One of the most compelling books I have ever read. John Keel investigates the UFO phenomenon from an objective standpoint and discovers that the truth is far more bizarre than the bogus stories the standard UFOlogists can dream up.
The title is somewhat misleading as the book is not about mothman, though he is mentioned. It is also true that the book is nothing like the cheap garbage movie that bears the same name. The producers of that movie merely bought the name so the could produce some trash and make a quick buck.
I would also like to address those reviewers that feel the book is a bunch of disconnected stories. You obviously missed the point entirely and Mr. Keel explains his point in detail in the first few chapters. The point is the common connection between the stories. The point is that all sorts of other weird things happen in the same places and at the same times that UFO sightings are recorded. All of these things must therefore be part of the same phenomenon.
If you have on open mind and the ability to read a story objectively without forming a "belief", prepare to be glued to your earphones for 9 hours.
Narrator's reading and Audio quality are very good.
Book is excellent, perhaps Stephen Kings greatest work.
My only complaints are knit picky. The book describes the game Roque as the predecessor of Croquet, but from what I have been able to deduce the opposite is true. Roque is an Americanized version of Crouqet, not the other way around.
I felt the hedge animal thing was a bit of a stretch and found my suspension of disbelief not able to quite make it that far.
Other than that, this book has everything you might want from a novel. I was unable to put it down and wasted the better part of two days.
Narrator and audio quality is fine.
Stories are not Stephen Kings best work. Boring, silly, and unimaginative at best.
Movie as producers and screen writers tend to destroy anything they touch and the original intent and artistic flare of a book are generally lost. Sometimes the story is completely departed from altogether. I do not find that to be true in this case. In fact, I found the movies were far more artistic and even, at times, much more descriptive than the book. Pachino, for example, can say more with just a look than Puzo can in an entire chapter of text.
The book reads like a stenographer's account of a trial. Puzo's descriptions of characters are thin and had I not seen the movies beforehand, I would have had a lot of trouble picturing the characters in my mind. Also, he seems to use the same adjectives over and over. Words like "curt", "cold" and "soar", are repeated ad nauseum. It would seem that Puzo's vocabulary is even simpler than my own. The only things described in detail are the sex scenes, these remind me of a cheap romance novel. Much like the paperbacks my grandmother used to read. I am no prude, but I found them to be somewhat crass and unnecessary.
The most striking difference between the movies and the book is the Kay Adams character. She is portrayed in the movie as a naive and annoying ninny. In the book, she comes off as a much more likeable character, intelligent, loving and loyal to Michael and his family. Her relationship with Michael in the book makes a great deal more sense.
There are several long chapters in the book solely devoted to the Johnny Fontane character. These chapters seem to be a complete tangent and irrelevant to the rest of the story. This portion was, quite wisely, removed from the movies.
Did Puzo even hire an editor for this book? It seems like any decent editor would have taken care of the shallow vocabulary and tangential story lines.
Report Inappropriate Content