The Chemickal Marriage

Nearly seven years ago I read a book called "The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters" by G.W. Dahlquist, which is set in a semi-steampunk, Victorian-ish, alternate reality. That book is full of adventure, mystery, and quite a lot of sex. As I said at the time, I'd find it very hard to recommend that book to anyone because of what they might infer about me, but it was a rip-roaring romp which I enjoyed quite a lot. At the end of that book, there seemed to be a few lose ends of story not tied up, but the bulk of the story appeared to be done. 

 The sequel, in 2009, called "The Dark Volume" continued the story without really achieving much. I was hugely disappointed, as I blogged at the time. 

 And now the trilogy has come to an end with "The Chemickal Marriage". I approached it hoping that it would be as good as the first book, but fearing it would disappoint as much as the second. Indeed it sat, unread, on my Kindle for the best part of a year before I got around to reading it. Well, its somewhere in the middle between those two books, but sadly closer to the sequel than the original. 

The great success of the first book was the way the author spent the first half of the book teasing the reader with suggestions and tantalising hints about the nature of the mysterious 'process', and with teasing of an erotic nature too, and then spent the second half of the book slowly revealing details of the strange alchemy, and also occasionally revealing erotic stuff too. It was compelling, as a reader, to try and figure out what was going on with the politics, with the science, and with the sexual politics, and then have your suspicions confirmed, or more commonly overturned as the story unfolded. 

The main failing of the two sequels is that they don't really have anything to tease and tantalise the reader with. Sure, we find out a few new things about the properties of the glass, but really there seems to be no purpose behind most of the events and revelations. Stuff happens, more stuff happens, characters die, characters that you thought might be dead turn out not to be dead, and so on, but its really just a jumble of events occurring (oh, and there's quite a lot less sex). Fundamentally, I didn't really care what happened next, I only really wanted the story to make some sort of sense and come to some sort of conclusion. Eventually, it does. The trilogy appears to be over, and that's that. But getting there wasn't half as interesting as the first book. Not even a quarter as interesting.

One thing I noticed in here, which I can't remember noticing in the first two books, is the way in which the author seems to keep getting ahead of himself in the action sequences. Characters, who may have been left behind pages before suddenly reappear without warning and promptly change the way a fight is going, or equivalent. It seems the author is in such a hurry to relate events to the reader that he occasionally loses track of what he's trying to convey. After a while I got a bit fed up with this. The first book was all about anticipation, here we never got the chance to anticipate anything. Things just happened, event, event, rush, rush, rush, event.

Also, the author seemed to forget some of the things he factored in at the start of the book. Early on, Chang wakes from unconsciousness to discover that he's been operated on and has some form of implant on his spine. A chapter later Dr Svenson looks at this and is shocked, but the reader doesn't really find out why he's shocked, and then... the author forgets all about this and it doesn't feature in the story again. This happened to a few other plot points too.

Another annoyance was the way the author stuck to the same pattern as the first book. There are 10 long chapters, each focussed on one of the three main characters. This worked really well the first time about, but I have to say that I really lost interest in all the chapters about Dr Svenson here. I totally didn't care about his story arc.

I could moan about this book for ages, which would give the wrong impression. It wasn't bad. It was quite engaging and enjoyable at times, but it is not a worthy successor to the original.

I wouldn't bother if I was you. Just read the first book and move on.

I really hope G.W. Dahlquist writes a stand-alone novel next time. Tease, tantalise, hint, reveal, action, reveal, twist, end. That would be great.

The Final Empire by Brandon Sanderson

I don't really publish much on this blog these days, do I? And when I do it seems to be mostly book reviews. So not to break that pattern, here's another brief book review:

"The Final Empire" by Brandon Sanderson, subtitled 'Mistborn, Book One' was a book I knew nothing about until browsing my local Waterstones bookshop a few weeks back. It was a book recommended to me by one of those little "I like this book because..." cards with which the staff in the bookshop recommend some books at you. I flicked through the pages of several of these recommended books, and noted down the details of four of them. I then went home, downloaded the Kindle samples of each of the four and read them. On the basis of this, I bought (the actual physical books, in the bookshop) two of them and decided to read this one first (I would have bought the Kindle versions, as they were cheaper, had I not been buying these to take on holiday with me - I didn't really want to leave my Kindle sitting beside a pool while I went in for a dip, but I'll happily leave a paperback book in this manner). So anyway...

The setting of the book, as summarised on the cover, poses the question "What if the Dark Lord won?" and while the book is not intended to be set in the same world as Lord of the Rings, the premise is broadly similar to the situation which might have happened had Frodo failed to destroy the ring and if Sauron had got it and enslaved humanity for a thousand years. I say 'humanity' here as there are no elves, dwarfs, hobbits, orcs, or any other non-human species here. Well, none are apparent for most of the book, at least. So we start with the setting of a world (or at least an Empire, we never see beyond its boundaries) ruled over by an apparently immortal, possibly divine tyrant, who has turned a once green and pleasant land into a grim and murky land where trees and shrubs are brown, colourful flowers don't exist and a ring of volcanoes surrounding the main city in the empire spew ash into the sky constantly. By day there are ashfalls and by night there are mists, which the common people ("skaa") are too scared to go into. Basically, life is hard, death is common, and it has always been thus.

I'll say up front that my favourite kinds of fantasy books are those where the impossible objective is stated early on in the story and then we see, usually with a number of surprises and twists, how the impossible objective is eventually realised. This is one of those kinds of books, so I was inclined to like it from the word go. It isn't really a spoiler for me to reveal they the objective of our rag-tag band of heroes (I also generally prefer novels with a rag-tag band of hereos; much better than muscular warrior types) is to overthrow the tyrant, put someone else in authority, and - if such a thing were possible - to kill the 'Lord Ruler'. As this is a 'Book One' in a series of at least four parts (I don't yet know if part 4 is the conclusion to the series, or if the door remains open for further parts), I wasn't expecting all of this to be achieved in one book and, indeed, this book ends up in a very unexpected way leaving the reader wondering 'where on earth do they go from here?'. But the ending is actually far more satisfying than I was expecting - even 2/3 of the way through this book, I was expecting the book to end with a kind of "And so the war began..." type conclusion. This book doesn't go there, it is so much better than that. 

