posted
Lexicon Triumverate was, I thought, universally known as a tragic example of self-published forced prose that tries to be profound but is really only disjointed, unedited, and pedantic. I think the excerpt speaks for itself.
Not to mention that the author doesn't have the greatest track record. (See Wikipedia entry.)
And it has 4.5 stars on Amazon.com. I'm rubbing my eyes. What?
Are those planted reviews, or am I missing something? (And what's with those reviews that call the book a pile of *beep* in the text, yet award it five stars through the rating system?)
posted
Wow, just looking at the first page I'd have to agree with the drivel assesment. Of course it's not the worst published book I've ever seen that honor ia reserved for Matthew Reilly's unbeatable "Seven Deadly Wonders".
His prose is terrible. His plot ridiculous. His seething jealousy for Dan Brown obvious.
These are all fairly common, but Matthew Reilly manages to exceed them in the way that setting foot on the moon exceeds going to the corner store for a carton of milk. He italicizes random words for no discernible reason. He. Overuses. Telegraphic. Sentences. Untill. You. Want. To. Shoot. Him. In. The. Face.
All that and he includes his own illustrations. Well not illustrations per se. More like diagrams. Which illustrate the most meaningless visages it is possible to imagine. Like a random squiggle of lines which is supposed to demonstrate the twisting paths of the trap-ladden clif-face. For the record the paths lead to a massive cavern, which contains the hanging gardens of babylon, which in turn contain a golden capstone which should they be placed on the great pyyramid at Gaza during the Tarturus moon will grant one region a thousand years of power. I'm not making this up.
I highly recommend you purchase it. It's easily the funniest book I've ever had the good fortune to read.
That being said, after reading his first two pages, I'll never look at even the worst rough drafts here in the same way again. Atleast they don't take breaks to incorrectly address physics problems.
9.8 m/s^2 is the ACCELERATION due to gravity, dammit.
posted
I do know the reviews I put up at Amazon were generally positive---I occasionally mentioned quibbles, nitpicks, and other details that grated on me, but nearly everything I put up was an effusive praise for the book in question. (Haven't done any since 2004...lost interest, somehow. Never did a huge amount.)
Of course, I've been sore tempted to rip some things to shreds...I've got a book right here that irritates me in so many different writerly ways...but if I do anything with it, it'll likely be right here, not on Amazon.
posted
If you've read the first 5 pages, you will have a hard time believing that ANYONE liked it. With the obvious exception of the author.
Incidently, apparently the author has been arrested for making death threats, is an asian-supremicist and was fired from his column in Asian Weekly (titled "God of the Universe") after he wrote an article titled "Why I hate Black People"
[This message has been edited by smncameron (edited February 02, 2008).]
posted
Well, the smoking gun reference suggests _those_ reviews are suspect, but not the reviews for Eng's book itself.
Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could have written that many book reviews for Amazon...I've got considerably more books than that lying around the house...but I've tried more formal reviewing, way back when, and, save for the occasional inspired essay or short complimentary comment, it's not for me. (Of course I'm willing to dissect a book from a writerly point of view.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the cover illustration says it all: two dragons fighting--one using a sword, and the other using a sword and an autoloading pistol (rather than the uzi strapped to his belt. That's right. The dragon is wearing a belt).
A dictionary could have helped this one out--I don't think "avaricious" and "draconic" mean what the author thinks they mean.
[This message has been edited by J (edited February 04, 2008).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
