Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Books Media Book Reviews

Deadly Perversions 195

Posted by timothy from the aren't-they-all dept.
twos writes "I just read the newly released novel Deadly Perversions, by 2002 ComputerWorld Top 100 IT Leader , well known computer columnist for eWeek, and now author Brett Arquette. The book really rocks with a real virus that's spread via hardware/software during 3D Cybersex encounters. Poof! Kills you in 72 hours." Read on for the rest of twos' review.
Deadly Perversions
author Brett Arquette
pages 406
publisher Lighthouse Press, Inc.
rating Excellent & Refreshing. Can't wait to read his next book
reviewer twos
ISBN 1932211004
summary Deadly virus is spread internationally via the use of Cybersex software/hardware.

This wild novel has a great caricature of Howard Stern and his crew. If you love Howard, he's in the book. If you hate him, Arquette kills him off in chapter 15 (and quite violently I may add). Lots of good computer stuff in it for bit-heads. Tons of Cybersex for chick-heads. It's written in a fascinating self-effacing style where there are just as many laughs to break up the tension as there are chills. I highly recommend this read for anyone under 40. Over that, (unless you're somewhat feral) I don't think you'll get it.

I can't think of a way to traditionally walk you through the book and summarize it, because there are simply too many subplots and wacky characters to do a scene-by-scene breakdown, so if that's what you're looking for it's best to read the back cover of the book.

I'd like to concentrate on Arquette's writing style, which is so unique that I feel there are many reasons this book will become a breakout cult classic bestseller.

First, the novel moves at the speed of light, short, quick, entertaining chapters that keeps you flipping pages trying to find a stopping point, but to no avail. I found I had read half of it before even realizing I had spent hours doing so.

Second - it's fun! How many books can you say were really fun to read, especially fiction thrillers that spend half the time describing characters that get violently killed off right after you get to know them. Arquette's book has zero fluff in it. He has traded in the violence for sex (one of the two are a must for any best selling novel), yet he wrote the book in a way where it doesn't take itself too seriously. I found myself laughing my ass off many times, wondering if this was a thriller or a comedy, but Arquette structured the chapters so the laughs come in just where they're needed, cutting some tension, allowing the reader to take a breath before being consumed in the plot, yet again.

Third - Arquette keeps you guessing. Just when you think you have it figured out, another twist pops up, another character is introduced, and another finding from the CDC comes out, which leads you off in another directly. If you've read the first 21 chapters off his website (for free) don't presume to think you've actually read any of the book or could guess the ending. Not possible unless you have a crystal ball running Linux.

Fourth - It's written in a style I've never read before. I can't compare Arquette to any other writer, which in itself is something of an accomplishment. There are so many authors whose work just blends in with others until their styles all seem the same. Arquette's style, however, is smart and blunt. Where other authors imply things, Arquette writes them in black and white. He takes on subject matter that other authors would just assume leave alone, yet does a wonderful job of spinning it so the characters actions seem perfect reasonable to the character himself.

And lastly, there is freshness in the author's soul, and he writes young, as if he's catering to an 18 through 39 demographic. Most best selling author's are over forty and really don't write their books for the 'instant gratification' world the younger generation is experiencing. For example, books such as Stephen King's bloated 900-page Dream Catcher would have been a tight and quick 400 page novel if Arquette had written it.

I also like Arquette's website and the fact that he's determined to let readers download and read roughly a third of each of his books, before you buy. Some authors let you read a few pages, maybe a few chapters, but Arquette believes if you are going to shell out $15 bucks for a book, you should be able to read enough of it to really know it's something you want to purchase. It will be interesting to see how long his editors let him get away with that, but I find it refreshing that he has that mindset.

You can purchase Deadly Perversions from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deadly Perversions More

Deadly Perversions

Comments Filter:

  • killed by cybersex... (Score:3, Funny)

    by SledgeHBK ( 148480 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:33AM (#4922837)
    What?

    I thought hairy palms were the only risk I was taking.

