Book Reviews

Introduction

I am writing up a set of book reviews in the hope that it will be useful to others who are interested in finding good books. I currently have no television (and hope to never have one), so I have been doing a lot of reading, both of good books and bad. This has made me think that it would be worth writing up an account of which books are good, and which are not.

To this end I have developed a rating of one to five stars:

Favorite	These books are my favorites in a given category. Obviously, I would highly recommend them.
$\star\star\star\star\star$	This is the highest (normal) rating. This is a book that I would strongly recommend that you read, even if you aren't sure that you like reading that category of books.
$\star\star\star\star$	I would strongly recommend reading these books if you enjoy reading that category of book (e.g. scifi), or if you like the author (for example, because you read a $\star\star\star\star\star$book by that author)
$\star\star\star$	I would recommend these books only if you have exhausted the $\star\star\star\star\star$and $\star\star\star\star$books, and still have extra time on your hands. Not that these aren't enjoyable books to read. They just aren't as good. A good example would probably be just about every Louis Lamour book. They all are entertaining, and are good if you want to read them, but (in my opinion) none of them are books that I would recommend to anyone (unless you just want an easy read). This is the lowest level of book that I myself would reread, and in fact I do reread $\star\star\star$books.
$\star\star$	These are books that I would not recommend that you read.
$\star$	These are books that I would recommend that you not read.

I should point out that the ratings are not absolute. I typically won't rate more than one book by an author as $\star\star\star\star\star$, since otherwise you wouldn't know which one to read first. In some cases I have been forced to compromise.

I am afraid that I don't always review bad books that I read. And sometimes I categorize them but don't bother to write anything up.

Favorites

The Idiot
by Dostoyevsky

The Idiot is an awsome book. There is no other book quite like it. Basically, this book introduces (and it does this at the very beginning, so I'm not spoiling anything) a character who is "the idiot," but he is an incredible character. So throughout the book the question is, "is he an idiot, or is he not?" It can be a bit depressing, but then all of Dostoyevsky's books are a bit depressing, so if you don't want to be sobered up a bit, don't read Dostoyevsky. Also, it can be a bit hard to read if you aren't used to reading Russion books, since everyone has so many names to keep track of. But that is common to all Russian novels. My mom recommends making a table on the inside cover of all the people and their various names. I've never done this, but I can see that it could be very helpful.

Dragonlance Legends
by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

Time of the Twins

War of the Twins

Test of the Twins

This is easily the best fantasy trilogy I have ever read. Well, actually not that easily. The Lord of the Rings trilogy competes with it. But I would definitely say that it is better than the Lord of the Rings. Unlike many other fantasy series' this one focuses largely on the development of the characters. It is hard to write a review to do it justice. It has fewer characters playing pivotal roles in it than Dragonlance Chronicles does, with the result being that they have greater depth. This is a sequel to Dragonlance Chronicles, and I would definitely recommend reading that series first.

Laches
by Plato

Laches is my easily my favorite Platonic dialog. It is definitely one of Plato's early dialogs. I like it because it is a thoroughly entertaining dialog. The banter back and forth between Socrates, Laches and Nicias is hilarious, yet all the while, the three of them are seriously trying to figure out what courage is. Laches is a character in whose shoes I love to place myself, as he bluntly says it as he sees it, and won't agree to any of the nonsense that (according to Laches) Nicias says, while Socrates is constantly trying to mediate between them, to keep the conversation on track, and only minimally abusive.

Five Stars

Les Misèrables
by Victor Hugo

This is a great book, well worth reading. Alas, the author put it best:

Although it has no direct bearing on the tale we have to tell, we must nevertheless give some account of...

He has an unfortunate tendancy to ramble on for chapter after chapter on some irrelevant subject. This makes parts of the book a bit of a chore to read. Definitely consider an abridged version, as there is plenty to abridge without harm.

But it is well worth reading through the boring bits, and it does pull you in (which makes the irrelevant bits all the more frustrating: you want to know what will happen next).

