Book Review: The Grimoire of Kings: Tales of Bramoria: Book 1

Today I finished The Grimoire of Kings, book one of the Tales of Bramoria, and started the 2nd book in the trilogy.

The 2nd book is already easier to read than the first book. I say that because in the 1st book, the protagonist isn't exactly fun to be around, and the thing is, in a book we spend a lot of time with them, and I genuinely didn't want to.

Three friends are snatched from our world and dropped into a fantasy world where magic works, and they react differently to that happening to them.

Now I get it, we want a lot of growth in a main character, and the further they're going to go, the further back they need to be for the run-up to where we want them to be, right? If it's a long story, they can't start out great and just stay great the whole time. That's no fun to read at all is it? Where's the story arc? Where's the personal growth? 

So, I get it. He started out as a prat because we get to watch him become NOT a prat and then we'll root for him, yeah? I totally get it. But still, dear Lord. Give us a glimpse of something worth sticking around for, would ya? 

I started the series twice and finished the first book the second time by just pounding my face into it over and over again until I came through the other side. 

When I started the second book in the first few chapters, it was already worth it to push through. If you're considering it do it. Just keep going. 

It's an epic story, and as such it has a long introduction, and the first book is mostly establishing where we were, what we need to do, the call to adventure, and the hero refusing the call. I don't know if it's going to keep it up on the Hero's Journey or not, but the first part was pretty firmly in that pattern, which means the book isn't going to follow it three times with three arcs that continue ever upward in a sort of leapfrog thing like I'd thought of it doing. It appears to be just one giant honking leap. 

Buy it as a trilogy and read it as a trilogy. Don't think of it as three distinct books. You'll be, as I was, put off. Think of it as a single epic story, not three books.

What I'm saying it, read the book; read the series. The world-building is good, and I'm enjoying the story. I like the fish out of water part of it, the neighboring worlds part of it, and the magic system that I've seen so far. I'm liking the relationships between the characters, even the character that got on my very last nerve. His relationships were well-realized and were distinct. Each character had their own voice and their own motivations, wants, and goals, and they weren't carbon copies of each other at all.

Go get the series. I'm super happy with book two, The Sage and the Phoenix.

Book Review: A Prince of a Man (The London Boys Book 1)

 

A Prince of a Man by Carter Christensen is the first in a series of four books called, "The London Boys." I've never read any of Christensen's books before, but have read an alarming amount of mm erotica, male/male erotica. Think romance, with men and men and the steamy kind of romance that they talk about in health class being thrown in there. 

Firstly: When I say "steamy bits" I want to be perfectly clear here, I'm saying steamy bits, but what I mean is man-on-man sex. Don't go off and buy it then be surprised. It's not hinted at or off-camera. It's right there, on the page. 

10,000 foot view of it? I enjoyed it. I liked the characters and the setting. I liked it in the way that if you removed the steamy bits and replaced them with "yada yada yada" I'd still have enjoyed it. The book's more than just sexy bits connected by a gossamer thread of story. 

I said I liked the characters, and I did, I do. The thing is, I read it in bits, 10 minutes here or there on work breaks, etc. And sometimes I lost track of who was who. This may be my fault or it may be that they weren't quite distinct enough from each other on the page.  There's no way for me to know. It wasn't problematic. Yes, I know the chapter headings would start with the character's name. I'd forget which one Harry was though. Some of that was it jumped around a lot, from England to America & Australia picking up a character, dropping one, and back to England with years between the bits... It wasn't confusing I think if I'd read it in bigger chunks. But when I put the book down and there were two people in the US and two people in Australia, then pick it up the day later, turn the page, and everybody's back in England and time has passed. I was... again, probably just me.

I had a thought while I was thinking about it today on the way to the post office. One of the characters I felt was well developed and talked about, sort of. I mean, they were fleshed-out supporting characters, but they were fleshed out well in two dimensions. They weren't as important as the mains, obviously, but they were more important than other supporting characters, and then they just vanished. I described them not as characters, but as cars, vehicles to get the main character from where he was to where he needed to be then the supporting character broke down, wait, now, mixed metaphor. The car broke down, the supporting character noped out of there and was just gone. We got invested, then POOF. Gone.