  • I can imagine my colleagues screaming (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh no, my date was infected by Nimda!

  • Sounds a bit like Palahniuk (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trikberg ( 621893 ) <trikberg&hotmail,com> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:36AM (#4922852)
    > There are so many authors whose work just
    > blends in with others until their styles all
    > seem the same. Arquette's style, however, is
    > smart and blunt

    Smart and blunt? That how I would describe Chuck Palahniuk's (hope I didn't butcher that) style. If the name doesn't ring a bell, I have two words for you: Fight Club.
  • But there's just something about people who write about computers, technology, etc. that makes me just not trust or respect them.

    I mean, if you love something so much and if you know a ton about something, why aren't you actually doing it rather than writing little editorial pieces here and there or spending years on full-blown books that won't even get read by many people.

    Maybe I just don't like the whole "critic" idea. But over the years I've found that you can't listen to critics because most of them don't even like themselves, so of course they won't like any work that you do, whether it's a new computer program, a movie, etc.
    • "Regard all art critics as useless and dangerous"
    • I mean, if you love something so much and if you know a ton about something, why aren't you actually doing it rather than writing little editorial pieces here and there or spending years on full-blown books that won't even get read by many people.

      Yeah... If you're interested in computers you should sit in at home by your computer, or at work in your cubicle and work with it... Trying to share it with people you haven't met on slashdot just goes to show that you not REALLY interested in computer...

      That would really make you a loser...

    • Re:Please don't take this the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kenneth Stephen ( 1950 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @11:12AM (#4923173) Journal

      Thats ridiculous. Your argument could also be directed to science-fiction writers in general : "If you love science so much that you spend all day writing about it, why dont you do science?". Well, the answer is often that it is very rare that a good scientist can write about science well and it is also rare that a good writer can do good science. So why not have writers write about science?

  • The whole point of tinysex is that you can't catch anything from it.

    • What do you expect in a sex-negative culture?

      I haven't read it, but based on this review, the guy obviously believes (probably on a subconscious level) that sex is icky and bad, not pleasurable and good. Or at the very least he's playing off of peoples' fears in that regard.

      Repeat after me: Sex is nice and pleasure is good for you. [sexuality.org]

      Which isn't to say be careful in real life. But there's a huge difference between being careful and being sex-negative.

      • <sarcasm>

        You must be some kinda commie pinko satanic islamic atheist terorist, promoting a site like that.

        God didn't intend for anyone to have sex unless that sex is sanctioned by the Church and the State through the sanctity of a marriage contract. It says so in Exodus and Leviticus and in the Epistles. This is why we need to make sex outside of marriage a capital crime, punishable by firing squad.

        This is the new America under Christ and George W Bush. Get with the program.

        <\sarcasm>

        • I know you're being sarcastic even without the tags. Still, I wanted to point out a few verses to help you prove the point against hyprocrisy that I hope you were making.

          Genesis 9:7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
          Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
          1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
          Plus, the entire Song of Solomon.

          This reading has been brought to you by bible banging troll busters of America.

          • Thanks :) I'm well aware that the Bible condones sexual activity under certain circumstances. My main concern is with the near-hysteria I'm finding surrounding the Sanctity of Marriage. The idea that a mere sheet of paper (the marriage license) somehow magically distinguishes between okay and not-okay sex is ridiculous on its face. The real marriage takes place long before then, and often in forms that we don't see right away.

            Of course, I'm looking at things from a slightly different viewpoint, perhaps, than Paul. "Love is the Law, Love under Will," and all that.

      • What do you expect in a sex-negative culture?

        Where are you? Afghanastan? Nigeria?

        Come on over here to the USA, plenty of sex in our culture! I LOVE IT!
      • If sex isn't "icky" you are doing it wrong. ;)
        • Boy, has it been a long time... But, it reminds me of what we used to do to display a colored pixel or sound in basic programs on the C-64... Am I close? This one looks like a beep... Is it?