The book that this book reminded me most of is "Tigana" by Guy Gavriel Kay, and considering that this book measures up to Tigana in a rather favourable light, and that Tigana remains my all time favourite book of all time (!), I'd have to rank this book as one of the best I've ever read. OK, there are a few minor things wrong with it (some sections are too long; the narrative feels slightly odd on the rare occasions that it is not written from the point of view of one of the two main characters), but on the whole this is a world which it is a joy to lose yourself in, with characters you can believe in, and a plot that you actually care about. When I reached the end of this book I was on holiday and was really quite annoyed that I couldn't instantly download the next installment to my Kindle and keep reading. For what its worth, the other two books that this reminded me of were "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe - I know some people rate this as one of the greatest fantasy novels ever, and exploring the strange world of The Final Empire is much like finding out about the world in Wolfe's books - also there were some similarities in this to the Belgariad by David Eddings, but generally in ways which made me think 'this is better than the Belgariad because...'.

I could go into details about how magic works in this book/world, but I won't because it is much more fun to find out about it as you go along. I have to say that the way some of the magic usage is described in fight scenes does get a little bit of a drag, but that is a very minor niggle with an otherwise fascinating new take on how magic might work in a fantasy realm. In that respect (unnecessary descriptions of how magic works), this book also reminded me of "Master of the five magics" by Lyndon Hardy, which I read back in the 80s, but The Final Empire is so far above that book that the comparison is hardly fair.

Basically, if you like 'high' fantasy novels where a bunch of rag-tag heroes set out to overthrow an oppressive ruler, then you'll absolutely love this novel.

Best book I've read this year. Possibly the best I've read this century (hmmm, does it trump GGK's "Under Heaven"? I'm not sure, but they're in the same league). Certainly the most involving fantasy world I've lost myself in for a long time. Highly recommended.

Moon over Soho by Ben Aaronovitch

You may remember I reviewed "Rivers of London" last summer. "Moon over Soho" is the sequel. In the last review, amongst other things, I said:

1. "You know those detective stories where the male lead character meets attractive female characters and they rapidly find themselves in an explicit sex scene? This isn't one of those stories." and
   
2. "The fact that much of the romantic tension still remains at the end of the book suggests to me that the author intends to develop the relationships between these characters over several books..."

The first thing I should say is that Moon over Soho fails to follow in the footsteps of those observations. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Minor spoilers may follow, but I'll not give anything significant away.

Rivers of London ended up with one of the potential love interest characters seriously injured following the events described in that book. While she does have a minor role in this book, her part in the story is surprisingly brief and she only really exists here to make our hero feel a bit guilty, every now and then. The other potential love interest character from the first book doesn't feature here at all, so maybe I got the wrong impression from the first book, but anyway.

The story carries on with our hero, the apprentice to the supernatural-investigating police inspector, investigating two different but connected magical murder inquiries. In one, a series of apparently healthy and very talented jazz musicians die of 'natural causes' in unusual circumstances. In the other, a series of men die in very painful ways, apparently at the, erm, hands of a murderer with 'vagina dentata'. Nuff said. (Google it if you need more info, which you really don't.)

The story is entertaining and moves along at a good pace, which accelerates nicely towards the conclusion. Along the way we find out a bit more about our hero's family, a little bit more about magic, quite a lot about jazz, and a little glimpse into the country's magical past. I suspect there's more there for future books, but then again I was wrong in my predictions after the last book, so I could be wrong again.

As I hinted above, there is a lot more sex in this book than in the last. It kind of springs out of nowhere and seems a bit out of place, but then you come to realise that actually it is part of the plot and is there for a purpose. It actually does serve to make the conclusion a bit more involving.

There are fewer instances of the clunky writing/editing that I noticed in the first book, although there are still one or two points where the narrative jumps in a slightly disconcerting way - usually when providing a bit of back story for an event or character. But that's a minor niggle.

It becomes apparent that there is a 'Moriarty' type criminal mastermind somewhere in the background in this story and it is both annoying and intriguing in the way that his storyline is not resolved by the end of this book.

The two primary crime stories are both resolved here, one in a satisfactory way, and the other a bit less so. Rather than being a single plotline in its own right, the second murder inquiry becomes merged into the larger 'Moriarty' type plot, so its conclusion is brief and not fully resolved. But don't let you stop that reading this excellent book.

So, should you read this book? Yes, I think so, but only if you read Rivers of London first.

Is it better than its predecessor? No, but its not significantly worse either. More of the same really. If you liked the first, then you'll like the second. And probably the third too.

Will I read the next installment of the story "Whispers Underground" when it is published in the summer? Absolutely, yes.

Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch

Just finished reading this. It seemed like quite a short book, or maybe I just got engrossed in it and read it faster than usual, its hard to tell when you're reading on a Kindle.

The basic plot (no significant spoilers) is that a young London uniformed police constable gets posted to the scene of an inexplicable murder and interviews one witness, who happens to be a ghost. As a consequence of this and other events, he ends up apprenticed to the London police's only supernatural-investigating inspector. Yes, more or less a London police 'X-Files'.

The plot is interesting, engaging, fast moving and fun. About 3/5ths of the way through the book, you think you see how its going to resolve, and then wonder how the author is going to pad that out for the remaining chapters, and then the plot twists, and twists again, and again. In quite a roller coaster ride of events.

For the most part, the book is well written, but there are a few clunky scenes where it seems that a few lines of dialogue or description are simply missing. For example, at the end of the 2nd murder scene events, one of the characters dies. I read the page about three times and its still unclear to me how they died. In one paragraph they were running past our hero, in the next they were dead and sprawled on the floor, but with no description connecting the two. In a couple of other places (though none as obvious as that one) there seem to be short snippets of description that are simply missing. But its not a huge problem, and didn't really detract from my enjoyment of the story.

You know those detective stories where the male lead character meets attractive female characters and they rapidly find themselves in an explicit sex scene? This isn't one of those stories. There's a nicely written underlying air of unresolved sexual tension that runs through parts of this story as the main character completely fails to have liaisons with his female co-worker and one of the other female characters in the book. The fact that much of the romantic tension still remains at the end of the book suggests to me that the author intends to develop the relationships between these characters over several books, and that very much makes me want to go straight on to the next book, although the reality of an unresolved storyline stretching across three or more books might get annoying after a bit. But maybe it won't come to that.

So, I'd recommend this book to you. Its a lot of fun, is quite interesting, and there's clearly much more involving these characters to come in future books.

