Soul-Devouring Worry
¤ Trouble over the Pacific.

Life's Too Short For:
¤ Passing up easy jokes.

Curse of the Day:
¤ May you fail to redeem yourself.

Anyway, it was one of the easier ones to write, since it's almost like an article, just talking about what used to be in Diablo, and how it's changed/different in Diablo II.  Plus I asked for reader suggestions a couple of columns back, and got about 50 mails on it.  While I didn't come close to quoting anyone or using any remarks anyone sent in, it was a handy memory prompt, and lots of stuff I would surely have failed to think of was right at my finger tips.

The next column will be just the same, since while more people mailed in "bad" things about D2 vs. D1, there were quite a few "good" points mailed as well; plenty for a column about it in two weeks, anyway. And so what if there aren't so many column ideas? It wouldn't hurt me to have a top 10 that's actually a top 10, rather than a top 12 with 9 honorable mentions. *cough*

One thing I was going to write about (here, today) but found a lack of inspiration once I began is this.  Am I "Anti-American?"

I was talking to a friend tonight about some political stuff, mostly the Saddam Hussein/Dan Rather interview, and the concept of a Dubya vs. Saddam debate (which I lampooned yesterday in this very location) and she remarked that I sounded Anti-American.

The friend isn't into politics very much and I don't believe she reads any political news or blogs or follows the issues that closely (as I do), but I think her opinion is probably more valid than mine, in terms of judging where the "average American" would view things or stand on an issue.

What I found interesting about her comment wasn't whether I am or not, but what she means by "Anti-American".  I didn't think to ask her before she got offline, but it's probably more fun just for me to just speculate anyway.  It usually is, anyhow.

I think usually it's an almost meaningless semi insult. Or a way to dismiss the views or opinions of someone you disagree with.  Similar to the "Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel" quote/theory.  That wasn't what my friend was using it as though.  I believe she was seeing my general dismissal and scorn for the lies that the Bush Administration propagates as being "anti-American".  Which is one way to look at it, but at the risk of sounding patriotic, I think this nation is bigger than the small-minded men who are currently/temporarily in power.  And that there's nothing un-patriotic or anti-American about opposing or disliking the current (or past, or future) administration's foreign policy actions.

Which isn't to refute what she told me, since I don't feel it needs refuting. I just thought it was an interesting topic to ponder, though the length of my pondering ran well short of doing it as an actual essay topic.

At least not today.

And almost completely off topic, or at least 6 paragraphs late, here's an amusing cartoon about the proposed (by Saddam) Dubya vs. Saddam debate.  It's by Tom Toles, who I find pretty damn roxor.  Though this is far from his best work.

Some news.

¤ Yesterday I posted about a new Space Shuttle article, and today there is another one.  This one is pretty eerie, as light is being shed on internal debate about the potential damage to the left wing, and there were people worried about pretty much exactly what happened.  They debated and decided it wasn't a likely enough issue to cancel the return flight.  A bad call, as it turned out.

Jeffrey V. Kling, a flight controller at Johnson Space Center's mission control, foresaw what might happen to Columbia during its fiery descent: that superheated air could penetrate the wheel compartment and cause the wing to fail.

Kling wrote just 23 hours before the disaster that his engineering team's recommendation in such an event "is going to be to set up for a bailout (assuming the wing doesn't burn off before we can get the crew out)." The following day, Kling was among the first in mission control to report a sudden, unexplained loss of data from the shuttle's sensors in the left wing.

It's part of their jobs to speculate on every possible "what if" worst case scenario, and I'm sure they've had past flights where they worried about something or other causing a catastrophic failure, and were always wrong.  Bitch of a time to be right.

The report linked underage drinking to adult abuse, stating that those who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol than those who do not drink before reaching the legal age of 21. It said 78 percent of high school students have tried alcohol.

Not surprisingly, the alcohol industry is eager to take exception to their figures, meth\odology, and even the definition of what a drunk alcoholic heavy drinker really is. 

In an interview with Reuters Health, Lisa Hawkins of the Distilled Spirits Council said that the study authors could have based their estimates of underage drinking on a more simple set of data, "but they didn't like the fact that that number was too low."

"We agree that underage drinking is a problem," Hawkins continued. "But inflating those figures is not going to make that problem better. In fact, it's going to make it worse," she added, by giving teens the idea that their peers are drinking more than they really are.

In this way, overestimates of teen drinking can become a bizarre form of peer pressure, Hawkins noted.

It's kind of a funny game that the liquor companies play.  Everyone knows that they are desperate to get kids and teens interested in drinking, and could care less if underaged people are using their product.  All the better, get them hooked early and you've got a customer for life.  Same with tobacco.

But they can't come out and say that, and they have to engage in this perpetual song and dance about how horrible underaged drinking is, and how they don't want anyone to ever even think about taking a sip of beer until the day they turn 21... at which time they should begin consuming a case a week, like clockwork, until they day that they die of liver failure, assuming the DWI into a school bus doesn't get them first.