The Lord of the Rings
by J.R. Tolkien

The Fellowship of the Ring

The Two Towers

The Return of the King

The Lord of the Rings is a great trilogy. For quite a while it was my favorite book. It is in fact one story, so expect to read the whole thing. One of the greatest aspects of this story is its length. I read pretty fast, so most books provide a day's entertainment, or maybe two. And most trilogies don't take much longer. But the Lord of the Rings keeps me entertained for a long time. I got a bad grade on an English paper in the tenth grade when we were asked what our favorite book was, and why. I said the Lord of the Rings, because it was nice and long, and the teacher thought that length wasn't an aspect of greatness. Oh well. Anyhow, the characters are great, and this is just a great series. And it would be even if it weren't long.

In fact this book is good enough that I feel a bit weird only giving it five stars. It is truly a classic, and deserves it. Also, I should point out that while it is long, it doesn't have long irrelevant sections in it like War and Peace and Les Misèrables.

Crime and Punishment
by Dostoyevsky

This is a great book. Dostoyevsky is my favorite author, and this is my second favorite of his books. However, I would recommend that you read this before The Idiot, as it pulls you in more. One warning: all Dostoyevsky books make you depressed. I like this, and even if you don't think you will, just try this one book of his. It is well worth it.

Doctor Faustus
by Christopher Marlowe

This was a really good play. My sister recommended it to me, and in fact lent it to me, since she thought it was good. But even so, I was shocked at how good it was. I would have given it a favorite rating, except that I've read so few plays that it doesn't seem like my favorite play is a terribly meaningful concept. But it is really good. What's good about it is that it deals a lot with right and wrong and whether repentance is possible. It keeps its tension straight up to the end. Very good.

It is somewhat reminiscent of Dostoyevsky's works, and since he is my favorite author, you can probably see why I liked this so much. If you like Dostoyevsky, you'll almost for certain like this play. I'm not so sure it'll go the other way around, though.

Symposium
by Xenophon

Symposium is an awsome dialog. Just hilarious. I would say it is Xenophon's most entertaining work. Much easier to read than Plato's Symposium. I would especially recommend it if you have read Plato's Symposium, as it has allusions to that work, besides the fact that they both portray drinking parties attended by Socrates.

Tess of the D'Urbervilles
by Thomas Hardy

A thoroughly depressing book, so don't read it unless you're prepared to be depressed. It is, however, a very good book. Very thought provoking.

The Remains of the Day
by Kazuo Ishiguro

A thoroughly good book. It provided pleasant (and easy) reading, and yet it had an incredible amount of depth. I found myself continually asking myself how the narrator's ideas applied to me, while they are superficially only about being a good butler. I would recommend this book to anyone. Ok, maybe not anyone. But I would recommend it to anyone who can handle reading a book without any action in it. Does dignity come down to not removing one's clothes in public? If you want to know what I meant by that question, I'm afraid you'll have to thoughtfully read the book.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame
by Victor Hugo

This was a very good book. Exceedingly moving. Hugo has written a book with no idealized characters. No idealized hero who's always right, and no idealized villain who's so evil that I didn't pity him, and even at times like him. A thought provoking story, that really pulls you in. Another piece of evidence in support of my theory that you're better off reading books that have been translated from another language: something may have been lost in the translation, but since peepul only translate great books, what's left is generally far better than almost any work written in English. I very heartily recommend this book.

The Devil's Advocate
by Morris L. West

This book is not to be confused with the recent movie about a lawyer for Satan. It is completely unrelated to that. It is about a devil's advocate in the traditional Roman Catholic sense: a priest whose duty it is to argue against the beautification of a new saint. The devil's advocate's official title is the Protector of the Faith. This is a deep book, which asks a lot of questions, and gives fewer answers. My mom recommended it to me, and I heartily recommend it to you.