  • linux perversions (Score:5, Funny)

    by ErikRed1488 ( 193622 ) <erikdred1488@netscape.net> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:37AM (#4922868) Journal
    I was just explaining to my co-irker how to mount a floppy drive in linux. Every time I said "mount" he laughed. He said I had "an unhealthy obsession with technology." Two minutes later I go to /. and find this article. This is some kind of strange cosmic coincidence right?
    • this guy goes into a psychiatrists office and the doc shows him some ink blots (rorschach test [skepdic.com]) - the first one reminds him of sex, the next one reminds him of sex, etc. The doc finally say, "I zee you are obsessed with sex", and the guy says, "Me? You're the one with all the dirty pictures".

    • I was just explaining to my co-irker

      How does that work? you two go around pissing people off? =)
      --

  • The reviewer asked "How many books can you say were really fun to read, especially fiction thrillers that spend half the time describing characters that get violently killed off right after you get to know them"

    I respond: almost all early Stephen King novels.

  • Crystal Ball Linux? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:38AM (#4922874)
    Not possible unless you have a crystal ball running Linux.

    Dude, this is slashdot. We got people here running Beowulf clusters of Crystal Balls bootin' Linux.

  • I can't think of a way to traditionally walk you through the book and summarize it, because there are simply too many subplots and wacky characters to do a scene-by-scene breakdown, so if that's what you're looking for it's best to read the back cover of the book.

    I'd like to concentrate on Arquette's writing style, which is so unique that I feel there are many reasons this book will become a breakout cult classic bestseller.

    It's nice to read an actual book review instead of the book reports usually posted on fiction.

  • That's nothing! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There's this videotape out there that kills you seven days after you watch it!

  • RIAA? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:39AM (#4922885) Journal
    real virus that's spread via hardware/ software... Poof! Kills you in 72 hours."

    Just Wait til the RIAA tries to implement this "copy protection scheme" MWHAHAHAHAHA....... :-)

  • Inefficient (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:39AM (#4922890)
    A virus which kills after 72 hours and is only transmitted by cybersex is doomed. That timespan is too short for the infection to spread. The deadliest viruses are those which have long incubation times with no symptoms at all.
    • Sure.. it would be too short for a *regular* virus. But if it could somehow be transmitted over the internet, it wouldn't need a long time to incubate. In real life.. most people don't have sex with diff partners in a 72hr period. But online? You could 'cyber' with 5 people at a time if you wanted to.. or so I've heard.
    • Seriously. Why don't they just stop turn the system off for 72 hours? Let all the infected die, and everyone else is ok.

  • sounds trashy (Score:1, Troll)

    by tps12 ( 105590 )
    How many books can you say were really fun to read

    Um, why do you read them, then?

    Anyway, this book sounds awful.

    1. Write novel about sex and computers.
    2. Get it reviewed on Slashdot.
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!!

    I have better things to spend my money on.
  • You mean like the one I got for /.? ;)

  • where have I heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)

    by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:44AM (#4922941) Homepage
    death after viewing something on the internet...

    hmmm...

    oh yeah... Fear Dot Com

  • From the review ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:45AM (#4922944) Homepage Journal
    How many books can you say were really fun to read, especially fiction thrillers that spend half the time describing characters that get violently killed off right after you get to know them.

    Um ... most of the books I read? (In other words, things that aren't textbooks or technical references -- although even those can be fun to read if they're written by good enough authors, e.g. Elizabeth Castro or Theo Petersen.) I read a lot for fun, and many of the books I read are, in fact, violent science fiction thrillers. I'm sure the reviewer didn't mean to come off this way, but what the line I quoted says to me is, "I'm someone who hardly ever reads for fun, so you should take my fiction reviews reeeaaally seriously." Someone who doesn't realize that there are a whole lot of fun-to-read books out there is someone whose opinion I have a hard time respecting.
  • Man, I sure feel sorry for you modem users stuck with text these days. With cable and kazaa, I get all the porn flicks I want.
    • Wow, you're lucky.

