I would, but I would qualifiy it with sttating that the author is making a political point of the narrative, and that, as a result, fast forwarding bits of the book might be advisable.
Also, the perspective is almost completely on the infantry. Tanks and aircraft are mentioned merely in passing as "Then the airforce napalmed the hills". This is IMHO because of the aforementioned political point which the author presses home ( to the point of sadonecrohippophilia), namely that the US by 1950 had grown weak, leftist and antimilitary and that as a result its soldiers were untrained and ill equipped.
All in all, it is not bad as a book on the flow of battle during the Korean war, but I would not recommend it as a first book on the subject.
The description of the Korean society and the legacy of the imperial japanes conquest and ockupation was the most interestiong as it laid the foundation for the politics of NK and RoK.
The least interesting was the lamentation of how the US had grown soft and leftist.
the book was kanid of bland and not so engaging. the descriptions of the battles did not make so much of an individual impression on me.
The marines having to stack their dead around the foxhole to use as barricades against snipers.
He did not intrude on the narrative. He did not attempt to use a range of different voices.
Yes, it was.
The book is a gripping narative of a small unit and the experience of being cut off from from friendly lines, and at the same time having to fight at a place and under conditions so very hostile as to be deadly in themselves.
High. It is in depth about a phase of the Guadalcanal campaign that has been overlooked, and it also includes enough personal details to be gripping.
The different eyewitnesses stories.
Freedom to use my hands. I do not listen to audiobooks for the experience, but for the convenience of "reading" while doing repetitive tasks like piling firewood.
The vulnerability of battleships if the attacker can close the range.
the narrator is very slow. I recommend 125-150% reading speed.
This book focuses on how battle-events unfolded, and what consquences they had for tactics and doctrine. Something that is extremely rare even in the military history field.
I'm going to go with Napalm. Even though HE artillery fire had more overall impact on the story, Every time napalm was introduced to a scene, it was a blast.
Good pronounciation. Did a decent job at pronouncing non-english words.
Put your players to 1.25xspeed. The narrator reads with excruciating slowness.
I actually could not finish the series because every twenty minutes or so the narrator would decide to slobber-lisp in a faux scottish accent or badly imitate a shrieking crone voice from Macbeth. Eventually I got so annoyed I could no longer concentrate on the story. Read the book instead.
The story is good and solid. the intrigues are a little less heavy and the story feels more like a dr zjivago than a machiavelli.
Anyone who does not belive he can shift between thirty voices and eighteen accents when he only has two of each.
I will never again buy a book narrated by Roy Dotrice.
Gripping, intricate, engaging.
Conn Iggulden's A crown of grass. the political intrigue where great houses clash over a trone and control of the vast nation, but inside the houses conflict and politics are as deadly as war. At the same time, the conflict is a vast background to the individual characters relations and development. The characters appear flawed, realistic, trying their best from their point of view. The plot is winding, the luck of war fickle and the balance between honor, decency and love is delicate indeed.
The narrator tries to use different voices for the different characters. The problem is that there are too many characters and the narrator is not very good at it.Often the characters that are temporary are relegated to a slobbering lisping speech that is downright annoying. It gets worse if the character is female as the narrator then tries to sound female. The result is more of a parody than an imitation.Imagine Martin Lawrence in drag as "Big momma" for the pitch, but then talk like this: Phlyouhrth Highngeshhs hithss to khihend! (Your highness is too kind.) I supose that Gollum talking in a falsetto would be an apt descrition.It is both annyoing and for me as a non-native english speaker difficult as I sometimes have to listen to a passage several times to hear what the narrator slobbers.
Five kings, one throne. Winter is coming.
Medieval low fantasy. The kingdom of Westeros is a land of rival houses ruled by a weak king. Murder, intrigue and brute force of arms are all interchangable for the noble who wants to succeed.
The different houses all have good and bad in them. It is not automatically an evil and a good side.
There are more than two sides, and the political intrigue has a very real feel to it. If the future weatlh or even survival of your family depends on who comes out on top, politics become VERY important long before actual battles.
He tries to differentiate the personae by changing accents and voice. It is a noble effort But after a while it gets very tiring. Especially the slobbering lisping voices of e. g. the eunuch Varius, and the female voices which he as a man cannot do and which consequently sounds like a mockery rather than a mimicry.
As a non-native english speaker I would much rather that he did not do this as I find it not only annoying but difficult to understand what he is saying when he does.
When he is reading in a normal voice his pronounciation is wonderful and very pleasing to listen to.
We're talking a very long sitting then.
Report Inappropriate Content