, too, It had the redeeming feature of being an hour shorter, but I can't work out why that is. Certainly Gyllenhaal didn't read too quickly. To the contrary, I found his easy pace much more endearing that Hope's dramatisation, although I found Hope's characterisation better, overall. Also, I was driven to the hard copy with Gyllenhaal's telling because he punctuated it where he wanted to, not where the text does. On some occasions this changed the meaning of the language. I liked both versions and I can recommend both, but if forced to choose, I would opt for the more accurate reading (ie, Hope's) because I thing the language, including the punctuation, is the best of this book.

The Book
What can I say? It is one of the best known plots of modern times. It is regarded as a modern American classic, alongside "Grapes of Wrath", Huck Finn's Adventures and Scout's wondering at her father's integrity. But for me, it has always been missing something. I know it's about soulless people for whom, what it looks like is more important than what it is. So of course it is missing something. That's the point! But still, there's something I can't put my finger on that separates this from the true "Greats".
I just read Melinda's review (which I always read with interest). She gets it, but I don't. For me Fitzgerald has so successfully dismissed these glitzy cut-out figures, that I have no empathy for any of them, not even Dan. That leaves me this: awed by the language, but not so hot about the story. And, isn't it all about the story? Anyway, who am I to criticise the book. It can't have been too bad because I listened to two versions of it over a day!
Overall, I think my prejudice is not a good guide. I love the language, but I could easily never read this again. I wouldn't say the same for Wrath, Mockingbird or Finn, and certainly I will read Of Mice and Men again, hopefully many times.

The Performance
As mentioned, I listened to two versions of this tale. I started with this one, then saw the Jake Gyllenhaal one advertised. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying William Hope's performance, because I listened to both from "cover to cover". However, I found it a bit over dramatic, although that sense of avarice has its place within this book. Also, I wanted to understand why this is an hour longer than the Gyllenhaal version. I never got to the bottom of that. I liked his (Hope's) characterisation (especially of Daisy and Gatsby) more than the other version, but I didn't like the "sing-song" aspect of some of the narrative. Still the performance was good and didn't detract from the book, and it's all about the book.