      I guess I went the wrong way in life. Maybe I'll trade in my engineering degree, $72,000 salary, 2003 sports car, Nautilus exercise equipment, and shore house for your elite P2P skillz.

      After all, girls much prefer dirty thieves over sexy geeks with money.

      Pfft.
      • After all, girls much prefer dirty thieves over sexy geeks with money.

        That's not true, girls love sexy geeks with money. They also love the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
      • hey there. i have you on my friends list.. but cmon now. why do you have to pull the money/success card?? there are plenty of people that work hard and are successfull that don't have all the things you just bragged about. I'm Marine, i work my ass off usualy 6 days per week, I haven't been home for the hollidays in 3 years. I made Cpl (E-4) in less than 2 years in service, and I'm due to pick up Sgt soon. Yet i have none of the things you list of a "successfull" person. But i have one thing, a sense of pride. I've done a lot of things that most people have nightmares about, but it is all part of the job. You may be working for personal gain, but others may choose a life of public servitude. and what is wrong with that? I sacrifice almost all my personal freedoms in order to protect people i have never met, and it honestly hurts my heart when i see people with a complete lack of ethics, but rich.
  • And I have a hard time keeping it going past 7 minutes!

  • A better story exploring these ideas.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SiW ( 10570 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:55AM (#4923043) Homepage
    ..would be Snow Crash. Alright, alright, so I haven't read Deadly Perversions, but doesn't it sound a bit cheesy? 3D cybersex gives you an STD? Whereas the Snow Crash virus tries to propogate through several means.

    Besides, Neal Stephenson is cool, we all know that.
    • and William Gibson? These guys have a lot of nerve writing great books and then making you wait a couple of years for the next one. Is Cyberpunk really dead?
    • I think you're missing the point. Then again, I might be missingthe point, and I haven't read it, so I'm not sure.

      But really; don't you think the plot to a lot of great, famous books and movies is a tad absurd? Take Lord of the Rings, for examplen (yeah, just saw TTT, on the brain). It's something with unexplained, unfathomable events that we would never believe to be true. However, because of the brilliant execution, we accept the story and are dazzled by what happens.

      If you want something a little closer to reality, look at the Spiderman movie. This kid is bitten by a spider, gets super strong, and can shoot web from his WRISTS?? Why not from his ass, why not from is feet, or skull, or whatever? It doesn't make any sense! BUT, the execution is excellent, and it turns out to be a great story not because of the superpowers, but because of the characters and execution.

      So it doesn't matter if the premise is generally stupid, as long as we enjoy the book as a whole.

      And yes, Stephenson is the bomb.
      • > If you want something a little closer to reality, look at the Spiderman movie. This kid is bitten by a spider, gets super strong, and can shoot web from his WRISTS?? Why not from his ass,

        Because if the guy could shoot stuff out of his ass like that, he wouldn't be Spiderman, he'd be Goatseman, and... well, if he was Goatseman, do we really want to know Goatseman gets into anyone's ass? :)

  • Sorry, no dice, can't get past the idiotic concept. Sounds like a fantasy book, where are the dragons and the hobbits?

  • Ooo, sure to win a Nebula (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Okay. This is the kind of shit that makes everyone laugh at scifi (and the 'dorks' who read it). Cybersex virus? Please. This is just the modern incarnation of atomic sex mutants, alien sex fiends, sex fiends in mirrorshades.....

    Too many repressed harmonal urges, not enough sexual encounters.
    That is this author, in a nutshell.
  • The book really rocks with a real virus that's spread via hardware/software during 3D Cybersex encounters. Poof! Kills you in 72 hours

    Ummm....isn't this similar to Snowcrash?
  • Sorry, but I find the premise of the book bad. If there is one thing good about cybersex it's that you can't catch viruses from that. Maybe your computer can, but you can't.

    If people acted out more perversions in cyberspace instead of the real world, we'd all be better off.

