Review: Meg by Steve Alten

Alright, so it's hardly a literary masterpiece. It's not going to win any prizes and the author isn't up for a Novel any time soon. Meg, however, is currently being made into a movie featuring Jason Statham and Rainn Wilson, and the book itself is, quite frankly, awesome.

High praise considering I'm scared of fish.


Plot summary: On a top-secret dive into the Pacific Ocean's deepest canyon, Jonas Taylor found himself face-to-face with the largest and most ferocious predator in the history of the animal kingdom. The sole survivor of the mission, Taylor is haunted by what he's sure he saw but still can't prove exists - Carcharodon megalodon, the massive mother of the great white shark. The average prehistoric Meg weighs in at twenty tons and could tear apart a Tyrannosaurus rex in seconds. Taylor spends years theorizing, lecturing, and writing about the possibility that Meg still feeds at the deepest levels of the sea. But it takes an old friend in need to get him to return to the water, and a hotshot female submarine pilot to dare him back into a high-tech miniature sub. Diving deeper than he ever has before, Taylor will face terror like he's never imagined. MEG is about to surface. When she does, nothing and no one is going to be safe, and Jonas must face his greatest fear once again.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm scared of fish, not sharks. And yes, I'm well aware that sharks are technically fish, blah blah blah. But I'm scared of the more traditional fish (goldfish, carp, trout, etc) instead of the ones that could actually, you know, hurt me. Justifiably, therefore, setting aside my phobia as an irrelevant aside, Meg is still great and still really creepy.  

It's a fairly standard pulpy action novel, but I enjoyed every second, and not just because I was amusing myself by muttering Jurassic SHARK! to myself every few seconds. There's a lot of action in the very fast-paced plot and that's written very well. At one point when I couldn't sleep I had to be reminded that it was inherently unlikely that a 60 foot shark was about to come crashing through the wall, so I could probably chill out.

I really like the plot. It's not ingeniously unique, but apparently the author has been studying Megalodons for more than a decade and it shows. The detail and near-reverence with which he describes the prehistoric sea creatures are fascinating. He also provides a believable premise as to how the Megalodons have remained undiscovered for so long - a theory which is supported by some scientists in the real world. The mechanical equipment and submersibles are perhaps a little too detailed, but the man clearly knows what he's talking about. 

No other scavengers approached the Megalodon as it fed in the tropical waters. It had no mate to share its kill with, no young to feed. The Meg was a companionless creature, territorial by nature. It mated when it must and killed its young when it could, for the only challenge to its reign came from its own kind. It could adapt and survive the natural catastrophes and climatic changes that caused the mass extinctions of the giant reptiles and countless prehistoric mammals. And while its numbers would eventually dwindle, some members of its species might survive, isolated from the world of man, hunting in the isolated darkness of the ocean depths. 

The prose is acceptable, probably to about a Dan Brown level. It's not a masterpiece, but it's mostly definitely readable without being irritated. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times but that's survivable as well.

My only complaint about Meg at all, is one of the female characters. It's not a huge part of the book by any stretch of the imagination but she did really annoy me - complaining that the protagonist was being sexist, when he really wasn't in the slightest. I'm not sure if the author was trying to appeal to the female readers or if he was trying to be funny or what, but it's frustrating.

Oh! And the ending was a bit far-fetched and odd. 

Still though, I really recommend you read Meg, for a fun and thrilling adventure  involving giant prehistoric sharks. And I can 95% guarantee that they won't come crashing through your bedroom wall.

Read more about Steve Alten's books here. 

Review: Inferno by Dan Brown

I wasn't sure what I was going to make of this - I adored The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but was less than impressed with Dan Brown's other works. Where was Inferno going to fall on the widely-varying scale of the author's works? Well, let me tell you. Inferno is amazing, very possibly actually better than The Da Vinci Code, although they're so different it's quite hard to compare them. I was actually genuinely surprised at how good this book is - it's a perfect balance of intelligent symbolism and a racing, twisty plot. Amazing.

Plot summary:
'Seek and ye shall find.'

