What Are You Reading 2

[Catch-up]

I'm back to The Woman Who Died A Lot, enjoying it. Next up is Rivers of London, but it's called something else here. Can't remember the title of it at the moment.

 

[pip]

Its called Midnight Riot for some really odd reason . And the American covers are awful.

 

[Catch-up]

Yes, terrible covers and weird changes are par for the course, unfortunately. I have no idea why they'd change that title. The original is much better. And, thank you! Now I know I packed the right one.

 

[Quatermass]

Hmm, the title isn't too bad a one, Midnight Riot, given what happens and who the villain is, but you're right about the cover.

Anyway, just finished Rivers of London. Here's my review that I posted on another BBS...

REVIEW: Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch

I am familiar with the works of Ben Aaronovitch through his work on Doctor Who. Writing the critically acclaimed TV story Remembrance of the Daleks and the less acclaimed but still distinctive Battlefield, he also wrote several spin-off books, like Transit, The Also People, and, with Kate Orman, So Vile A Sin. However, until recently, I was unaware that he had also written an urban fantasy series, and so, because I knew Aaronovitch was a fairly good writer, I thought I would give the first book in the series, Rivers of London, a shot...

Meet Police Constable Peter Grant. Unlike his friend, Lesley May, he is about to be shuffled aside into the Case Progession Unit of the London Metropolitan Police, not the most exciting of careers. But after seeing something he shouldn't, Grant is recruited by Detective Inspector Thomas Nightingale, the head and, until now, the only member of the Folly, the section of the London Metropolitan Police that deals with crimes of a magical and supernatural flavour. And it's no piece of cake, as Grant will learn how to cast spells, stop vampires, negotiate between the warring deities of the River Thames, and stop a supernatural murderer who is a puppet master in more ways than one...

Of all the faults of Rivers of London, the main one is that technically speaking, the concept is far from original. While the cover quote by Diana Gabaldon about the book being 'what would happen if Harry Potter grew up and joined the Fuzz' is something of an exaggeration, this book does take many similar archetypes, though I am more likely to compare it to the not dissimilar Laundry series by Charles Stross. What matters more than anything else, then, are the differences. Certainly, the culprit behind the main conflict in the book is a startlingly original one that I didn't see coming, and there is a lovely, semi-sardonic tone throughout, though it's not quite at the level of Stross' Laundry series. Part of the problem, too, is that I am not as familiar with London as more of Aaronovitch's audience will be.

Even so, the characters are fine enough, with Peter Grant being a good, if not excellent, narrator, and Lesley a decent friend character. Nightingale is a fairly standard mentor type, though the character of Molly, the Folly's maid, is rather more intriguing. So too are the deities of Mama Thames and Father Thames, not to mention the bitchy Lady Ty. However, of the other characters, only the main villain seems truly interesting enough to engage and hold my attention, simply because who and, more to the point, what they are is so surprisingly and startlingly original.

In the end, while not spectacular, Rivers of London was good enough for me to continue with the series. So, once I get further books off my plate, who knows?

To be perfectly honest, I much prefer Charles Stross' Laundry series, probably because that series works in the dark sense of humour better. And maybe I prefer spy-fi to mystery novels. But Rivers of London was still pretty good.

 

[pip]

Harsh and in my opinion unfair review.
Lack of originality is an unfair criticism if you are in the same breath praise a writer such as Charles Stross whos work, good or bad is esentially a rip off of Lovecraft.
Try a bit of consistency at least.
the difference in the two series is wide enough and I'll have to disagree with you in that I found Stross unreadable at stage , essentially talking crap for large sections of the books.
The main character and Nightingale for me are very well done. Peter is very likable, very funny and is very accesible lead .
The urban occult thing has risen as a very definite subgenre so there is quite a few similar books. This is up there as one of the best.
Sadly i feel you missed out on properly enjoying it by going in with the critics hat especially with the amount of good feedback and recomendations given here.
Are we a tad upset that Ben turned his back on churning out obscure doctor who novels for a tiny audience and wrote something accesible for a wider audience.
I have to conclude that you've missed what the rest of us have gotten for various reasons sadly

 

[Quatermass]

You also missed the point of my review, Pip. I didn't say that the book was bad. I said it was good. Not stellar or great, but good. I deliberately didn't include the numerical score I had given it, due to the controversy my scoring system caused in the past, but I gave Rivers of London 8.5/10. Okay, that's probably a skewed numerical scale, should be a 7 or a 7.5, but in my reviews proper, I have to nitpick.

[EFF!] me tender with a pogo stick, sideways.

I just found it run of the mill. And keep in mind that I gave one of Aaronovitch's Doctor Who books (The Also People) the same score. And quite frankly, it's an improvement over Transit which, good though it was, was a tad too grungey and dark at times. In addition, as I point out in my review, I'm not that big a fan of the mystery genre, really. I tried it, mostly, because everyone here loved it, otherwise I may never have even heard of it, unless I happened to look at Aaronovitch's Wikipedia page.

It was enjoyable, but it didn't reach the heights I hoped it might. Maybe I set my expectations too high. Who knows? But this was not an indictment of the book. And quite frankly, the villain of the story was one of the most original things I have read in fiction.

 

[pip]

Fair enough. I'm too used to people coming back raving about the books that its a shock to o the systemm when there is criticism .

