Wars of the Roses, book 1, Stormbird, by Conn Iggulden

 This has clearly been meticulously researched, paced and plotted. Deviations from the historical record were small but necessary to keep the plot moving forward. Iggulden states as much in his historical notes section at the end. Some characters were invented to replace apparent historical figures lost to time. Derry Brewer, the spy, for one, Thomas Woodchurch, an archer who leads a peasants revolt in France another.

There were many things to like about this book, the story itself, obviously, is gripping in its complexity, the characters fully realised and utterly believable. The settings were richly described and vividly brought to life.

But there were a few issues I had too. If you felt Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire had a load of characters to keep track of, Iggulden takes that idea and raises to a new height. Granted, historical fiction is bound by the players invloved, but there are so, so many here it does become quite a chore constantly flipping to the five (yes FIVE!) pages of family trees at the beginning of the volume.

Another issue was every character (bar Margaret of Anjou, but as the Queen of the King of England, she doesn't really count as French for most of the novel) was English, which not in itself a problem, but with so much of the book set in France, with the conflict between England and France front and central, we got no sense of the French POV. Every character was, according to the narrative, righteous in their anger at being asked, or forced, to leave France. Despite living on French land, stolen from French landowners by English soldiers. There was no opposition to this, just a portrayal of English invaders pissed off that their sojourn in the French sun was coming to an end. This just rubbed me the wrong way.

I still want to read the rest of the series, which is testament to Iggulden's prose and way of framing a story, so I guess those little foibles aren't enough to put me off.

Clash of The Titans, director Loius Leterrier

Having recently read Stephen Fry's Mythos & Heroes books on Greek Mythology I had been looking for movies and TV shows to further my knowledge, or at least bring some of the stories I have just read to life.

This movie does none of that. It is a very poor effort, changing the story of the Hero Perseus in so many ways so as to render it unrecognisable from the traditional story told for countless generations. Being aware that myths are not facts, and a little creative license is allowed and even encouraged to bring to the silver screen, this goes so far past that it changes the core of the story.

Andromenda was Egyptian, not from Argos, Perseus never rode Pegasus, Medusa certainly didn't reside in the underworld requiring a trip on Charon's pleasure cruise. Pegasus was a unique horse, not merely part of a herd of impossible to tame flying horses. Perseus did meet Pegasus, when he beheaded his mother Medusa upon which time the winged horse sprung from her neck and flew off into the world where he eventualy met and be tamed by Bellerephon. 

Taking away the terrible changes to the myth, and the title (this takes place eons after the Titans were deposed by the Gods), this just isn't a good movie. Poorly acted, sloppily directed, some of the CGI is truly awful, the dialogue grates, and the less said about Liam Neeson's Zeus the better.

The only saving grave is Ralph Fiennes, who is wonderfully macabre as Hades, even though he plays no part in the story of Perseus in the original telling of this hero's story. Shoehorned in as an antagonist and steps up, but shouldn't be within a million miles of this nonsense. Fiennes and his underworld ruling counterpart.

Avoid if you can, and if you can't, may the Gods (not the Titans!!!) have mercy on your soul.

A Purple Place for Dying, John D. MacDonald (Travis McGee, #3)

This was not a good book. 

In terms of story which it was ok. Just ok, but nothing unique or groundbreaking. A tale of revenge, family, lust and ultimately hearbreak.

What made it bad was the tone, the casual violence towards women, one in particular, and the attempts by so many characters to not only justify it, but to blame this woman for it. She deserves a beating, deserves every slap she gets. I get that its a product of its time, but its hard to read with modern sensibilities.

One particular instance early on when McGee meets this ladies' husband who describes slapping her and beating her for trying to leave him. He'll basically beat sense into her until she realises she's essentially his property. McGee ends this meeting with the enlightened thought that he liked him a lot better than his wife!

I'm sticking with this series because I've been assured that this changes, but this one feels like a step back from books 1 & 2. Since the three were all released in 1964 only months apart (as was book 4) this may not be foretelling of the series as it progresses.

McGee remains a great character, trying to be the righteous avenger, the hero for the downtrodden female. With tough love and honest appraisals he forges a bond with the ladies he's helping which always seems to end with an intimate encounter, which evidently bores him in the end. Not a very likeable man thus far, but I'll persevere for I'm nothing if not a glutton for punishment, and a completist. And as a wise man once said "I've started so I'll finish". 

The Big Bang Theory

I watched this religiously when it first came out, maybe the first 6 or 7 seasons, then kinda drifted out of it for a while. Not really sure why as I didn't stop liking it, maybe life got in the way, I had a baby around that time! Anyway, I've been catching up with it again, and finally finished it this week.

The first thing I'll say is Howard is an awful character, a stereotype of so many bad tropes and a bully with it. His behaviour towards Sheldon is, at times, beyond cruel and crosses a fairly severe line.

Sheldon is the most sympathetic character in the show because while he can be mean, abrasive, and disrespectful its true to him and you're always aware that he does seem to be trying. Like Pinocchio, and another of my favourite characters, Lt. Cmdr. Data from Star Trek: TNG, he wants to be a real life boy.

The female characters aren't treated well to begin with, but each of them gets plenty of time to shine in their own way, and grow as people. For a sitcom this is fairly good form.

Yes, the show has issues with stereotypes across the board, jewish, indian, geek, etc, but by the end of the series the characters have all grown past their introductions and the last series (the last 5-6 episodes in particular) has more heartfelt scenes then the previous 11 seasons combined.

The show has come under fairly intense criticism in the past for its depiction of geeks and nerds, and I understand that. I feel, however, its not deriding geek culture, but celebrating it. This show, this group of characters embody what it means to be a geek, what it means to be part of a fandom of something, be it Star Trek or Star Wars, comic books or sci-fi novels, there's something for all of us here. It allows us to be proud of that, to get the in-jokes between Sheldon and Wil Wheaton and sit smugly while others don't. This is a rare thing for us and I welcome it.

With repeats on television constantly, it has the potential to be like Friends and continually gain new fans and viewers over the years, and I hope many get the same satisfaction from it as I ultimately did. And you never know, I might even learn to like Howard.