Oh, and I've just discovered that Ben Aaronovitch was one of the writers on Doctor Who back in the late 80s. He is responsible for the scene in which a Dalek was first witnessed (by the 7th Doctor and Ace) hovering up the stairs! Actually, I remember that story with some fondness, although the SFX were typically rubbish, as I recall.

And one of the many problems of having a Kindle is that I could simply buy 'Moon over Soho' right now and start reading the next book straight away...

'Hood' by Stephen R Lawhead

I've just finished reading 'Hood' by Stephen R. Lawhead.

It was, erm, kind of OK.

I have had mixed experiences with Lawhead books. I loved the original Pendragon trilogy, loved 'The Paradise War', liked 'The Silver Hand', thought the resolution of the trilogy in 'The Endless Knot' was a bit 'meh', was really, really, really disappointed by 'Byzantium'. Thought the later two Pendragon books were quite good, and so on.

He is certainly a gifted story teller. Occasionally he is a great story writer.

In Hood we have great story telling. Shame the plot is sooooo slow. Nothing happens for chapters at a time. Indeed, the thing that I had expected to happen by about a third of the way into the book, only really happens at the end of the book. Or, in other words, this book is pure introduction from beginning to end. It is basically the setup for the rest of the trilogy or series or whatever it is. Luckily I have parts 2 and 3 sitting on my shelf, but a book that is all intro is irritating.

I will read the next one, but I have other things to read first.

Currently reading 'Under Heaven' by Guy Gavriel Kay. Which is great so far, but I'm only a few chapters in...

The Dark Volume by G.W. Dahlquist

You may remember I reviewed 'Glass Books of the Dream Eaters' a couple of years back. Well, this is the follow up.

If you loved Glass Books..., you've probably read the sequel already, so I guess there's not much point in reviewing it for you. So, what did you think?

I found Glass Books a really exciting and engaging experience. It really was one of those books you lose yourself in. But it wasn't perfect. Probably my greatest complaint about Glass Books is the ending - it comes too abruptly and leaves the central characters in an unresolved setting. Glass Books is a very well told exploration of an unfamiliar land, as you read you find out more about the people, more about the place, more about the science, etc. It doesn't all make sense at the outset, but as the story unfolds bits fall into place and you deduce what's going on, or it is revealed to you. But. It ends with the feeling that you've only been told about 9/10ths of the story.

The Dark Volume picks up where Glass Books left off and carries on the story. But the main problem is that there isn't a whole load of story that we were unaware of in the first book. There's still only 1/10th of the story of Glass Books left to tell. And this is padded out to fill a book the size of its predecessor. Indeed, I was very annoyed to discover that the story is still unresolved at the end of The Dark Volume, so we've actually been told less than 1/10th of the story. There's at least another volume to come.

Glass Books worked so well because it teased the reader with tantalising partial revelations for most of the first half of the book, which were then fully revealed later on. There was also plenty of adventure and exploration. But all the revelation was done in Glass Books, there was nothing really new to reveal here. And for the most part we visited the same locations as the earlier book. And the adventure was fairly run-of-the-mill. So, by the end, I really didn't care anymore.

I hope the next book is better. I also hope the next book concludes the story. But what I really want now is for G.W. Dahlquist to go and write a brand new adventure, with new characters and new twists and tease and tantalise us like last time.

Terry Pratchett's 'The Colour of Magic' (TV adaptation)

I managed to catch up with some of those movies and TV programmes that I'd recorded-but-not-yet-watched when I was on holiday recently. So I've now completed Smallville series 7 (generally fine, but got silly towards the end), Lost series 4 (interesting but a bit annoying) and I finally got around to watching the TV adaptation of Terry Pratchett's 'The Colour of Magic' which was on Sky at Easter time.

Having seen last year's 'Hogfather' adaptation (it was OK, but not nearly as magical as the book) I was vaguely intrigued to see what they would do next, and was a bit disappointed to discover that they'd picked one of TP's weaker books to adapt. 'Why didn't they at least go for 'The Light Fantastic', its a better story?' I wondered to myself.

But now that I've watched it I know that the TV adaptation is a blend of the first two Discworld books, 'The Colour of Magic' and 'The Light Fantastic', which (a) means that the source material is better than simply doing TCoM alone, and (b) means that more has to be chopped out to fit to a 4 hour running time (including adverts).
So, it was OK. It was faithful to the story, with all the wackiness still intact, but once again the witty narrative that drives all of TP's books along (particularly the early ones) is missing. I'm not sure how this could be translated from the page to the screen, but I'm sure it could have been done somehow.

I'm not sure what I would have thought of the story if I hadn't read the books. The plot jumped about a bit and there were many parts of the story - which were emphasised and developed in the books - which just had to be briefly mentioned in passing. So the sub-plot with Cohen and his troll teeth 'din-chewers' happened, but it was stripped of all its humour. The bit where Twoflower explains the concept of insurance to the publican happened, but was stripped of any real meaning. The bit where Treymon reads all the 8 spells and his mind collapses happened, but was stripped of all the horror of the 'nameless things' that take him over, and so on. So yes, it ticked all the boxes it needed to tick, but without knowing the story first, I'm not sure it would play very well. Sadly the sub-plot with the magical shop and the cursed shop keeper was dropped.

Or maybe it was fine if you saw it without having read the books, maybe its only because I know the gems that have been cut out that I'm a little bit disappointed.

But. The biggest problem I have with this adaptation was the casting. As I'm sure is clear to everyone, David Jason is not Rincewind, clearly Nigel Planer should have been cast in that part. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply wrong. Likewise, Sean Astin is not Twoflower. Tim Curry, on the other hand, was perfectly cast. And the Librarian was great.

So it was fine, looked good, ticked all the right boxes but was a bit muddled and soulless. But I will watch the next one when they do it. But why, oh why are they not doing 'Mort', 'Wyrd Sisters' or 'Guards! Guards!' next?

Prince Caspian

Have I previously mentioned that I'm a bit obsessive about the Narnia stories? I'd read all seven books (at least once each) by the time I was ten. I've probably read them all more times than I've read any other books. I probably still could recite large chunks of the books. So (a) I have to go and see these films at the cinema as soon as they're out, and (b) I'm highly critical of them. But the film adaptation of Lion, Witch & Wardrobe was very good and I managed to forgive its failings and occasional departures from the plot. So what about the sequel?