Four Stars

Ivanhoe
by Sir Walter Scott

This one is almost a five star novel. It is an exciting tale full of romance and chivalry. It does have a rather negative portrayal of jews. But it also speaks out a bit against the prejudice against the jews. Mostly it is just a very fun to read book with very exciting parts, and other funny parts. I think I am repeating myself because I am tired and it is past my bedtime.

The Count of Monte Cristo
by Alexander Dumas

A nice story. A pretty easy read, and it definitely pulls you in. It has a bit of depth to it, but mostly it is just an entertaining story. Sort of in the vein of The Three Musketeers but a bit more serious and less swashbuckling.

The Brothers Karamazov
by Dostoyevsky

This is a very good book. Like all Dostoyevsky books, it is pretty depressing. But it is one of his less depressing books. I hate to give it only four stars, but I don't think it deserves as good a rating as The Idiot, which I gave five. It is a good solid story, with some really good bits, and some pretty deep insights. Definitely a good book.

Dragonlance Chronicles
by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

Dragons of Autumn Twilight

Dragons of Winter Night

Dragons of Spring Dawning

Dragonlance Chronicles is definitely an entertaining series. However, the main reason I'd recommend that you read it is so that you can read Dragonlance Legends, which is a sequel to it and is awsome. The Chronicles has some good character development and interesting plots, but at times it starts seeming like a series of Dungeons and Dragons adventures (which was how it was inspired). Fortunately the characters are mostly very interesting, making for a thoroughly entertaining book.

Euthydemus
by Plato

This dialogue is a bit long, but quite entertaining. I wouldn't recommend it for someone who hasn't already read a couple of Plato's other dialogues. This dialogue features two brothers, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, who have a tag team method of trapping people with words. It features one of the best lines in all of Plato:

`You're ruining the argument,' Euthydemus said to Dionysodorus.

Trust me, it's better in context.

Gorgias
by Plato

This dialogue is a bit long, so I wouldn't recommend it to someone who hasn't read a few of Plato's dialogues already.

Technically, this dialogue is about rhetoric, but in classic Plato style he shifts to the more important question of how we should live our lives. So I would say that the real subject is the question of whether it is better to be wronged, or to do wrong yourself.

While the dialogue is long, and at times long-winded, Plato disperses humor throughout, and gives his characters enough personality to keep it amusing throughout. It's easy to miss the humor, if you're unaccustomed to reading Plato, because you're trying too hard to follow the argument. In Gorgias, I would recommend keeping an eye on Callicles. He's an entertaining character. Whenever you read Plato, you should ask yourself the same question Callicles asks Chaerephon: ``Is Socrates in earnest, or is he joking?''

Apology
by Plato

This is Plato's account of Socrates' trial. It is quite a nice work, and nicely introduces Socrates. It isn't in the same style as all the other dialogues, so if you are only going to read one of Plato's dialogues, I wouldn't recommend that this be it.

The Fool
by Raffi

I'm afraid I'm not quite as enthusiastic about The Fool as my friend Raffi is, but then I wasn't named after its author! $\ddot\smile$ It was, however, a very good book. I borrowed Raffi's copy of the English translation of it to read, and it was well worth it. I would strongly recommend downloading it and reading it. Even printing it out would be worthwile. This is one of the few books that I have read which made me cry. Mind you, it didn't make me cry much, though.

Cyropædia
by Xenophon

Cyropaedia is an interesting book. I think it was the first novel. It is the story of Cyrus, king of Persia. It is fascinating, because it idealizes Cyrus as a practically perfect man, but then raises the question of whether Xenophon's ideal ruler would actually be successful in the real world.

It also showcases Xenophon's interesting opinions about love. Basically he sees it as a form of insanity. $\ddot\smile$ Has an entertaining argument between Cyrus and one of his friends on the subject, and of course in the end Cyrus is proven right.

