So what are you reading now (Part 4)?
- Thread starter A J
- Start date
- Status
Yesterday I finished Star Trek: Typhon Pact - Sieze the Fire and started on Eureka: Substitution Method.
The movie's a very loose adaptation of the novel. It leaves a lot out and changes a few things. But they both have their strengths.
The novel is being adapted as a comic book that claims to be printing every word of the original, and might be an enjoyable way to experience it for the first time.
I've found the DADOES? comic adaptation frustrating, because it really does print every word. Including the dialogue tags on word balloons.
A Christmas Carol
That does sound annoying. I've been buying them, but I'm waiting until I have them all to read them.
I finished the first New Frontier mini-novel. It was alright, but Calhoun's badass/maverick/mo-fo/rogue/loose cannon thing was laid on so thick I wondered if this is perhaps what novelizations of Steven Segal movies are like.
I'm halfway through Unworthy. The concept of Borg worshipping races is interesting, however
I'm halfway through Unworthy. The concept of Borg worshipping races is interesting, however
Seven turning schizophrenic and having a breakdown in Full Circle was somewhat compelling. Having her virtually back to normal after a (*yawn*) vision quest a few pages in is a huge letdown.
After you read The Time Machine, you might want to read The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter, which is a direct sequel, albeit dealing with much more modern and complex concepts of time.
Yes. That book is awesome.
Glad to hear it!
Ok, I'll add it to my wishlist.
I saw there was an authorized sequel to Dracula by Bram Stoker's grandson, is that any good?
I've been reading it in chunks myself, three or four issues in a single go.
Have you tried Chris Roberson's DADOES? prequel, Dust to Dust? I can't say that it's done anything mindblowing, but for what it is -- a buddy cop story in the DADOES universe -- it's been decent.
It's fun, although, oddly enough, it actually owes more to the various movie versions of Dracula (especially the Coppola version) than the original novel. Mina had a tragic love affair with the Count, etc.
In an afterword, the authors explain that this was quite deliberate, that they assumed the typical reader would be more familiar with the movies than the novel, so they wrote the book accordingly.
Fair enough, although it seems to defeat the point of making this the "official" sequel to Stoker's novel.
"Authorized" may be too strong a word, btw, since Stoker's relatives don't actually control the rights. And Stoker had no children; Dacre Stoker, the co-author of the book, is actually Bram's great-grand-nephew.
I'm reading New Frontier #2, and came across this:
After 40 years, there's a precedent for everything
.
...and I'm like, "Spock did that EXACT THING in STXI!"
After 40 years, there's a precedent for everything
.
I'm reminded of how Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two was written as a sequel to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey rather than to the book of same (in that the Monolith is at Jupiter as in the film rather than Saturn as in the book, etc.).
Although I don't see the logic in this case. If audiences are only familiar with the movies, why not try to remedy that? Why not make this Dracula book a direct sequel to the Stoker novel in order to encourage people to seek out the novel?
Especially for a book whose big selling point is that the author is distantly related to Bram Stoker!
I've been buying those and waiting for the series to end before reading them, too. I just don't have the memory to keep up with comics from month to month any more, so I read them in bunches.
Oh, ok. Thanks for the info.
And I did start Dracula last night, although I haven't made it to the actually novel yet, I'm reading the introduction first. This is the B&N classic edition with an intro by book critic Brooke Allen.
I saw you mention the Francis Ford Coppola Dracula in your post, I love that movie!
- Status