Well, in many ways, Prince Caspian is possibly the least interesting of the Narnia books. Its not very interesting an allegory and all the good bits of plot happen in flashback, not in the 'present'. It is also possibly the least cinematic of the lot, especially as much of the first part of the book is very talky and happens in flashback. Also there aren't any significant battle scenes, and battles is what the film-going audience want in a fantasy film these days.

You see, in the book, our heroes - the Pevensie kids - meet up with Aslan before they meet Caspian and there is an expectation from then on that Aslan will save the day, but we're just not sure when. The story is all about faith, trust and belief. But that doesn't make for a very dramatic movie - well, certainly not one playing to a secular audience. So the main reasons the movie fails as an adaptation are that they decided to remove the faith story and remove Aslan from the plot until the very, very end.

Obviously, this decision affects the rest of the plot. Given that they're not expecting Aslan to save the day (OK, Lucy is, but the rest aren't), what do they do? And how can we get an extra battle scene in the film?

The film can be split up into three main chunks:

1. Setting up the story - Caspian escaping from Miraz, meeting the Old Narnians and the children getting back to Narnia and discovering what's going on.
2. The middle bit from when the children meet up with Caspian until the duel between Miraz and Peter. This is what should be the heart of the story, but is actually the bit where the film strays furthest from the plot and spirit of the book.
   
3. The final battle and Aslan's return.

Basically I think its fair to say that I enjoyed parts 1 and 3 and found most of part 2 unnecessary and annoying. So I'll moan about part 2 for a bit and then be positive about the rest of the film after that.

You see - in the book - once Peter and Edmund have met up with Caspian (the girls never meet Caspian until the very end), Peter does his very best to avoid battle and unnecessary bloodshed and hence suggests the duel, primarily to stop the two armies killing each other while the duel is arranged. Not in the film. In the film Peter is all about trying to engage the enemy in battle and attacking the castle. And once that has failed, we need a contrived reason to come back to a duel. Despite what some of the critics have said (that Susan is the weak character in the books), it is actually Peter who is the most 2D character in the books (and in the first film), so to make the plot revolve around him and his decisions is a bad idea. And the actor playing Peter isn't really up to the task of carrying the film through its middle section and so everything falls a bit flat.

The whole film looks like a homage to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies - compare the opening horse chase to the flight to the ford in Fellowship, compare the final river flood scene at the end to the scene at the ford in Fellowship, compare the battle scenes to ROTK, compare the angry trees to the Ents at Helms Deep, etc. But never is this more apparent than the night-time assault on Minas Tirith, sorry, I mean Miraz's castle. OK, so here the flying gryphons are the good guys, not evil Nazgul, but beyond that everything looks the same. We've seen this before.

But, the whole film does look really good, even if it is homage. It looks like the Narnia in my imagination, fleshed out with bigger towns and more people than the books describe. Despite being about a decade older than he should be, Caspian himself is great and I liked the way the Telmarines and Miraz, in particular, were done. Once again, putting more flesh on the story than there was in the book. Good.

I approve of most of the changes in the early part of the book, missing out all of Caspian's younger years and making the Telmarine situation a bit more political. The changes with the children's story are fine too, and the bits in the ruins of Cair Paravel and all the way up to the river Rush were great. Shame they dropped Edmund's "Where's this bally Rush got to?" line though. 'Bally' is a great non-expletive which should really be reintroduced.

From the River Rush on, though, things start to go wrong. It is at this point that the book deals with the robust faith of Lucy, the failing faith of Susan and the outright disbelief of Trumpkin and the various ways that Aslan deals with them when they all come face to face with him.

By missing out the doubting Susan storyline, the film makers had to change Susan's character for the movie, and I think they did a pretty good job. In the film Susan is a fantastically heroic figure, fighting as well as the boys and falling in love with Caspian as well. Anna Popplewell shines right through the film and I think she has a good future ahead of her.

But by removing Aslan and changing Susan, the film makers unfortunately chop my favourite bit of the entire book. You see, while Peter and Edmund go off to help Caspian face up to Miraz, Susan and Lucy go with Aslan and witness the transformation of Narnia from a stern, repressed, rule-based, grey country into a wild and free country of magic and parties. This is the bit of the story that - no doubt - gives many conservative Christian types cause to worry, as we see Aslan - the allegorical Christ figure - cavorting with pagan gods like Bacchus and enjoying a wine-fueled late night slumber party. Still, at least they left the river god in at the end.

The duel between Peter & Miraz is pretty good but not as good as it should have been. The fight does not suggest that Miraz is an experienced old soldier or that Peter is a great warrior in the prime of his youth. Its just two folk hitting each other with swords. The battle that follows this is OK, but its still just two armies running at each other and fighting. But I suppose that is what the film going public want to see.

The film is too long. With a bit of trimming (of the middle section and the final battle) a much better film would emerge. It's not faithful to the plot or the spirit of the book, but is entertaining enough by itself to stand as a movie in its own right. And it'll make bucket-loads of money, so hopefully we'll get to see a movie adaptation of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader in due course. But then again, that book really doesn't have any potential for battle scenes in it, so they'll really have to change things for that. After that, I'm not really expecting them to make the other four films, although I really think they should do the Magician's Nephew sometime, with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as Jadis. But no battles in that either. Or they might just jump on to The Last Battle (cos they like battles) and be done with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of blah, blah, blah...

Once there was a time when the combination of George Lucas and Steven Speilberg could do no wrong. And during that period they made 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' - one of my favourite movies ever. This was the first film I ever saw multiple times at the cinema. I think I saw it on three consecutive weekends when I was 11.

Then they followed it up with 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' a few years later. It was darker and not quite as good, but still great fun.

Then Lucas lost it. He went on to make 'Howard the Duck', the Ewoks movie and ultimately create Jar-Jar Binks; not a great career progression. Speilberg went all serious on us and lost the knack of doing a great blockbuster. The third Indiana Jones movie 'The Last Crusade' was quite good, but not as great as the first two.

And now, after a couple of decades of waiting, comes the fourth, and presumably final, Indiana Jones movie. Was it worth the wait? No. Was it an entertaining film? Yes. Was it another Indiana Jones movie? Not really...

Spoilers below. So watch out if you haven't seen the film...