The History of the Peloponnesian War
by Thucydides

It seems a little strange reading a history of a war that took place so long ago that I don't really care what happened, but it made for interesting reading nonetheless. It was very interesting seeing the democracy of Athens in action. Also, I got to hear more about Nicias and Laches, my old friends from Plato's dialogue, Laches. I would strongly recommend procuring a good map of ancient Greece before reading this book. I didn't, and I wish I had, as it would have made it much easier to keep straight what was happening.

Thucydides is a good writer (and a general, too!), and this book does pull you in. Unfortunately, he dies before he finished it. Xenophon's Hellenica is supposed to be the sequel, I haven't read that yet. It was very distressing getting to the end of the book right before the war was over, so I'd definitely recommend getting Hellenica so you can read it right after you finish Thucydides' history.

Return of the Native
by Thomas Hardy

The first 70 or so pages are incredibly boring. Fortunately it picks up a lot after that, and is incredibly engrossing later on. I wouldn't say it's a must-read, but if you're looking for something to read (and have already read everything better) I'd definitely recommend that you read Return of the Native.

Billy Budd
by Herman Melville

Billy Budd is a really good book. Billy Budd is a likeable character, and the plot is interesting. As is his tendancy, Melville does go off a bit on completely irrelevant subject matter. In fact, he starts that section out by apologizing that he was about to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with the story. But fortunately, he didn't spend too much time on the irrelevant stuff. I like the plot, but I would rather have seen more character development in Billy Budd himself. As it is, he is really just a flat character, and you don't even really get to know him. Partly, of course, this is just because it is a short book. But I think Melville would have done better if he spent less time talking about the state of the British fleet, and more time letting us get to know Billy. Having criticized it a bit much, I feel I should reiterate that I did enjoy this book and I do think it is a good book.

Kenilworth
by Sir Walter Scott

An exciting historical novel about romance and court intrigue in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Scott is prone to lengthy descriptions of all sorts of things that don't interest me at all, but he separates these passages from the rest of teh story, so that they are easy to skim over or skip entirely without missing a thing.

The Tempest
by William Shakespeare

The Tempest was a good entertaining play. Very Shakespeareian. But it didn't seem to me like anything terribly special. Of course, it has that great line it it (by Miranda) ``O brave new world, that has such people in it!'' and it was certainly thoroughly entertaining. But it certainly wasn't up to the par of Doctor Faustus.

Protagoras
by Plato

Protagoras is a good dialogue. It spends most of its time discussing whether virtue can be taught, but does so in an entertaining manner. Has a fun tangent where Socrates does his best to misinterpret a poet in an interesting manner, basically poking fun at people who spend their time discussing the meaning of poems. Plato also argues that real men should be able to entertain themselves with their own conversation rather than paying flute girls or watching television.

Meno
by Plato

Another dialogue on whether virtue can be taught. Has the wonderful dialogue on geometry between Socrates and a slave boy. Also has a great quote from Meno about Socrates being someone who is always confused and confuses everyone he talks with. $\ddot\smile$ Of course, Socrates agrees...

Three Stars

Far From the Madding Crowd
by Thomas Hardy

The biggest downside to this book is that he tends to take a long time to say anything. At the start I thought it was going to be an incredibly boring book. But then things started happening. If you can get by the boring descriptions (or even enjoy them), this book's well worth reading. A very thoughtful (and a bit cynical) look at varying aspects of love.

The Last of the Mohicans
by James Fennimore Cooper

This was an entertaining book. Often the description of the landscape was tedious, but easily skimmed over. It has a somewhat racist feel, and the indians are idealized a bit weirdly. But if you read it with the understanding that it is just an entertaining story, that is what it is. The good guys are extremely good, and the bad guys are very bad, so it's ok that the good guys kill the bad guys. This is not how it is in the real world, but then it's fiction, and the author doesn't ask the question of whether things are right or wrong.

A Journey to the Center of the Earth
by Jules Verne

This is a fun little book. Classic straightforward science fiction, and quite an interesting story.