This strange state of affairs yields the spectacle of a spokeswoman from the Distilled Spirits Council talking about a study that concludes underaged drinking is a horrible problem, far worse than anyone has previously acknowledged, a study that the DSC would very much like to vanish from the face of the earth, as if the worst thing about the study is that it might actually encourage underaged drinking, via reverse peer pressure.  Yes, it's a bit surreal.

¤ An article that resonated immediately with me. About how much of a consensus was reached whether someone is hot or not, depending on who is judging.

During the study, the Sam Houston State University researchers--based in Huntsville, Texas--split 112 male and 112 female students into groups of eight, divided equally by gender. All of the group members were strangers when the study began.

Reporting in the March issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Marcus and Miller found that, in general, all group members agreed about how attractive each other was, regardless of gender.

But certain gender differences did emerge, the authors note. The most agreement among reviewers appeared when men rated the attractiveness of women, and the least when men rated the attractiveness of the other men in their group.

In contrast, women generally agreed with each other about the attractiveness of both male and female group members.

And while people generally estimated well--or overestimated--how attractive their group members would find them, women were especially good at predicting how men would rate their appearance.

Men were only "modestly" accurate in predicting how women would rate them, and not good at predicting appraisals by other men, the authors note.

This is my usual refrain.  I have no idea how hot or not women will find me, or other men, and I have no ability to judge other men, unless they are fashion models, or winos.  Guys in between, like 3's to 7's, I really can't tell. And men tend to vastly overrate most of the time, at least on certain voting sites.

What I wonder is were the students shown their own ratings, and did they discuss them?  That could impart some damn humility in a hurry, having 14 complete strangers of the opposite sex all agree that you are a 4.  I also wonder if this study factors in homosexuals?  Oh sorry, I didn't realize that it was held in Texas, where there are no homosexuals.

As I've taken to doing when writing a book review, I've just checked out the reader reviews on Amazon.com.  Overall there are 159 for this book, and the average is 3.5/5 stars.  The reviews seem to be a pretty mixed bag, with a few 5 star raves, and a lot of 2.5 or 3 star "ehhh's".  I'm one of the later types, though I, of course, have more to say about it than most normal reviewers.  Which is true of pretty much everything, as anyone who reads this site regularly probably realizes by now.

Go check some of the reader reviews there if you like.  I read about eight and that was sufficient for my needs. Just for the sake of comparison, let's check a classic King work like um, It.  Or The Stand.  Both of them have 4.5/5 ratings, so I think we can trust the fan consensus somewhat.

Okay, so Buick 8 (as I'll be calling it for the duration of this review, when I can be arsed to call it something other than "the book") is about a weird, spooky, demon-possessed, alternate-dimension, spaceship, miracle, etc. That looks like an old Buick.  It's held in the impound garage of a state police barracks for about 30 years.  The novel is largely a flashback, narrated in a sort of tag team by half a dozen of the main characters, who are all cops working at the station.

The car isn't actually all of the things I said in the first sentence of the last paragraph, but it's at least two or three of them.  It is never entirely explained, which I think was a good move on King's part.  Explaining the magical mystical contraption almost always ruins things, since it gets too scientific.  Readers can easily suspend their disbelief for pseudo-science or magic or outright supernatural causes.  But when you start trying to mix them, describing wonky science and mechanical possession and working in vengeful spirits, it just gets ridiculous.  Better to leave things unexplained.  Weirdness and supernaturalness just are.  Explain the consequences, don't waste time trying to explain the weird thing itself.

King is smart in this novel, and does just this.  The car (which isn't really a car) just is.  There is no explanation of any type for how it appeared or where it came from or how it works or how it does the things it does.  There are even great inconsistencies in how things work, but you probably won't notice them, and even if you do, you'll just overlook it, since nothing else is being explained, so why worry about one more bit of confusion. It's very Lovecraftian for much of it, with weird and inexplicable things occurring, and creatures from another dimension (or somewhere) showing up, and no way for mortal men to explain it.

He also never makes any effort to tie up all the loose ends and summarize things either.  There is a conclusion, but no real climax. No money shot/event that is built up for for 300 pages, and then all the more satisfying for the long foreplay. This is not an especially good thing, but at least he's consistent.

The immediate parallel is to Christine, which also had a weird and evil car, but this novel has nothing whatsoever to do with Christine.  It's like comparing Pac Man to The Matrix since they both involve computers. And actually that's a much tighter comparison than Buick 8 to Christine.

Buick 8 is most like a Lovecraft story, where men are confronted with an inscrutable object that's demonstrating properties they can't possibly begin to understand, and the inexplicable creatures that appear to be associated with it. Not that the tone is anything like the gothic creepiness that is Lovecraft, but it's similar in plot, at least early on, when all is an unexplained mystery.  Later on it becomes an explained mystery, and is less interesting, and the last 50 pages or so are pretty boring/slow, and serve as a long resolution, of sorts.