The basic plot of Indiana Jones movies is that Indy has to get to some ancient religious (and generally magical) artifact before the bad guys (generally Nazis) get to it to use the power for their own evil ends. Along the way we get some whip-cracking, swash-buckling, fist-fighting, gun-toting, truck-chasing action.

But Indy is now 20 years older and we're now in the 1950s. So the bad guys can't be Nazis anymore (actually, I think they could have been, especially since the action mostly takes place in South America - I'm sure there were some Nazis hanging on there in the 50s...) and our hero can't swash his buckle in the same way he used to (actually, as we will see, he can, but the producers obviously thought we wouldn't believe that) so we have a younger sidekick who turns out to be Indy's son. OK, I have no problems with either of those changes.

But let's consider the ancient artifact... Its not a well-known, but lost, Judeo-Christian artifact like the Ark or the Grail in films one or three, its not a fictional Hindu artifact like in film two, its a completely fictional - and clearly alien - artifact from a completely made up religion. You see, from the very outset the rules of this film have changed - we're not in the realm of religious-fantasy, we're firmly in the realm of sci-fi. And that's not Indiana Jones territory.

I'm a big fan of Stargate (the original movie as well as the TV series it spawned), and the premise of this film is very much in Stargate territory. Then there are elements of the Mummy movies thrown into the mix (most notably the swarming ants scene). Then finally there are some elements of Indiana Jones movies thrown in for good measure: hating snakes, truck chases, clifftop fights, a bit of tomb raiding, melting faces, etc., etc. But they are not the starting point, they feel like they've been thrown in there to keep the punters happy. And some of the classic Indy elements are spoiled as they are brought in incorrectly, like the scene with all the natives swarming out of the temple - very much like the opening scene of Raiders, but there Indy only escaped because he had a hapless accomplice with a plane, here we had to resort to sci-fi crystal skulls to scare off the natives. Silly, and not very Indiana Jones.

So this fails as an Indiana Jones movie, and if I'd gone in armed with high expectations I'd have been quite disappointed. Thankfully I'd heard about the silly alien thing (although it pervades the entire movie, its not just the last half hour like some reviewers suggest) and had gone in with as few expectations as I could. And hence enjoyed it quite a bit.

You see, the character of Indy is still intact (even if he's in the wrong film) and Harrison Ford does a great job of making the ridiculous Lucas plot and dialogue seem real, or at least believable. I have no issues with the James Dean-esque son of Indy and thought he brought a new angle to the story. The baddies were a bit two-dimensional with Cate Blanchett behaving like the sort of psycho nutter who is usually second in command to some cat-stroking evil genius. But the cat stroker never appeared, so we were left with a slightly incomplete set of baddies. And Ray Winstone was rubbish.

So what we're left with is a load of quite enjoyable action scenes, a charismatic couple of central characters, a nice re-appearance of Marion from Raiders and some hints of social comment from Speilberg, all tied together with a ridiculous plot and premise.

I liked it. I will certainly watch it again someday. But it was not a worthy successor to Raiders.

Not sci-fi books. Honest.

When is a sci-fi book not a sci-fi book?

Last year (you may remember) I read and reviewed 'The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters' by G.W. Dahlquist. Well, the sequel - 'The Dark Volume' - is out now (hardback) and I popped into my local bookshop to see how much they were selling it for. But it wasn't in the 'Science Fiction and Fantasy' section of the shop. I found it in the 'General Fiction' section.

But the book is clearly SF. OK, it might be a pseudo-Victorian setting, but it is quite definitely 'steam-punk' SF. They have impossible technology. Characters in the book are transformed into super-human (or certainly non-human) beings. So why is this book not shelved with the rest of the SF?

Another SF book I read recently, 'The end of Mr Y' by Scarlett Thomas (hey, I don't seem to have blogged about that one; it was quite good) is similarly shelved in General Fiction, not in SF. Yet that one features time travel and rewriting history.

So when is a SF book not a SF book?

The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not considered SF when mainstream reviewers actually like it. Then they class it as literature.

I had thought perhaps it was when an author who had not previously written SF wrote a SF novel, but then I realised that G.W. Dahlquist hadn't written anything before 'Glass books'. He's never written non-SF.

Its the same on TV and in movies. You get actors being interviewed trying to play down the 'science fiction' aspect of the show or movie that they're in. You know, they might be in Heroes - which is all about superheroes - but they still make out that its not a SF/Fantasy show and claim its really all about character and drama. But so is almost all SF!

Aaaaargh! It makes me want to scream.

'Making Money' by Terry Pratchett

Once there was a time, a few years ago, when I eagerly awaited the publication of a Terry Pratchett book. Luckily for me I have a birthday in November and Pratchett books tend to be published in early November, in time for Christmas shopping. I think I've had a present of a hardback Pratchett book for every birthday so far this century. I got 'Making Money' in November last year, along with a few other books, so it didn't get read straight away.

It wasn't really worth the wait. It is a disappointing read. Nothing of any interest actually happens in the book. The characters appear to be quite interesting at first glance, but aren't really fleshed out as the book goes on. The character of 'Adora Belle', for example, is just there. She doesn't do much, she doesn't grow as a character and we learn nothing about her through the book. I didn't really remember much about her from 'Going Postal', but that might be because there isn't much to remember. Maybe she is just a paper thin, 2D character. The main character 'Moist' isn't much better. He's a man who needs a challenge too keep him on the (reasonably) straight and narrow, but beyond that he doesn't have much of a fleshed-out character after two books.

Most of Pratchett's early books were funny and entertaining. In some of them the plot was secondary to the laughs. Later Pratchett books have tended to be humourous rather than funny, but the plots have often been interesting, clever and gripping. This book was humourous in bits but never gripping and rarely interesting. Which is a big shame.

I've read all the Discworld books. I realise that is nothing remarkable to several of the readers of this blog and probably marks me out as a geek to the rest of you. Here, in very potted form are my opinions on the series so far:

1. The Colour of Magic
   The first Discworld novel. Quite funny, made me want to read more but I wasn't expecting TP to become as huge a success as he did. If you haven't read any TP this is a good place to start, but it gets better after this.
   
2. The Light Fantastic
   More coherent and less episodic than the first book. Also much, much better. A very funny book with a great story. Rincewind is a fantastic comedy character.
   
3. Equal Rites
   Good ideas in here, but not as well done as The Light Fantastic. Introduces the character of Granny Weatherwax, who'll get to be in much better books later on.
   