With these words echoing in his head, eminent Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon awakes in a hospital bed with no recollection of where he is or how he got there. Nor can he explain the origin of the macabre object that is found hidden in his belongings.

A threat to his life will propel him and a young doctor, Sienna Brooks, into a breakneck chase across the city of Florence. Only Langdon's knowledge of hidden passageways and ancient secrets that lie behind its historic facade can save them from the clutches of their unknown pursuers.

With only a few lines from Dante's dark and epic masterpiece, The Inferno, to guide them, they must decipher a sequence of codes buried deep within some of the most celebrated artefacts of the Renaissance - sculptures, paintings, buildings - to find the answers to a puzzle which may, or may not, help them save the world from a terrifying threat.

Where to begin... Obviously comparisons with The Da Vinci Code are unavoidable, so we may as well start there. It's different, very different, which was perhaps a wise idea on Dan Brown's part. The basic concept is the same, of course - deciphering clues based on symbols hidden in art and literature, in an attempt to thwart whichever secret organisation is threatening the world this time. The tone has changed this time round, however, and the threat is a completely unique one that I wouldn't have expected from Dan Brown.

While the references to history and art are still intact (as you can probably guess from the title) they play a smaller part than in Dan Brown's previous books. I still spent a huge amount of time looking up various statues and churches, but they don't really seem as integral to the plot. The story itself could stand on its own feet without the references to Dante Alighieri, but the literature twist does give it a nice... sparkle.

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.

It's a fascinating idea and raises some wonderful ethical questions, the like of which just aren't present in his previous novels. The quote above isn't one of Dan Brown's; it's actually from Inferno itself but it's quoted several times and sums up the entire focus of the novel. Several times I caught myself seriously considering the moral conundrums raised, and I don't doubt most other readers have done the same. It's as if the author has matured a little, or perhaps just wants to show the world that his writing isn't as trivial as the media seems to claim.

Speaking of... this book definitely doesn't deserve the widespread criticism heaped upon the author's writing, especially by those who haven't actually read it. The list of quotes published online that prompt people to snigger at the prose is actually very misleading. A large portion of them are taken from passages that are meant to sound stilted and a little odd, and it's unfair to base the quality of his work on these excerpts.

While I'm not claiming Dan Brown is the next Shakespeare, his writing is far from bad. I'm the first one to point out when the text is 'clunky' or doesn't flow, but here I never once shuddered inwardly at a poorly thought-out sentence. As Hannah pointed out, if Dan Brown published his next work under a pseudonym, would his writing still be slated?

I do have one complaint, but only one. I'm not sure how specific I can be without being spoiler-y, but there are small aspects of the ending that just don't make sense. There's a huge twist that's absolutely brilliant and makes perfect sense, but the way it's dealt with is completely unrealistic. And yes, I do realise the irony of complaining about non-realism in a book based on saving the world via a copy of Dante's Inferno.

But there's no way That would be met with a reaction as calmly as That, especially when the leader of the World Health Organisation basically just nods and smiles. It's a huge thing, and yet despite the massive build-up throughout the book, it's not really met with the panic it deserves. Zobrist and his ladyfriend aren't really treated as having done what they did; I really think there should have been some ramifications.

Was that suitably cryptic? :p You'll see what I mean when you read it, which you absolutely should do. This book is great, which isn't an easy feat when it's following The Da Vinci Code. I can't recommend this enough - it's a unique action-packed, intelligent thriller with enough twists to satisfy even the most dubious reader.

Visit Dan Brown's website here, or find him on Twitter.

Review: The Mozart Conspiracy by Scott Mariani OR 'The Masons Did It!'

So hey, who wants to hear how well I'm doing in the TBR Challenge? You do? Well that's just awesome. Funnily enough, I'm doing awesome too! In fact, The Mozart Conspiracy is my fifth fourth (alright, so maybe not quite as awesome as I'd thought...) book this year that was on my TBR pile before 2012 and that's nearly half. Go me and my overuse of italics!