I said the the person in the car with me, "Either, he wrote himself into a corner and didn't know how to get out of it with them or they're going to show up again, but there's not enough book for them to show up again so maybe they're in the other books?"

I looked today before writing this, at the descriptions of the subsequent books and they are indeed the mains in the next books. Now it doesn't feel quite so weirdly ham-handed but still feels a little... jarring I think. If they'd faded into the background or we'd been a part of their leaving, or I dunno. It just felt super abrupt. One minute they're important and the next minute they're just gone.

Listen, if that's all I have to quibble about is the way a supporting character leaves the stage, then it's pretty good. I'm quite happy with the main characters and how they're written. I'm happy with the dialogue. I'm happy with the level of angst. I'm happy that SO far there hasn't been the trope of if they'd just TALK to each other they'd know instead of mind-reading and getting it wrong. Those angsty books bug me after a while. Sure, once in a while is fine, but we're the most connected we've ever been in the history of ever. The only reason someone doesn't know how someone feels or what they think is because they don't want to. It's so easy to just ASK now. You'd be amazed (maybe you wouldn't) how often the hand-wringing and "oh I just don't know what he thinks/wants/feels" turns up as the main driving force of a book. Lazy writing. So far I haven't seen it in here.

Would I suggest A Prince of a Man (The London Boys Book 1)? Definitely. I would also suggest reading it in bigger chunks than ten minutes at a time during breaks at work. It's not a one-room cozy mystery. The writer doesn't limit himself. He's got the whole world to draw on and he uses it. That's going to require we, the readers, not be lazy in our reading. We need to pay attention. 

A gay kid looking...

Short version: Gay kid looking for a church that's supportive.

My first response is "Don't do that to yourself." But that wasn't what they wanted. They wanted a church where they could build a relationship with a loving God that accepted that they were gay. So, what do I do? I call around and try to find one for them by contacting people I know at various churches in town that I suspected would be good fits.

And that should've been the end of it, but it got me thinking. That's always dangerous. 

What is a good person? Make a list of the qualities that you believe make a good person. What values? What attitudes? What actions would you say are in the "good person" column? 

The problem with asking that is that so many people give really good answers. That shouldn't be a problem.

The problem comes in when they talk about their politics. 

If a person's politics don't align with their values, the values that they think constitute a good and moral person... what does that say about them? The politics a person espouses is an extension of their actual values. It's the way an individual attempts to expand their influence in the world and when the political candidate doesn't display any of the values that a person says, themselves, are attributes of a good person... I can't think they're actually good people themselves.

If you recognize a set of values as desirable, as noteworthy, as goals to be aspired to, but then ignore those when it comes to political decisions... that's not good. That's hypocrisy.

There's someone at work who claims to be a Randian level conservative but who has their hand out for free drinks when it's hot at work, and bitches when they're not there. They want the handouts for themselves, but they vote against any social program that they can. They want the handouts for themselves... they don't want YOU to have any, but they will take them, happily. Hypocrisy.

Super annoying.

What's this got to do with churches? Well, the values they teach... are they the ones they practice? They talk about loving god. They say we're all sinners. They say we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But as a gay... it's hard to get past the part where I've been the gay told I was good enough to attend the church but not good enough to be a member OF the church so long as I was gay. Because some sins are more sins than others and to a lot of churches being gay is a special kind of sin that God needs help judging because He can't do it on his own so they do it for Him. 

So, would I recommend a church on purpose, to anyone? Nah. In my experience, it's just a place where people are nicer about their bigotry... usually. 

But that wasn't the assignment. The assignment was to help a gay kid find a church because that's what they wanted. I hope it works out for them.

Upped the dose

Nobody follows this which is cool. Means I can talk about stuff without anybody reading it. I process things by writing them out. Like there's a boil in my brain that needs lancing and writing is how I do that.

Roe V Wade happened and that's not great but I'm a self absorbed douche and fixated on Thomas's opinion that gay rights should be tossed out. Not just marriage but also making gay sex a criminal offense.

I have been sort of numb since then. I know how I am. I've intentionally avoided deleting everything and going full hermit but one thing I absolutely don't need or want is well meaning straight people saying to not worry.  They're not the ones being told they deserve to be locked away from normal people because their existence is an offense against society. Frankly I don't want to hear it right now. I want to look at the horizon and see plumes of smoke as it all burns to the fucking ground.

