What Are You Reading Wednesday 6/21/12

It’s been a bit, things are hectic, but I’m back to reading and loving every moment of it!

The Alloy of Law isn’t really a sequel to Mistborn, though if you want to understand a lot of what’s going on it is best to have read the original trilogy. Sanderson does not waste a lot of time in this one explaining the laws, the magic, and the history which all I have to say is, “Thank you.” I am not a huge fan of getting novels set in the same universe and finding 20 pages of backstory that were told in 1500 pages in a trilogy (or the like, they were long books). As per Sanderson style the plot gets moving right away and then slows before it’s sure to pick up again, but I’m happy so far with it! About 16% through it at the moment.

I’m not one for a lot of detail and Armintrout is verging on being one of those writer’s who tells me about every cobblestone. She refrains, but she’s not far from choking someone with the amount of detail. Sure, she can put it into pretty words, she’s a talented wordmeister, but it doesn’t mean as a writer she should. This also doesn’t mean I don’t like the story. So far I’m intrigued.  It’s a different take on Fae politics while using familiar characters.

Because of an adult video she watched as a child the main character believes all older men are devils and younger boys are angels. So she falls in love right away with someone who looks about 10. What bothers me about the story is that she’s supposed to somehow be a likable main character. She’s not, really. I’d have actually been all right with her Shota-con obsession if it wasn’t so creepy. But I guess that’s part of the point.

So what about you? Reading anything good?

May 2012 Barrett Book Club

Welcome back to the Barrett Book Club! By now you should know the deal, so here is the book for the May discussion, which will be held on May 26th!

Unfortunately, this is one of those that is a bit harder to find. Right now there are a bunch of used copies on Amazon that aren’t badly priced. If I come across a copy to loan out I will let you know!

In the meantime, if you’ve read it or are reading it, feel free to let us know your discussion questions!

The official discussion questions are here! What I happen to love about these is even if you did not find a copy of the book, these are still questions with a lot of thought that can bring you into the discussion.

Discussion questions for the @BarrettBookClub May selection, “King of the Gypsies” by Bartley Gorman:

1) “King of the Gypsies” Bartley Gorman was lucky to survive being attacked by a bloodthirsty mob in 1976. Stuart Bennett – now better known as WWE wrestler Wade Barrett – survived a back-alley attempt on his life in Budapest after winning a particularly hyped bareknuckle fight in his 20s. The attack on Gorman was for personal revenge and the one on Barrett was for his 20,000 pounds in winnings. Do you think making bareknuckle fighting legal would realistically reduce the danger of mobs, riots, and murder attempts? Do you think that bareknuckle fighting would lose its allure if it were legalized? Discuss anything else regarding the legalization of bareknuckle fighting you think is important or interesting.

2) Do you believe that Wade Barrett, in his prime as a bareknuckle fighter, could have beaten Bartley Gorman in his prime? Why or why not?

3) It is clear that Gorman believes Gypsy men before the 1990s were the world’s best bareknuckle fighters because it was part of Gypsy culture with social rules and honor attached to it. He comments near the end of the book about Gypsy culture having changed for the worse regarding crime – especially murder – and how that may kill off bareknuckle fighting. That was back in 2002. Britain was declared the violent crime capital of Europe in 2009, with the violent crime rate there being even worse than the U.S. Do you think Gorman is correct? Is the “golden age” of Gypsy bareknuckle fighting probably over because people are too violent to stick to the social rules governing it, or do those statistics even apply to Gypsies, who often solve their problems without the police or courts?

4) Which fighter, from any background (UFC/MMA, boxing, martial arts) do you wish Bartley had fought?

5) What opinion did you come away with of Bartley Gorman, Gypsy culture and bareknuckle fighting?

6) Are there any future selections you would like to see the Book Club feature? Please let me know at @BarrettBookClub on twitter.

April 2012 Barrett Book Club Novel

If you are here you are obviously following @BarrettBookClub on twitter. If not, you should be! In this space I am going to make sure we know what book we are reading and when they go up, we’ll post the discussion questions. We do not have to discuss those questions particularly, but perhaps they will help you come up with some questions of your own! If you have a discussion question this is also a great place to leave one in the comments!