The House of the Dead
by Dostoyevsky

I really enjoyed this book. But I'm giving it a low rating because it was also an incredibly depressing book at times. And I really enjoyed every book Dostoyevsky wrote, so I figure I should try to differentiate between those I thought weren't as good. The House of the Dead is about a Siberian labor camp, primarily populated by felons, and you can imagine that that would be a depressing place for a political prisoner to be. Dostoyevsky actually was a political prisoner in Siberia for a while, so presumably his description of the living situation there is accurate.

Charmides
by Plato

I'd almost give Charmides four stars. It's hard to give any of Plato's dialogues only three, but if I don't then the reviews won't be any good for deciding which dialogues to read first. Charmides actually has some of the funnier scenes in it. However, most of the philosophical stuff in it is not so good. It has a good beginning and ending, but in between it's not so good, probably mostly because Socrates lets Critias go to far in guiding the discussion, so they spend lots of time discussing bad ideas that he has, which he doesn't really understand. It really muddies the discussion. But, as I said before, it has a very entertaining beginning. Basically the discussion is great until Critias takes over for Charmides.

Crito
by Plato

Crito is just a bit boring. It is another one of those Socrates justifying why he allowed himself to be executed dialogues. Not to say it has no good parts, but I wouldn't say it's one of Plato's better works.

Phaedrus
by Plato

Phaedrus is a bit long-winded. It has a delightful beginning, and some thoroughly entertaining bits in between, but it spends a lot of time on long-winded speeches. If pressed, I would say that the subject of this dialogue is rhetoric (see also Gorgias), but it is all with respect to a speech on love, so some people (actually most people) would say it is a dialogue about love.

Socrates comes to an interesting conclusion in this work that any writer's art is inferior to that of the dialectition (one who converses with people seeking truth), and any written works by great people must be only hobbies or pasttimes, since at best they can only remind people of things they already know. This is an important point, since I think it puts Plato's own works in a proper perspective. One is far more likely to discover truth by discussing them than by reading them.

The Lost Years of Merlin
by T.A. Barron

A fun little story.

Moby Dick
by Herman Melville

Moby Dick had a good beginning, and a great ending, and a few really good parts in between. There was just way too much other stuff in between, as well. It was downright boring for a while there, which is why it only got a three star rating.

Two Stars

Lysis
by Plato

While it has a nice storyline, the discussion in this dialogue quickly gets tedious. They go on and on about who is friend to who, and the two kids with whom Socrates converses always agree with him, which gets a bit boring. It is something of an excersize in illogic, but if you want to read such a dialogue, there are much better ones, such as Euthydemus, or even Parmenides. Although as I have not yet reviewed it, I should warn you that Parmenides requires both a good sense of humor and some stamina to read.

The Master of Ballantrae
by Robert Louis Stevenson

The chapters in this were way too long, and it had a tendancy to ramble on and on. The story was interesting, but not interesting enough for me to recommend it.

Ringworld
by Larry Niven

I've heard that this one is a classic, but I wouldn't particularly recommend it myself.

Darksword Trilogy
by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

This trilogy was thoroughly disappointing. I usually find books I like by finding an author whose books I enjoy and then reading most or all of what they have written. After reading Weis and Hickman's Dragonlance trilogies, I expected to enjoy this also. I didn't particularly enjoy it. If you have nothing else to do, you may as well read it, but not otherwise. They seem to have decided to invent a world and then write a book about it, and the result was that the characters seemed flat and largely uninteresting.

Deathgate Cycle
by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

This series was even worse than the Darksword Trilogy. Some of the books were pretty good, but not many. And they kept introducing characters for only one of the books, who ended up being the most interesting in the book, with the result being that after each book you had to stop reading about the characters you liked most. The series drags on and on (it has seven books) and very rarely seems to go anywhere. Most of the time the authors are exploring the fascinating set of worlds they have developed, as well as the history of these worlds, rather than telling an interesting story.

One Star

The Ultimax Man
by Keith Laumer

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws