Sloe Times

So I finally finished the "Song of Susannah" which is the 6th book in Stephen King's Dark Tower series. I wasn't unhappy with the story in general, but the last 150 pages or so take a turn for the sureal that while you see it coming, don't quite believe until it happens. One of the things I've always liked about the series is how you could see glimpses of the other books he's written if you were observant. The most blatent is the character ties are Salems Lot and The Stand. The ending, which I concider to be before the writers journal entries, is somewhat annoying in that you're sitting on the brink of some major activity with Susannah and Mia, as well as Jake and Father Callahan. The writers journal at the very end does tie up some of the loose ends on where you've seen character names and such before, I have to wonder if some of those entries are less fictional than others. I had to wonder when the last page was going to happen, especially after he introduced himself as a character. I can't wait until the last book arrives it has truly been a long journey for this series (I read the first book over 10 years ago) and seeing it to the end will be something that I didn't think was going to happen, especially after his accident.

Now I'm on to the most recent addition to the Bourne series, "Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Legacy" which is written by someone other than Robert Ludlum. I'm only 30 pages into it so far, but I've noticed something about this book that has annoyed me before and I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that a new author is picking up an existing story. The annoying thing is the apparent need to dribble on about the background of characters and relationships that were developed in the previous works. Maybe it's just me, but I think it actually takes away from the story continuity by doing this. In the first three books written by Robert Ludlum I never got this sense of re-hashing the same information. At this point I'm not sure if it wasn't done, or if it was subtle enough that I was able to move past it without being annoyed. Another example of this are the Tom Clancy spin off paperbacks for Op Center, Net Force, and Power Plays. Every time a new writer takes up the banner they do the same thing of trying to 'remind' you of how the character came to be, their relationship with other characters, motivation, etc. I suspect that if I hadn't read any of the books to come before, that this style wouldn't bother me. In fact, I probably wouldn't notice it. However, my feeling on the subject is that if you're going to write a series, or continue a series of books with established characters, don't rehash crap from the previous books, I know all of this junk from before.

Aw well, what do I know about writing? I have 1000 monkeys write my posts and I just roll dice to pick the best words to post here.

Last but not least, I've finally set down "Super System" and have started reading "Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play." SS was a good book and had a significant influence on how I play the game. I'll have to re-visit it again, but perhaps by then, SS2 will be widely available. I have to admit that it's hard reading the Small Stakes Hold'em book without thinking about the 2+2 eruption with Sklansky. Unfortunately this isn't thinking about it in a good way, rather that he's a jackass and who wants to hear from that type of person? I'll just have to think of it as an Ed & Mason book and get through it. Just more proof that no matter how right you are, if you're an asshole, ultimately you still lose mindshare.