Former SAS operative Ben Hope is running for his life. Enlisted by the beautiful Leigh Llewellyn - world famous opera star and Ben's first love - to investigate her brother's mysterious death, Ben finds himself caught up in a centuries-old puzzle. The official line states that Oliver died whilst investigating Mozart's death, but the facts don't add up. Oliver's research reveals that Mozart, a notable freemason, may have been killed by a shadowy and powerful splinter group of the cult. The only clues lie in an ancient letter, believed to have been written by Mozart himself. When Leigh and Ben receive video evidence of a ritual sacrifice being performed by hooded men, they realise that the sect is still in existence today and will stop at nothing to remain a secret. From the dreaming spires of Oxford to Venice's labyrinthine canals, the majestic architecture of Vienna and Slovenia's snowy mountains, Ben and Leigh must forget the past and race across Europe to uncover the truth behind THE MOZART CONSPIRACY! 

These books are a guilty of pleasure of mine. I'm never sure exactly what type of genre they are, but you know what I mean - action/thriller books with an intelligent, conspiracy-type base. Like The Da Vinci Code or The Medusa Amulet. There's usually either a good-looking scholar or an ex-military man who searches for some long-lost artefact, but oh no - there's a team of similarly ex-military backgrounded people who are also searching for the artefact, only they're baddies so they have bigger guns. Oh, and the Freemasons are usually running about somewhere too.

I don't know why I'm making fun of them really. I own so many I could put Waterstones to shame. It's just that they're generally pretty awful. But you know, so awful they're actually kind of... well, good. And you don't need to concentrate to read the, so they're the ultimate comfort book.

I really liked the central premise - you don't see a lot of books about conspiracies regarding famous historical composers. It's usually biblical artefacts or art history related. Apparently there's genuinely been a lot of conspiracy over the death of Mozart. Theoretically he died of rheumatic fever, but similar symptoms are produced when the victim ingests a certain type of poison, so it's possible (if unlikely, in my opinion) that he didn't die from natural causes after all. Mozart himself declared he had been poisoned but was ignored at the time, and ever since.

To be honest though, I'm getting a bit bored of all the Freemason plots. Just once I'd like to read one of these without a Mason lurking mysteriously behind every corner. I understand the attraction, I suppose - a secretive, mystical archaic cult with many prominent members and I know that Mozart was genuinely a part of the group. The plot would have worked just as well, if not better, without their inclusion - the explanatory notes at the back say that the real conspiracy theory (if there is such a thing) goes that he was poisoned by Salieri, a rival composer. Why wouldn't that have worked as a plot device? You know how on every single mystery/crime programme, some hilarious person watching it with you will pipe up with 'The Butler did it!?' Well it's getting to the point where whenever I pick up one of these books, I want to shout out immediately that 'The Masons did it!'

But hey, that's all par for the course. I don't mean to judge a book on the genre it's affiliated with. The Mozart Conspiracy takes a bit of getting into, but it has a fast-paced plot and reasonably developed characters, if a little generic. It does have a few twists that make it stand out from the usual and the romantic sub-plot is actually fairly subtle.

I liked Leigh Llewellyn. She stood out as a well-rounded and interesting character. She's an opera singer with a musically trained background, and so can actually contribute to the investigations. She's not a pushover but not unnecessarily stubborn either. One of the better female book leads, I'd say.

However. However, however, however. The ending is appalling. Like, really I'm-making-a-point-of-it bad. I read it and just kind of blinked in confused astonishment. It seems incredibly pointless, unless it was about a point that Mr. Mariani just couldn't be bothered to carry through to the next book, in which case - why add it the first place? I know that seems unnecessarily cryptic, but you'll understand what I mean if you've read the book. It's terrible, honestly.

Last thing - have you ever read one of those books that seems to be overly brutal for no reason than to shock? I know a lot of people said that about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but The Mozart Conspiracy is just as guilty. There's one particular scene that's so horrific I had to dare myself to go back and make sure I'd actually read the damn thing right. It's just... uhhh. I don't mind a little brutality every now and again, but I do like it to fit in with the book and not just shoved in for the sake of it.

