Posts

Posted on

UN-Freaking-Believable

I recently read a fantasy novel by a 30-something kid who writes like a literate (for a seventh-grader) junior high school student. Irritating. He’s apparently a self-inflicted victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, from the evidence of the kinds of glaring errors he makes that would have been easily avoided had he done his homework.

*sigh*

Example: horses and horseback riding are featured throughout the book (and from what I have seen in preview material, the next book in the series as well, where the snippet I saw mentioned horses braying *shudder*). One would think that if horses and riding horses were significant elements of a novel, then the writer would at least casually pick up a copy of Horse and Rider or maybe even stroll on down to a stable to get a wee tad of realism to use. Oh, wait! Talk to a real person with experience with horses! Nah. Too hard.

Nope. Instead, Every. Single. Thing. Wrong. Completely stupid. Way to massacre any chance of suspension of disbelief, doofus.

Continue reading “UN-Freaking-Believable”

Posted on

Historically Clueless, Unable to Reason

This is how the writer of a PM article sums up the revelation of one Cold War contingency plan:

“The document is a frightening alternative history of what could have been, during one of the most tense eras in our nation’s history. Thankfully it didn’t come to this. There’s no telling to what extent the Eastern Bloc may have retaliated.” [emphasis added]

Moron. The plan as described would have virtually obliterated any possible response before it could be initiated. That was the point: to develop a plan for an overwhelming response to an attack.

MAD was not insane. It relied on a basic human need for self-preservation. As such, it may have stretched dependence on rationality, but its very credibility was integral to winning the Cold War. . . which the US did, before throwing the fruits of victory to the winds.

Here’s the article.

Posted on

Killing Little Grey Cells

OK, so I started reading a novel. The premise: a “rogue” archeologist makes an amazing discovery. Yeh, Dan Brown-ish, but maybe it’ll get better. Problem #1: this “brilliant” archeologist is a moron. I find myself almost immediately wanting to take her by the scruff of her neck and shake some sense into her. Dislike much? Yeh, much.

So, enter another character: the archeologist’s estranged husband who is supposedly some sort of mountain climber of note. Yeh, problem #2: he’s a dislikable moron, too. Within about a page and a half of this character’s entrance, I wanted the writer to kill him off–quickly! Dislike much? Yeh, much.

Asked myself if I were willing to put up with the crap I’d have to in order to read a book built around two characters who’d be better written out of the story so it could be transformed into a much more pleasing story about Jack the Ripper’s rebirth or some such. Answer: nah. These are “people” whose story I do not want to know. Buh-bye!

What little I read was better than a similar sample of Dan Brown dreck, but that’s damning with no praise at all. At least it was free, even if I may never recover from the brain cells it killed.

Posted on

Grammar Matters

Seen various places:

A well tailored suit, being necessary to the appearance of a sharply dressed gentleman, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.

So, according to the “understandings” applied to the Second Amendment by (wilfully) illiterate leftards, only “sharply dressed gentlemen” have a right to “keep and wear clothes”? That would certainly chap a few misandrists’ gizzards. . . (not to mention leading to some interesting sunburns and other such things. . . )