So for this round, the books is:

Walking a Golden Mile by William Regal with Neil Chandler.

It’s hard to find a copy of this novel, but it’s not hard to find a Kindle edition. Amazon and Barnes and Noble both have one for about $12.99. If you can not buy one in time @WWECapshuns and myself ( @SolaceWinter ) might have a copy we can loan you, just get a hold of us!

The discussion for twitter is set for April 28th.

Questions are ready!

1) What do you think about superstars who speak out about their past drug problems?
2) What is your favorite Regal gimmick and why?
3) What aspect of the book did you like the most/least and why?
4) Do you want to see another book from Regal? If so, should that book be about him or should he try his hand at fiction like Mick Foley?
5) Is there a question you wish Regal had answered in his book that he did not? If so, tell us about it!

Superstars, the show to watch

Too many people tell me, “I don’t watch Superstars.”

These are the same people who complain about the wrestling on Raw. The same people who say they are tired of John Cena and the 5 Moves of Doom.

WWE Superstars, which if you are from America can now only be found on you tube thanks to people like TheViperRK0x, continually has the best wrestling matches every week.

Superstars has the quality matches but it does fall into the same rut that Raw and Smackdown can: predictability. Brodus versus a local jobber? You know who wins. Daniel Bryan versus Trent Barreta? John Morrison versus Drew McIntyre? Chickbusters versus The Bellas? All have endings you would have predicted. Yet at the end of the show you still leave with a better feeling after Trent loses for the umpteenth time because boy did that man take a beating getting there! These are the matches people would pay to see and no one is watching them.

Then there of course is the commentating. I hear the collective groan out there. Anyone reading this knows that I am Scott Stanford’s biggest fan. Believe it or not, there is a reason for this, and it’s his ability.

Superstars showcases the WWE commentators that do not oversaturate Raw and Smackdown. For the Smackdown side we showcase Striker and Korpela and for the Raw side we are allotted a weekly dose of Scott Stanford and his sidekick on the show, Josh Mathews.

Matt Striker and Jack Korpela introduce us to this week’s Superstars. Superstars is where Jack Korpela feels most comfortable because he and Matt Striker have worked into a groove that works. Matt Striker has always been ace on commentary. He knows what he is talking about and knows how to be a heel announcer without going overboard on insults. His snide side suggestions are understated and often go unnoticed. Between Striker’s precision and Korpela’s detail the two give an entertaining experience that does not distract from the match in front of them.

We then move into the Raw portion of Superstars and are given the announce team of Josh Mathews and Scott Stanford. While I love Scott and could give you about one hundred reasons why he is the best announcer that WWE has to offer I will not say that this announce team is my favorite. Josh is dull. He relies too much on his facial expressions to give away that he thinks Scott is crazy with most of his comments and during Superstars it’s rare you see a shot of the announce team. While Stanford continually feeds Mathews lines that he could easily turn around on Stanford, Mathews seems to prefer the, “If I ignore him maybe he’ll go away,” approach.

While I may complain about things that happen on Superstars (I am a woman, complaining and changing my mind are my prerogative) this is the best show you are not watching. Quality matches, commentating that focuses on the superstars instead of their own abilities, and a chance to hear the best opening song WWE offers right now.

Scott Stanford’s best lines from this week’s Superstars:

“We are about to get Divalicious. I’m not only talking about AJ and Kaitlyn I’m talking about this fellow to my right, Josh Mathews!”

“Kaitlyn: kind of a hybrid between Natalya and Beth Phoenix.”

“The two count – No!”

(To Mathews) “The Bellas so far in control of the Chickbusters! No relation to what you and I used to call ourselves, the Chick Magnets.”

“John Morrison, just talking about he reminds me of Spider-Man!”

“Moonlight Drive! Haven’t seen that one in years from John Morrison. Pulled that out of his bag of tricks.”