 

[Quatermass]

Fair enough. I'm too used to people coming back raving about the books that its a shock to o the systemm when there is criticism .

Thank you.

Rivers of London was a good, decent book. It just didn't have the wow factor for me. Or maybe I've been spoilt by too much Neil Gaiman. I mean, look at Neverwhere.

Have to say, though, Molly was perhaps the most interesting character. Surprising, considering that she didn't say anything. And if she's not a vampire, then I have to wonder what the hell she is.

Out of all the books by Ben Aaronovitch, my personal favourite is his novelisation of his Doctor Who story, Remembrance of the Daleks. And keep in mind that I've never reviewed it. My read and review shtick only began a few years back, as an incentive for me to branch out and read authors and books that I wouldn't normally. Like Dickens, or Austen, for example. But that aforementioned novelisation had a wonderful, dark lyricism.

Of course, I also heard that Aaronovitch has the same attitude to deadlines as Douglas Adams...

 

[Bouncy Castle]

Blimey - I love the Rivers of London series, but gave up on Neverwhere about a quarter way in.

 

[pip]

Fair enough. I'm too used to people coming back raving about the books that its a shock to o the systemm when there is criticism .

Thank you.

Rivers of London was a good, decent book. It just didn't have the wow factor for me. Or maybe I've been spoilt by too much Neil Gaiman. I mean, look at Neverwhere.

Have to say, though, Molly was perhaps the most interesting character. Surprising, considering that she didn't say anything. And if she's not a vampire, then I have to wonder what the hell she is.

Out of all the books by Ben Aaronovitch, my personal favourite is his novelisation of his Doctor Who story, Remembrance of the Daleks. And keep in mind that I've never reviewed it. My read and review shtick only began a few years back, as an incentive for me to branch out and read authors and books that I wouldn't normally. Like Dickens, or Austen, for example. But that aforementioned novelisation had a wonderful, dark lyricism.

Of course, I also heard that Aaronovitch has the same attitude to deadlines as Douglas Adams...

Have to say that while i love Gaiman, Neverwhere is a bit of a patchwork quilt of a book cobbled together in sometimes strange ways. I enjoyed it but not his best work at all.

 

[Quatermass]

I gave Neverwhere the same score, but partly because it was weird and a little inaccessible at times. Whereas Rivers of London was accessible, but it didn't quite have the same flavour.

Different tastes, I suppose.

Anyway, I'm already partway through the novelisation of Metal Gear Solid 4, and I'm going to try and read Bitter Seeds after that. Or maybe I Am Legend.

 

[KingCarrot]

All you fast readers make me sick lol.

I take ages with discworld, not because I am a slow reader - but because I suffer from intense brain-fog over the last year or so. I don't think I will ever complete the discworld series and move on to other books.

 

[Alanz]

i'm about half way through Dodger at the moment it's very good.

 

[Dotsie]

Would I offend pip massively if I said that Rivers of London was OK, but not anything special, and I might read the sequels at a later date if nothing else presents itself? :shifty:

 

[Quatermass]

Would I offend pip massively if I said that Rivers of London was OK, but not anything special, and I might read the sequels at a later date if nothing else presents itself? :shifty:

Well, that was what I said (save for the 'if nothing else presents itself', as I want to try and continue the books before long), and I'm currently sewing my head back on. And I dunno how I'm gonna get these bite marks out... :|

BTW, this is meant in jest.

 

[pip]

Would I offend pip massively if I said that Rivers of London was OK, but not anything special, and I might read the sequels at a later date if nothing else presents itself? :shifty:

Well, that was what I said (save for the 'if nothing else presents itself', as I want to try and continue the books before long), and I'm currently sewing my head back on. And I dunno how I'm gonna get these bite marks out... :|

BTW, this is meant in jest.

You're ok dotsie, and Q . I've had a sleepless week so i enjoyed my brief venting
Q , i really enjoyed I Am Legend so definitely worth a read. Much better thyan the film.

 

[Quatermass]

Which film? There are three of the buggers. :think:

 

[Tonyblack]

All you fast readers make me sick lol.

I take ages with discworld, not because I am a slow reader - but because I suffer from intense brain-fog over the last year or so. I don't think I will ever complete the discworld series and move on to other books.

It depends what sort of mood I'm in as far as speed is concerned. I have read a book and a half a day, or, as now, it's taking me ages to read one.

 

[KingCarrot]

All you fast readers make me sick lol.

I take ages with discworld, not because I am a slow reader - but because I suffer from intense brain-fog over the last year or so. I don't think I will ever complete the discworld series and move on to other books.

It depends what sort of mood I'm in as far as speed is concerned. I have read a book and a half a day, or, as now, it's taking me ages to read one.

It don't help when I have to read a lot of the sentences twice nowadays for them to sink in. Each time I read I need to go back a few pages to remind myself what's going on. I also look at the name's of main characters and think "who on earth is that?". I really am in no state to be reading, but I love it too much to stop. I either have some form of dementia or chronic lyme disease - I don't think it's solely M.E anymore lol.

I will fight (by reading books) until I die...

 

[Tonyblack]

As far as Discworld books go - I don't think any of us ever get everything the first time of reading. I have read some of the books a dozen times and I still find new stuff that I missed before. Terry's books are often multi-layered and you read one and it may be quite some time before you realise there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. It's what i love about the books.