"His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and THE REAPERS ARE THE ANGELS..
“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."
Not sure what this title has to do with the rest of the book. ?
Other than an occasional nod to Christianity, this book is in no other way representative of Christ or Christians. Honor killing/revenge seem to be the underlying emphasis, while the primary thrust of the story seems to be only to survive in a messed up world without losing one's moral compass; The problem I have with that idea, is that the two main characters who illustrate this notion, have their own individual idea about morality. The dichotomy of Individual morals and Christian morals seems irreconcilable. If the author hadn't insisted on creating a connection to Christianity, and then departing from it, it might have carried more weight.
Performance was Tai Sammons solid and entertaining.
I expected a story something along the lines of: a scientist discovers an error in the numbers, and the comet will not actually collide with earth; scientist does; police officer investigates claims by other concerned party that scientist was killed as a cover-up; world continues to devolve into anarchy; novel wraps up with a cliff-hanger where the news is publicized by rebels and we wait to find out what happens in third and final novel.
What I expected was a follow-up novel that expanded upon the initial premise. What I found was a forced story that had little to do with the main Antagonist (the Comet), and a novel populated by u memorable characters.
Verdict: a poor follow-up
Hugh Howey packs a lot into this little short story.
If you don't mind paying for an hour and a half story, GET IT, it is a 'fun listen' with an interesting premise.
Reminded me of a Phillip K. Dick story... always something 'just a little different'.
"Why We Die" shows the makings of a great writer, but one that is not quite there yet.
This is an earlier Herron novel.
"Why We Die" has moments of brilliance, but is more heavy-handed (and even slightly depressing) than his later works. I have thoroughly enjoyed other books by Herron, but this one lacks the effortlessness and prose (and lightheartedness) of the Slough House series. If you are new to Mick Herron, I suggest trying "Slow Horses" instead.
Bentinck did a fair job narrating most voices, with the exception of the Antagonist: a surly bruiser with an unstable temperment. Bentinck was unable to evince "scary", and instead made him sound like he had a speech impediment.
Slightly depressing story. Ok characters. Solid writing.
The narrator was good, except perhaps some of the female characters. However, an English narrator with occasional Scotch accents felt all wrong for this Scandinavian thriller.
Reads like an old German fairytale set in an authentic Germanic village (replete with artisans and laborers), but includes modern amenities such as cell phones.
Narrator was great, I think he really made the words come alive.
There is something really enjoyable about Mick Heron's writing style. I'm not sure if it is the story, the slow build, the slightly off-beat characterization, or something else...but I seem to be pulled into the story eventually, every time.
I was somewhat disappointed when this. One came to an end. I suppose I knew it had to happen, but I was no less surprised when it did happen.
Perhaps a sequel? Hollywood can do it, why not you? Hehehe😚
Perhaps it is the difference in times and cultures, but this book moves at a snail's pace, and the plot remains unclear after several hours.
As an avid listener to espionage novels, and classic lit.,... this one is a dud.
*It doesn't help that the narrator sounds like Yoda when performing the main character.
World War II, occupied Paris.
A film director navigates through twisting allegiances and desirable damsels to locate a path to survival.
Not great. Not bad.
A cathedral in Mediaeval England was highly honored, and would bring great importance to any city that had one.
Ken Follett did an admirable job of creating a world that revolves around a group of monks who ambitiously embark on building a new cathedral. The story also focuses on a few skilled builders, several Bishops (both good and bad), and the inevitable Royal Families that control the lands, and of course...the peasants.
Follett was fair-handed in his depiction of both the "devout" and the completely "corrupt" and both character-types were believable. It was a novel as sprawling as the cathedral itself, but was also very well-done.
Narration by John Lee was superb.
This is the second book in a new detective series by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling.
The first book "Cuckoo's Calling" was an enjoyable departure from Rowling's typical writing. It focused on a hard-luck detective who begrudgingly takes a case, only to break it open and find an interesting twist at the end.
The second book "Silkworm" follows the same main characters as they track down clues from a gruesome murder.
Rowling does a great job at continuing the character development of the main characters, but many other characters felt like cut-outs with a name. I found many of them similar and unmemorable, especially as they all ran in the same circles and held similar careers.
This shortage of viable characters in the suspect pool, certainly made it difficult for Rowling to create believable Red Herrings, and left me slightly let-down at the reveal.
Report Inappropriate Content