Interesting Links for 10-04-2014

[andrewducker]

• Font War: Inside the Design World's $20 Million Divorce
  (tags: design typography font )
• Everything you need to know about the Heartbleed SSL bug
  (tags: security computers )
• Ants Build Complex Structures With a Few Simple Rules (which we can now simulate!)
  (tags: ants computers rules brains )
• Why does C# use UTF-16 for strings?
  (tags: text c#

Comments

[momentsmusicaux]

I thought American Gods was a bit bland and dragged on for too long and in the end wasn't really worth it for the reveal at the end

[andrewducker]

I don't tend to like Gaiman's novels that much. I like a lot of his short stories, and novella-sized things like Stardust and The Ocean At The End of The Lane, but American Gods and Anansi Boys were both "ok".

I totally know what you mean about Vonnegut - some nice ideas, but not really connected up well. I liked Slaughterhouse-Five, but I wasn't blown away by it the way I was by, say, Catch 22.

And I also got a short way into The Name Of The Rose and bounced badly.

[momentsmusicaux]

I liked Anansi Boys a lot more than American Gods. And The Graveyard Book more than either.

I'm glad it's not just me!

[andrewducker]

Yeah, Graveyard Book was better.

When he does short form stuff he seems a lot more comfortable experimenting, and not needing to follow a structure.

Anansi Boys was more fun, which helped a lot.

[alitheapipkin]

I agree re: Gaiman. I loved the *idea* of American Gods but the actual book dragged. Stardust and The Graveyard Book are my favourites of his by some way, although I have a great fondness for Neverwhere which is more about the story and the other things it has inspired than the actual book.

(Although if I'm being perfectly honest, for sheer entertainment, my favourite novel he has written ever is still probably 'Good Omens' - that book can always make me laugh no matter how fed up I am, I've re-read it more than most books I own.)

[philmophlegm]

My wife likes Gaiman's novels, so they're all on shelves in our library, but I've picked them up and never been tempted to actually read them. Don't think they tick my boxes. I did like Good Omens (read it years ago), and Sandman is one of the few things I ever re-read, but Anansi Boys, Graveyard Book, American Gods etc - just not interested. I've read the odd Gaiman short that I liked though, particularly the Dying Earth one he wrote for that Jack Vance tribute anthology (see userpic).

[alitheapipkin]

I haven't read The Ocean at the End of the Lane yet but I own all his other novels. Sandman is fantastic and Death: The Time of Your Life is one of my favourite graphic novels, which is why I edited the post above to be clear I was talking about his novel-format works rather than comics.

[momentsmusicaux]

Good Omens is better than anything else either TP or NG have done on their own.

[a_pawson]

Good Omens is a strange book. It's one of those rare joint novels where the the collaboration produced something better than if either had written it alone.

I was a massive Pratchett fan when I was younger, but had never read anything by Neil Gaiman. Susan was the opposite, she had read practically no Pratchett. Both of us read Good Omens. I was convinced it was 90% written by Pratchett, she was convinced it was 90% Gaiman's work. We still don't agree to this day. It's definitely hilarious though.

[usmu]

I'm the opposite on Gaiman: love both American Gods and Anansi boys but gave up on The ocean at the end of the Lane about a couple of dozen pages in. Some of his short stories are ok, but not that interesting. Neverwhere was excellent.

Umberto Eco is hit or miss depending on whether I find the timeperiod in which he sets his story interesting. The Name of the Rose I really liked, along with Foucault's pendulum, but not much else.

[alitheapipkin]

Mythago Wood is probably mine. Loads of people whose taste in books I usually agree with rave about it but I can't finish it for toffee. It just makes me bored and vaguely uncomfortable in a way I can't put my finger on.

[philmophlegm]

Liked Mythago Wood (quite a bit), but haven't got around to the sequels yet.

[philmophlegm]

Not read The Name of the Rose, but I hated Foucault's Pendulum. (I expected to love it - the premise ticked a lot of boxes for me.) Felt that if ever a novel needed a good editor, it was that one. Which is ironic given that Eco used to be a literary editor.

The only Vonnegut I've read was Slaughterhouse 5, which I did think was very good. I think your points about "disconnected and incoherent" and "flashes of story then long rambling bits of something else, and how much of it is fiction and how much is authorial voice" are actually spot on and I can see how that could be annoying, but I actually enjoyed the ride.

The Guardian journalist mentions Mieville's 'The City and the City' as one she didn't get. I'm with her. I can't for the life of me see why it won all the awards it did. Take away the two worlds thing and it would be a pretty run of the mill episode of Taggart, only not as well written. Mind you, most of the major SF awards in recent years have been puzzling choices as far as I can see.

[alitheapipkin]

I'm torn on The City and the City - I thought it was very well executed but I wished I was more engaged by the characters. I appreciate it more than I enjoyed it if that makes any sense at all.

[philmophlegm]

Totally. I thought "this is a clever premise" rather more than I thought "I'm really enjoying reading this book". In fact, I thought the premise was rather wasted on the mundane police procedural plot.

[usmu]

I'm so with you on Mieville. His work in general seems just a lot well done world building and not much story. It's seems to be suffering from Lord of the Rings syndrome.

Eco, to me at least, seems an intellectual who likes to show off. Loved Foucault's Pendulum though.