Okay, that half-assed plot summary aside, I'll do some analysis of what I find most interesting, and that's how it works as a novel.

I wasn't very impressed, to be blunt.

Buick 8 is basically a very long short story, one that he dressed up with just enough characters and side stories and dragged out flashbacks to get it over the 300 page mark.  Much like his other recent novels (Bag of Bones and Dreamcatcher are the two I've read) the writing is sound and it's a relatively enjoyable tale, but it's very sparse on imagination or inventiveness.  And basically nothing happens.  The scale is small, I guess is a way to look at my complaint. Not much time passes in the course of the book, (though there may be flashbacks) the characters are essentially static, and it's a relatively small cast.  Technically a "novel" but not really, at least not a quality one. Nothing to hold a candle to the inventiveness and depth to his best work, such as It or The Stand, or even shorter stuff like Christine or Salem's Lot or Pet Semetery.

I am envious of King's ability to take the smallest of plots and fluff them up with characters and dialogue and minor events, and somehow turn what could have been an 80 or 90 page short story into a 350 page novel.  Thus increasing its marketability by about 5000%.

There is some nice writing though. One thing I noted very early on, on page 14, (and never thought was surpassed in the rest of the novel):

"At least you're honest," he said.

But was I? Or was I begging the goddam question? I didn't feel particularly honest right then; I felt like a man who can't swim looking at a boy who is floundering in deep water.  And once again Shed B caught my eye.  Is it cold in here? this boy's father has asked, back in the one-upon-a-time, back in the day.  Is it cold in here, or is it just me?

No, it hadn't been just him. 

Probably not very useful to you out of context like this, but it's early on when they're investigating the Buick, which emits cold when it's in a weird mood.  I liked that last line, "No, it hadn't been just him."

So why isn't it a better book? It's not just because Buick 8 isn't as interesting or exciting (though it's not) but it's the fact that there's just not very much too it.  You will not find your mind expanding or being blown at any point, and there is no big exciting conclusion.  There is basically one medium-sized action scene, and then a few other smaller ones, but since all the smaller ones are in flashbacks, and we know that all of the principles are alive 5 or 10 or 15 years later to tell the story, there's no suspense.  At least not for me, but I've long been a non-fan of flashbacks, for this very reason.  Where is the suspense if you know that the main character turns out alright?

The main writing technique in Buick 8 is to tell it entirely from the PoV of various characters.  The narrator voice alternates from chapter to chapter, though one male cop is the main character/narrator. It's not really a gimmick, it's just a more formalized roving 3rd person narration.  King usually goes for full out omniscient, which is the easiest way to write since you can just drop in any details you like at any time, leap into any minor character's head for a few paragraphs or pages to get the reader info that only that character knows, etc.  It's a very lazy and easy way to write.  Sticking to one narrator is the hardest, since then they only know and the reader only knows what they see, and the reader gets it as they see it, which opens the door to an unreliable narrator, which is a concept that usually confuses readers, and has to be written very carefully.

What King does in Buick 8 is to have the characters tell a story that most of them know, and he just alternates who is doing the telling, usually switching to the one who plays a pivotal role in the flashback to narrate that chapter. It's not a bad gimmick, but all the male characters have entirely interchangable voices, and you'll probably not bother to pay attention to who is talking now/next. I didn't, I'm never good at names in a novel, and I had no problem following along even not knowing who was talking all the time.  It doesn't matter.  There is one female character and her narration portions are very distinctive, but King goes way out of his way to make them that way.  She's always thinking about how foolish men are, in a good natured "women know best" sort of way, and gets to narrate the emotional and scary parts, since she's able to be in touch with her emotions.  All the other guys are much more neutral about everything, showing at most some anger or regret.  The woman gets all the tragic death scenes, and sorrow.  Which works pretty well, but it would have been nice if the guys were at all distinctive.  Or memorable.

Overall, I'd give it about a 3/5 rating, simply because the first 100 or 200 pages are very good.  Not great, not large in scope, but the unfolding mystery and continual revelations of the weirdness of the Buick is a good, engaging plot device. It's very reminiscent of a couple of Lovecraft stories, with utterly unexplainable phenomena, and men of science putting around, trying to figure out what they are dealing with, while not really appreciating the dangers they are facing.

The lack of a big climax is a weakness.  The lack of any overall explanation is also a weakness, though there is enough hinted at to make it interesting, if less than satisfying. There's also not much of a building towards any sort of climax, so there isn't that much to pull you along, other than being curious to see what happens next.  Nothing all that much does happen next, but the minor stuff is pretty interesting.

I don't know where I would rank it amongst all the King titles, but like most of his long time fans I think everything he did before about 1990 is better than anything he's done since.  It wasn't the worst thing I've read from him, but it wasn't much.  Maybe just behind Dreamcatcher but a little better than Bag of Bones, but way behind the stuff he did in his prime.  Worth a library read, not worth buying.

<-- Yesterday  --  Tomorrow -->
Archives Page