4. Mort
   The first brilliant TP book. This is where he gets into his stride. Fantastic ideas and some really funny stuff. You could read this as your first Discworld book.
   
5. Sourcery
   Rincewind is back, yippee. Entertaining.
   
6. Wyrd Sisters
   Another brilliant TP book. This is the first proper book about the Witches and is one of the best Discworld books. This book is perhaps more clever than any of the books so far.
   
7. Pyramids
   I really, really liked this one when it came out. Philosophy and fantasy rolled into one. Excellent. Stands up well to repeat readings too.
   
8. Guards! Guards!
   Brilliant again. This one is probably (in my opinion) the best Discworld book of the lot. This is also probably the last book which you could read as your first exposure to Discworld, all the subsequent ones kind of rely on those that have gone before, to a greater or lesser extent. This one is jam-packed full of fully constructed characters and has a great and interesting story for them to be in.
   
9. Eric
   Ricncewind returns in a fairly slight story. Not great, but quite adequate.
   
10. Moving pictures
    I didn't like this on first reading. It improved the second time, but is still not great.
    
11. Reaper man
    Again, I didn't like this on first reading, but when I revisitied it a few years later I enjoyed it quite a bit.
    
12. Witches abroad
    The Witches are back in another highly entertaining story. I think TP had a lot of fun writing this.
    
13. Small gods
    This one ranks second to 'Guards! Guards!' in my opinion. Brilliant. I love all the philosophical ideas in this one.
    
14. Lords and ladies
    This picks up straight after 'Witches Abroad' but isn't half as good a story.
    
15. Men at arms
    The sequel to 'Guards! Guards!' is very good, and also one of the best Discworld stories.
    
16. Soul music
    This is kind of like 'Moving Pictures', but a bit better. Still not one of the greats though.
    
17. Interesting times
    Another Rincewind story. Funny and, erm, interesting. I like this one a lot.
    
18. Maskerade
    The Witches return in a fine story, which is a bit on the long side.
    
19. Feet of clay
    Another in the 'City Watch' thread, a great, gripping read.
    
20. Hogfather
    I loved this book on first reading, but subsequent reads haven't been as good. Quite philosophical again. This has been made into a TV mini-series which included the plot and some of the humour, but most of the interesting stuff got chopped out, which is a big shame.
    
21. Jingo
    Serious. This one marks the switch from frivolous to serious. Its about war. Its not about Iraq, honest. Not enough gags. I didn't like it much and have never tried a second read.
    
22. Last continent
    Rincewind again. OK, but not a great one. Some of the idas in here don't seem to fit with the rest of the story.
    
23. Carpe jugulum
    Quite a dark one this. All about vampires. I don't really like vampire stories much.
    
24. The fifth elephant
    Having done vampires, this one is about werewolves. The word 'gritty' might start to apply here. Less jokes than of old, more politics. A bit grim in bits. And the whole thing of the 'clacks' system becoming like the internet is dull.
    
25. The truth
    The first really good book for a few years. Introduces new central characters while characters we know well appear in cameo roles. Pratchett does this in subsequent books a lot, but (in my opinion) this is the only book where it really works well. Interesting plot and some good comedy moments.
    
26. The last hero
    Short story with pictures. Featuring Rincewind again. Nice but forgettable story.
    
27. The thief of time
    I never really 'got' this one. There are some interesting ideas tied up in a strange plot and I'm not really sure what's going on.
    
28. Night watch
    Serious again. Good story but with not a lot of laughs.
    
29. Monstrous regiment
    Back to war again. Serious. I didn't like this one at all.
    
30. Going postal
    A new character is introduced and lots of old ones cameo. Not a great or interesting story and not very funny. Disappointing.
    
31. Thud!
    Serious and political again but with some good bits. Best of the recent books, but that's not saying much.
    
32. Making Money
    Reviewed above.
    

The Portable Door by Tom Holt

During the 1990s I read a lot of books by Tom Holt. Some I quite liked, others I loved and one or two I really disliked and, in some cases, never finished. But a sucession of books that I didn't like much, culminating in 'Wish you were here' (published 1998, but I attempted to read it a couple of years later), which I never finished reading, put me off Tom Holt books for a bit.

You know the old cliche that every story should have a beginning, a middle and an end? Well, I found that Tom Holt books generally had good and interesting beginnings, clever and sometimes inspired endings, but often got a bit lost in the middle somewhere. It was as if he had a great idea, wrote it down in full and then thought 'hmm, this isn't long enough, I need to pad it out somehow' and added a few unnecessary twists and turns in the middle somewhere.

But anyway, 'The Portatble Door' got quite good reviews and sounded a bit more interesting than some of his late 90s output, so I finally got around to reading it.

Its good. Its funny. Its clever. It even has moments of greatness. Oddly enough, it isn't the middle of this book that Tom Holt had problems with, it seems to have been the beginning. The beginning of the book seems to go on for ages, indeed, it felt like well past the halfway point in the book before the story got going properly. Certainly its past halfway before the portable door of the title actually comes into the story and we (and indeed the characters in the story) begin to work out what is going on. Or rather, what is going on is revealed to the characters about halfway through the book and it feels like the majority of the actual story doesn't even begin until that point.

The book tells the story of Paul Carpenter, a reasonably talent free young man who has left school but so far failed to find a job. We meet him at his interview to be a general office dogsbody at a company called J.W. Wells & Co. While waiting for the interview he meets a skinny and sulky girl who he is instantly drawn to and, against all probability, both he and the girl (who we eventually find out is called Sophie) get jobs at J.W. Wells & Co. Given his CV, you wouldn't think that Tom Holt actually spent much of his time doing dull office jobs, so I guess he's spoken to a number of people who have done exactly that, and has channeled their experiences into the first half of this book. You see, in the first half of the book, before we really find out what is going on, we find out about Paul and Sophie and the dull, pointless, weird and occasionally inexplicable things they are given to do as office juniors. It is the office job from hell. Possibly quite literally.

But I won't spoil the surprise of what the company actually is and does. You can find that out by reading the book. Despite being a slow starter, it is a good and entertaining book and I'd recommend it to anyone who likes a bit of weirdness in their life.

It even verges close to being 'literature' at some points (not merely 'genre fiction' which most folk will label it as) as the book does touch on big themes in human experience. I suppose the main theme of the book is that you are not defined by what you do (in terms of a job, I mean), or what you look like, or even what species you are, its who you are underneath your skin that counts.