So there are parts that set The Mozart Conspiracy apart - the interesting plot, the believable characters and relationship, the fast-paced action... But then there are a few horribly clichéd parts that let the side down. The Mason culpability for example, or the pointless ending. It's worth a read, but I'd say it's more of a library thing.

The Shakespeare Curse by J. L. Carrell

I'm a sucker for actiony thriller type books like these. You know the ones - renowned scholar goes on the hunt for Biblical artifact/tomb of mythical warrior/lost Shakespearean manuscript whilst thwarting armed assassins bent on stealing the aforementioned artifact/tomb/manuscript for themselves.

What can I say? It's a guilty pleasure. Trash reading while very possibly absorbing a little knowledge at the same time. Everybody wins.


Amazon - 'A brutally murdered body is discovered on a remote Scottish hillside with a mysterious ancient knife beside it. The victim was a beautiful young woman, throat slashed by an unknown assailant. The circumstances of the murder suggest ancient Pagan sacrifice. Then a trench on that same hill is found filled with blood. The shocking discoveries all seem to be linked by the ancient curse of Macbeth. From the streets of New York to the twisting corridors of Hampton Court Palace to a remote loch in the Scottish Highlands, the race is on to stop a deadly modern serial killer who will do anything to uncover priceless ancient treasures.'

Pfft. That summary doesn't really explain the book properly. Long story short, it is believed that Shakespeare's original draft of Macbeth contained a terrible satanic write ('A deede without a name...') that Dr John Dee begged him to remove lest he accidentally conjure something terrible onstage. He does so and then, naturally, the original manuscript is lost. Believing that a demonic ritual gave Shakespeare his genius, modern-day baddies want to find the manuscript so they can reenact the ceremony themselves and enhance their minds to his level.

Much better. The original summary doesn't really mention how occult-centered the novel actually is. This isn't your typical guns-and-explosions thriller (although both feature liberally); it's much darker than that. Victims are often found having been violated during rituals and killers cast spells in an attempt to protect themselves. Despite Ms Carrell not having these beliefs herself, she seems remarkably respectful of true Wiccans. She never implies that their ceremonies are silly and subtly implies that the violence and brutality of her book's Wiccans is not true to the huge majority of those out there. 

While I have to admit that I would have preferred a little less of the occult, it does have the advantage of making the book completely different to her first novel. The Shakespeare Secret also features Kate Stanley hunting for a lost manuscript and I can't really see how this one could possibly differ in any other way.

I found the explanation of the 'curse' behind the play particularly clever. Theoretically, Macbeth still contains tiny bits of the demonic rites that were cut out and failure to complete the proper rituals in full brings down a curse upon the production. Whether that's the true origin or not, I don't know, but it's a nice theory.

'So you see, in the hands of the untrained, either the magic half-works, in a terribly dangerous way, or it doesn't, and the production pulls down a curse on its own head.'

Ms Carrell has obviously done her research. It's a very entangled book, plot-wise - a few bits did make blink in confusion as there are many different characters, rituals and motives to keep track of. The notes at the back explain that the theories featured in the book are genuine scholarly concepts. It's thought by some that a different version of Macbeth really existed because of inconsistency regarding the witches. It's also one of the shortest of his plays, leading to theories that it was considerably cut down to hide the more occult scenes. I also didn't know that Shakespeare's theatrical group, The King's Men, contained men that were hand-picked by Sir Francis Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth's spymaster, but nobody is quite sure why.

I just wish these books didn't feel the need to shove in badly-done romance with a trowel. The romantic interest features briefly at the beginning, is completely forgotten, and then pops up nicely at the end to tie up the story. Romantic entanglements are not necessary to write a book. Real-life people manage to function without them, why can't fictional characters? 

'Fillet of a fenny snake,
    In the cauldron boil and bake;
    Eye of newt and toe of frog,
    Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
    Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
    Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
    For a charm of powerful trouble,
    Like a hell-broth boil and bubble!' 

 

I've loved the witches in Macbeth ever since I was part of a sketch during High School. I distinctly remember being Witch Two and perfecting my withered hag voice. I can still recite a large portion of the speech now, and frequently do so when the mood strikes!