The author did a great job with research and is a good storyteller. It's well-read and the narrator doesn't get in the way of the story like some narrators can. Good voice.
Setting fire to waste with JP8 rather than diesel.
The narrator. This book isn't really about consistent characters throughout the book.
This is a depressing book because of the content. War sucks for anyone unfortunate enough to get caught up in one.
This is not an easy listen - these are real people suffering from real consequences of war.
No - I have no issues with the performance.
Good lord. Re-write the book.
Few books on Israel plot an objective path through the highly emotional and controversial topic and this one is no better.
It's hard to say who would or even could enjoy it more. This subject was right up my alley but was incredibly dry. So dry that even a reading by McCaddon couldn't save it.
It was not remotely as engaging as Guns of August
Hard to say I would have cut anything so much as rearranged it or expanded them.
I might give this another try. Maybe the issue is that the book doesn't lend itself to an audio version and the printed work is much easier to follow. The storytelling was lacking for an audible presentation.
I actually would consider it better. I think this is the first book for which I think it's true, and not because the print version is bad or other audio books aren't excellent. In this case, it is Steven Weber's performance which is so far superior to many others I've heard.
Hard to say. Virtually the whole story is just awful. I guess the best thing about the story is the characters.
This question always tempts one to say something that might be a spoiler. So I'll eliminate some and just go with a good scene: the dam-building.
Probably Bev, mostly because she needs the time off.
Weber's performance was really quite spectacular. He had distinct voices for every character, even Ritchie's "voices" - even his inflections were agreeable. He was able to capture the emotion of every scene, whether intense or moderate or mild. I don't know whether Weber would be the right guy for every book, but he was perfect for this one.
It's likely, though only after I've listened to the many other books in the series.
It was well-constructed with a good balance between combat, intrigue, and personal interaction.
She has a wide range of voices for the characters.
When the exec threatens his "superior."
Johnson's pronunciation of "Manticoran" is a little odd - she says ManTIcoran when I expected MANticoran. And I think Honor's voice is a little higher-pitched than I envisioned (is enheard a word?) But otherwise, the book is quite good.
The author seems to have taken the most optimistic view of what was going on at the end of the war, and while it is not without interesting perspectives, it seems to me to be interpreting events through rose-colored glasses.
No, one book is unlikely to turn me off from any particular genre.
I don't believe I've listened to any other of his performances.
There was enough interesting trivia that yes, it was not wasted time.
It's not a bad book. It just takes a very positive view of events that could easily be disputed.
It was, but I think I'll have to spend more time listening to it again, as I frequently do with histories. It's hard to keep things straight, partially because it's hard to keep a timeline in one's head as the events go from disaster to disaster. What's a flash-back? What's in order? I'm not sure.
A better flow time-wise would be better. It's hard to keep all the place names straight and move from one event to another, unsure if they're directly connected, how they relate to each other... sometimes it's clear. Other times, not so much.
His French accent is great so any time there's an actual conversation, he adds flavor to it quite well.
It inspired me to read more about the French war in Vietnam.
Generally, this is an interesting subject and really shows how skilled, operationally, Giap was. He made mistakes, but the strategic plan was spot-on.
It was well researched.
A little depressing, given the inevitable end.
He was pretty good. I especially liked his Richard Nixon impersonation. His voices tend to be subtle, which helps keep it an objective reading and not an attempt at dramatization.
The plight of the civilians.
Karnow isn't objective, but neither is he biased one way or another. It's as if he thinks everyone involved, left, right, communist, democrat, republican... they all deserve excoriation. And he's probably right.
The one thing about the book that can be confusing is that he tends to follow a timeline of one aspect of the war far enough that when he goes back it's kind of hard to remember where you were anchored.
I'll probably listen to it again, though.
I may listen to it again simply because it's easy to miss things when listening to a book. But it's not an easy book to listen to because so many people die. And not well.
I don't think there were characters he really had to play. The few quotes were pretty much all the same.
"Dien Bien 2"
It's a pretty accessible history until the end, where it kind of bogs down and meanders a bit after it feels like it should have ended. But otherwise, interesting and well-researched.
Absolutely. This is not a reflection on either. Scott Brick is a find audiobook reader and I actually picked this up after hearing him in Dune. Philip K. Dick has a lot of stories that turned into excellent movies, so I doubt this is typical.
Well, that's quite a challenge. I suppose many of the same things the scriptwriters removed were things that generally slowed down the story. I don't know if Dick intended some kind of philosophical exploration of empathy and religion, but it didn't seem to work from my perspective.
I liked how Brick portrayed the bounty hunter at the other police department.
Yes, but barely. I usually re-listen to audiobooks many times, but this one I shan't revisit.
This just wasn't as good as the movie - which is a judgment I almost never make. If anything, it demonstrated how much vision and skill went into translating the story into the film and the expertise with which it was done.
If you had told me an author would be able to write about a truly alien intelligence, I'd have been skeptical. But Stanislaw Lem was able to capture the alien even better than Lovecraft. I was really impressed.
Lem also knows human thinking - he's able to capture how scientists would approach the alien intellect he created - and all the reasons it would have problems.
I have not heard other performances, but he does a good enough job that I will look at what else he's done.
There wasn't a particularly MOVING moment. I'd say the exposition that exists is unusually good.
Some of the early scifi authors are truly masters of the craft. Stanislaw Lem knew what he was doing.
Report Inappropriate Content