And the story of Paul Carpenter doesn't end there. There are three other books in the series, so far, so I'll probably get around to reading the next one - 'In your dreams' - sometime.

---

For what its worth, I found the first few of Tom Holt's fantasy books the most entertaining, everything from 'Expecting someone taller' (1987) and 'Who's afraid of Beowulf' (1988) through to 'Faust among equals' (1994). After that things got a bit too weird and convoluted for my liking, although 'My Hero' (1996) was good.

The Northern Lights / The Golden Compass

Last month I listened to the unabridged audio book of 'The Northern Lights' by Philip Pullman. Last night I went to the cinema and saw the movie 'The Golden Compass' based on that book. Here are my thoughts on both...

Much has already been said on the subject of the anti-religious message in the book(s) and how this has been played down (or dumbed down) for the film, but if you actually consider 'The Northern Lights' by itself, without reference to either of the books that follow, the message is not as clear or as anti-religious as some believe. Certainly, in the book, the Magisterium (i.e. the church) is portrayed as being a sinister, corrupt and possibly evil organisation. Similarly, in the film, the Magisterium are clearly made out to be the 'bad guys', although here the picture is painted in much broader brush strokes. But neither the book or the film goes as far as to suggest that there is any spiritual power behind the Magisterium, it could simply be an entirely man-made organisation. Of course, if you've read the other books, you'll know that 'The Authority' (i.e. God) is a character with a part to play, but that is not clear in the first book or film.

Possibly the greatest achievement of the book is the concept of 'deamons', the animal-like personifications of the souls - and constant companions - of every human in Lyra's world. At the start of the book the concept is completely alien to the reader (or, in my case, listener) but Pullman conveys the concept so well that by the middle of the book the reader is truly shocked by the idea of separating the human from their deamon, so the experiments at Bolvangar seem really horrific. In the film the deamon concept is also handled well and must have been a nightmare for the animators. Perhaps the film should have emphasised the idea that humans and their deamons can't be separated by more than a few metres and that there is physical pain if this is extended. Also, the horror of the chamber in Bolvangar is lost in the film because no real explanation is given, there is no warning of what might happen, and it all happens so quickly that the importance of the scene is lost. Indeed, that scene is probably the film's greatest failing.

Dust. The book and the film are all about dust. In the book, dust is something mysterious that Lyra is keen to find out about. In the film there isn't half the mystery about it and it is more just taken as being part of the world, but isn't really very interesting. One of the key things about dust in the book is omitted from the film (though may be at the start of the next one, I suppose) when Lyra and Pan discuss dust and decide that if the Magisterium and Mrs Coulter, etc. think that dust is bad, maybe it's actually good... But what dust actually is is not revealed in either the book or the film - its one of the mysteries that we hope will be revealed in future bits of the story.

One of my favourite things about The Northern Lights was the concept of 'ambaric' power. This is mentioned several times but never explained in the book. Although (slight spoiler here) I was really disappointed by the discovery in the third book that ambaric and electric power were just the same thing, it would have been cool if they had turned out to have been different somehow. In the film, however, although it is never named, various things (airships, carriages, etc.) are apparently powered by cool, blue, gyroscopic machines, which I assume to be an imagining of ambaric power. Nice touch.

One of the oddest decisions in the film was to change the sequence of events from that in the book. I was surprised that the re-ordered sequence of events worked quite well. Thus the big fight at Bolvangar was moved to the end of the film, rather than the end of the middle section of the book, and the bear fight was moved earlier in the film rather than being towards the end of the book. The only thing contrived about the change in order was the explanation (or lack thereof) of why the raiders should have taken Lyra to the bear king as a gift. In the book it makes sense that they take her to Bolvangar, but taking her to the bears makes no sense.

In summary, the book is a great read full of action and big concepts which are thought provoking and interesting. The film dispenses with much of the subtlety in the book and makes everyone clearly good or bad (except Lord Asriel, who remains ambiguous), but is a surprisingly faithful adaptation (faithful to the spirit of the book, if not the chronology), which is gloriously realised and reasonably gripping. I'd recommend both.

However, in my opinion, the second book is not as good as the first and the third is disappointing, so we'll see what happens with the next two films...

---

By the way, I think the book(s) would have been better adapted into a TV series or mini-series, as the books are quite episodic in nature, but I guess that hasn't happened. Also, I really do recommend the audiobook versions of the books. They're read by the author himself, but all the dialogue is performed by actors, so it feels more like a radio play than a talking book. Very nice.

The Fountain

Huh?

This film didn't really grab me. For most of it, indeed, for all of it, I wasn't sure what was going on. Something to do with life and death. Trying to be arty. Not really succeeding.

Looks like the secret of living forever is to die and plant a tree above your coffin. Or something like that anyway.

Not recommended.

Doctor Who in my dreams...

I had a really vivid dream last night. Basically it was a two-part (yes, I dreamt it in two parts, complete with end credit music!), end of series, Doctor Who cliffhanger type story. It featured the David Tennant version of the Doctor, Billie Piper as Rose, Matt Lucas as a character who was taken over by an alien parasite (a bit like the face-hugger in Alien, but this one clung onto the back of people's heads), a spectral knight on horseback who came crashing through castle doors with alarming regularity and small, sinister, snake-like aliens who were masquerading as flute-like kids' musical instruments. Oh, and lots of laser beams.

I just wish I could remember the whole story - I woke up thinking it was really good.

Hmmm, what does all this tell you about my subconscious?

Superman Returns (again)

Last summer I saw 'Superman Returns' at the cinema and blogged about it. My friend Marcus also saw it and blogged about it, three times [1][2][3]. It took me a while, but I finally got around to re-watching it on DVD last week.

I still have a mixture of positive and negative things to say about it.

But I've realised what my main problem with the film is, and it is this:

The film is not about Superman.

Marcus complained that it was a film about Superman but not about Clark - Clark being the 'real person' and Superman being the 'disguise' - but I think it is actually not about Superman or Clark. To me, the film is actually about people's responses to the idea of Superman - specifically the different ways that Lois Lane and Lex Luthor respond to him, but almost every person in the film responds to Superman in some way and its those people that the film is about.