I've upped the dose on the antidepressants. Be better to be numb I think... I know. At least for a while. It's not numb as much as so jittery I can't focus on anything long enough to spiral. The hard part is knowing when to go off or drop the dose back down to a maintenance level. I normally only go up for fall, seasonal affected depression they call it, SAD. An unfortunate acronym actually. 

How long is this season going to last? Is this the season for now tho? They're lifetime appointments. How much worse is it going to get? How much is my innate cynicism and how much is reality?

But, work's a thing. It doesn't care... It just keeps happening and I gotta keep going. One of my things is I make myself go, make myself have at least one stable thing that's not fucked up. So, here I am in the parking lot early rather than sitting at home, spiraling. Five more twelve hour shifts and not enough sleep before I am off so I won't have to deal with thinking for a while. That's nice. Easy enough to coast through the rut of work and not think... The edge will be off by then probably.

I have to pee. Not because I've over hydrated in anticipation of it being hot as balls at work but because I've drank probably a pot of coffee this morning. Not a great idea. I'll have worse ones I'm sure. If that's my worst I'm doing okay, honestly.

Take care of yourself. 

Assassin's Creed: Valhalla - Initial thoughts. Hint: Not a fan.

After 8 hours of game play I have left Norway and landed on England's shores where I'm going to live now, because I'm pissy with Daddy for making a deal so somebody else gets to be king. I wish I were joking.

Yeah, that's the motivation for an entire game. Pissed off kid, stomps off, leaves home because he didn't get what he wanted so he takes his toys and goes somewhere else. Oh joy.

Am I avenging my son's death by hunting down his murderers and stumbling across a huge conspiracy across time itself like in Origins? Nope. Pissy kid doesn't get his way so he leaves.

Am I trying to reunite my family and redeem my brother and save them from a secretive cult, while battling mythological creatures, that's bent on destroying our civilization like in Odyssey? Nope. Spoiled child scoops up his toys and runs away from home in a temper tantrum accompanied by pillage, murder, and mayhem.

Want to be mayor of a town and play a city building sim? You're gonna LOVE AC:V. See, in spite of England already having a blacksmith, stable, and general store in every village and hamlet and crossroads you can find, for some reason you want to build your very own that does the exact same thing theirs does. I MEAN EXACT. And the only way to do that is to raid, destroy, and pillage, wait for it... wait for it... monasteries. Yup. Churches are the only source of the supplies I need to build a stable. Why? There's no actual logic to it. Just shut up and go burn down monasteries and build a building to fill with horse shit.

I just lost 3 hours game play where it apparently never autosaved like it claims it does. That's half my game play for the entire day. I even think I saved once but it didn't recognize it when I reset the frozen game. What was I doing that was so game-breakingly bad? I tried to stand up from a crouch.

If I were loving the game it wouldn't be that big a deal but I'm only kinda liking it.

If you're considering Assassin's Creed Valhalla wait for a sale. 

Odin Vision is useless. Your eagle is a crow, or raven, and is useless. If you shoot something in the tall grass you're not gonna find it so don't bother looking. Everything is behind a barred door which in spite of having giant axes you have to do a puzzle to get through. Sometimes I can chain assassinate and sometimes I can't with no clue why not. You'll find a cursed area with no clue or hint or indication how to fix it. Your allies are sadists and torturous assholes. England is apparently the land of 20,000 rivers. You can get tattoos but you can't actually see them because every outfit completely covers you wrist to neck to ankles. Nothing on the map shows up on the HUD until you're on top of it. Comparing equipment is meaningless because you can't see the stats if upgraded on the compare screen and there's no DPS value anywhere to be found so which axe is better? No way to know. 

Overall I completely regret the money spent on the expensive edition I got based on their last two games which I loved and have played for hundreds of hours. That money would've been better spent paying somebody to just slap me randomly throughout the day for the next week or so. I'd regret that too but at least I wouldn't be allied with people who torture folks as a hobby like I am in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla.

I'm not asking the Vikings to be nice. I'm asking the game designers to give us the option to not be torturous ass hats as a play style. 

I'm not providing an affiliate link to it because honestly. I don't want you to buy this game. I wouldn't enjoy the money I made off your bad decision. I'd feel guilty.