In the original (Dick Donner) Superman movie, Clark finds out who he is and what he can do, he goes through a bit of soul searching and anguish and comes out a hero. In Superman II he battles his inner demons, gives up his powers, gets them back and vanquishes his enemies. In Superman III we have the great fight between the two personalities, Superman vs. Clark Kent. And let's not talk about Superman IV, OK?

But the point is, all those films are about the man under the suit. This film isn't. There's no particular character development of any of the main characters (except the kid). Pretty much all the characters end the film exactly the way they were at the start. So, basically, its a film without a heart. Looks great, well performed (for the most part), a few good set-pieces, but ultimately a bit empty.

Of course, maybe its just me. As a life-long fan of Superman, he's the character I relate to. Maybe if you relate more to Lois or Lex you'd find the film more engaging.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (the film)

Don't you just love the character of Luna Lovegood in the Harry Potter stories? I'm glad to say that the casting folk on the HP movies have got her spot on. Anyway...

HP&TOOTP is, of course, the longest and most boring of the HP books. The actual essential plot is fairly straightforward, but there are far too many distracting sub-plots that get in the way. So, in order to make a coherent two-and-a-bit hour movie, you would have thought that they could just drop most of the sub-plots and stick to the main story. Nope, sorry. Most of the sub-plots are nodded to here, so the actual story gets a bit lost in the mix.

My wife hasn't read the book, after watching the film she commented that there was no plot at all in there. I've read the book so understood all of what was going on, but thinking back on the film, for those who haven't read the book, there is almost no explanation of the significance of the visions Harry is experiencing, occlumency is kind of side-lined, and its not totally clear what all the fuss is about regarding the prophecy at the end. We also don't get Dumbledore's explanation at the end so, unless you've read the book, you are left thinking 'so what'.

Umbridge is fantastically evil though. However, they should have conveyed her racism with regard to half-breeds and magical creatures a bit earlier on, it would make her end a bit more dramatic.

But having said that, it is a better film than 1 and 2, not as good as 3 and I'd have to watch 4 again to be able to comment on which is better there. But if the director can make a half-way decent film out of the over-long and muddled mess that is the book of OOTP, then I have high hopes for his ability to do a good job on the next film, based as it is on a much better book.

The Golden Compass

How good does the Golden Compass look? If you haven't seen the trailer (or even better, the 'Comic Con' clip compilation) head over to the official site [www.goldencompassmovie.com] and watch it now. Fantastic.

The only problem I have with this is that 'The Northern Lights' (the UK title of the book that this film is based on) is by far the best and most interesting book in the trilogy ('His Dark Materials' by Philip Pullman). So this movie will be followed by two others that are not quite as good as it. Also, rumour has it, the film plays down the anti-religion message of the books, which I can see is quite easy in the first movie, but how can you do the third one without it - its the very heart of the book?

Terry Pratchett: Wintersmith

Just finished reading Terry Pratchett's latest 'for younger readers' Discworld book. It was OK.

In general, given the quality of some of TP's books for 'grown ups', I have found the kids' books disappointing. But this is probably the best of the bunch so far. For some reason, TP seems to think that if you're doing a kids' book it needs to have a much smaller story than adult books - so some of his grown up books have had plots involving wars, governments, countries, etc., but the kids books all happen on a local level. And contain more 'knob gags' and swearing references (though often implicit).

I'm stuck halfway between liking and being offended by the stereotypically Scottish (blue skinned, orange haired, kilt wearing, drinking, swearing, stupid) Feegles - half the time its funny but it veers dangerously close to racism at times. You couldn't have a comedy race of stereotypically Jewish or Indian or Chinese characters in a book like this, cos there would be outrage - even Welsh would probably not be received well - but Scottish is OK? Hmmm.

So what of the plot? Well, the nearly-thirteen year old main character Tiffany Aching inadvertently does something silly early on in the story, which changes the seasons, and spends the rest of the book trying to restore things back to the way they should be. Along the way she has to, basically, be more grown up than the grown ups in the story and deal with the unwanted romantic advances of the Wintersmith. And there's a storyline involving her male friend Roland which ultimately seems pointless. I think TP just wanted to keep him in the story somehow.

The main problem I have with this book is that TP chose to start it with a chapter which, chronologically, comes near the end of the book. This ends with a 'but all this hasn't happened yet' type line and we jump back 6 months or so. By choosing to do this, the author is more or less saying 'the start of my story is not very interesting' and has to give the reader a tantalising glimpse of something exciting coming up to keep them reading through the dull bits. Books that start like this are never great.

Its a shame. We used to get two 'grown up' Pratchett books a year, now we get less than one as his writing seems to have slowed down a bit and he's now doing these kids' books. Still, the next 'grown up' book can't be too far away, so here's hoping.

But, of course, the next book on my 'to read' list is another kids' book - out at midnight tonight...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...?

Only a few days left before the final Harry Potter book is unleashed. What will happen? How will JK resolve the story? Here are some of my predictions, guesses and fears:

1. I really hope that Dumbledore remains dead. If he comes back to life he's just a Gandalf clone. If he advises from beyond the grave he's just an Obi Wan rip-off. Please let him remain dead. However, I give it 50:50 either way.
2. Sirius Black is resurrected. I'm expecting this. Maybe the death of Dumbledore was a ruse concocted by Dumbledore and Snape so that Dumbledore could somehow bring Sirius back? Of course, if Sirius comes back from death there's no reason why Harry's parents can't come back too.
3. One out of Harry, Ron & Hermione dies part way through the book. Personally I'd like it to be Harry, but I'm not sure. I don't think Harry will end up living happily ever after, but Ron & Hermione might. Unless his parents come back to life, dying is the only way Harry can be reunited with them.
4. Ginny dies. Surely?
5. Snape is a good guy after all. I'm still expecting this. Even though he killed Dumbledore in book 6, this was because he was either (a) constrained by the unbreakable oath or (b) doing exactly what Dumbledore wanted or (c) both. Snape ends up being head of Hogwarts? Oh, go on.
6. Draco Malfoy rebels against his father and becomes a good guy. Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore, he's not all evil. Time for a bit of redemption.
7. Voldemort doesn't die. He is stripped of his powers and forced to live as a pure muggle. He (of course) then commits a crime and is put in muggle prison...

Or I could be way off here. We'll see next week.

Please comment on these thoughts. If you want to comment after reading the book, please start your comments with a very obvious spoiler warning. I will add comments below after I have read the book - I will also include spoiler warnings. Cheers.