  • For every person who rants about someone dissing people under 30, there's a schmuck like this guy who says that "no one over forty will get it". People are all different and just because his parents were dull and stupid doesn't mean everyone over 40 is. I would never be so rude as to claim that someone is too young (or too old) to understand what I write about because I've encountered far too many of both sorts who are stimulating and interesting.
  • Everyone has a secret... What's yours? Maybe it's a weird trivial fetish other people would find peculiar, even perverted. Look behind the closed doors of the boardrooms and bedrooms and observe all the libidinous shameful acts your doctor, neighbor, and boss may be hiding. It's the age of the high-speed Internet and a compamy called Talon has created some of the most sophisticated Cybersex software the world has ever see. Just pop on the 3-D glasses, log in, and immerse yourself in decadence. Have anonymous sex with anyone in the world, and if you don't like the way you look, change it. Choose a model off the Talon website and mask yourself. Be anyone you want to be, but be careful. There's something nasty out there, a disease that's spreading like wildfire. It stalks its host like a predator and kills so quickly that some are still smiling when they go down. How many more will die before the cause is discovered, turning what was once a naughty pleasurable pastime into a Deadly Perversion? Everyone has a secret...and those of you who say you don't probably have the most of all.
  • I noticed that the review didn't include a link [arquettes.com] to the free sample chapters. I hope this helps...
  • What the hell kind of term is that? All heterosexual males are chick-heads? Are you implying that those of us who like women more than we care about the purity of sci-fi or whatever other geek-cred nonsense you want to apply to it are somehow flawed? if so, that's freakin' scary. Do you not like women? Are you asexual?

    Or if you're gay, forget I said anything.
    • Kin Korn Karn said: "Do you not like women? Are you asexual?" to another poster...

      Hey!

      What do you have against asexual people? I've been involuntarily asexual for almost two years now, and I like women just fine (they don't like me back, but that's ok). Sheesh. Let's not lump all of us unfortunate asexuals in with the "he-man women hater's club" types, people... Let's try to remember that even a poor, miserable asexual can like women just as much as the horniest jock.

      (this has been a public service announcement -- support your local asexual co-op! They need a break!)
  • http://www.herbzipper.com

    It's a miracle he made it this long.

  • this reminds me of that crappy 'tekwar' series (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @11:14AM (#4923190)
    "She was killed by that computer virus." Good god.

    The show sucked regardless (perhaps even more than this book apparently does), but with that line it surpassed my tolerance threshold and I summarilly shut it off (and have studiously avoided it since). What utter crap ... and now the same nonsensical garbage is being lauded in a book?

    Please.

    Its hard enough to educate people that computer viruses aren't real viruses, that memory (RAM) is volitile storage lost upon shutdown, while the hard drive ("memory" as it is called by some) is persistent, etc. etc.

    We are already dealing with an abysmal state of computer literacy ... and while science fiction and fantasy often takes liberties with the possible and probably, spewing utterly nonsensical tripe like that IMHO simply requires too much of a suspension of disbelief to even be worthwhile, while alas preying on the illiteracy of others and clouding their understanding of real technologies further.

    The very, very worst of what science fiction can be (in stark contrast to Greg Egan's works, which educate as well as entertain, and often expand your imagination in the process, and to plenty of other speculative works that don't educate, but do entertain and at least don't misinform and cloud real issues in the process).

    Thanks, but I'll give this one a miss.
  • couldn't stop myself from posting this.

    He takes on subject matter that other authors would just assume leave alone

    i think that should read, "just as soon leave alone."

  • Viruses that kill in 72 hours are much too deadly to be a real problem, no matter how infectious they may be. Take Ebola, for instance. Very deadly and very infectious, but it kills so rapidly (in less that a week) that it hardly has any time to spread. We simply don't see large outbreaks of Ebola because it kills its hosts too quickly. Now, HIV on the other hand, can take up to 30 years to kill its host while being spread around to every sexual partner. HIV, while less "deadly", is much more effective at spreading because those infected literally have years instead of three days to pass it around further. That's why we have large outbreaks of HIV but not Ebola.

    Now, this virus in the book is way too deadly. Are we supposed to believe that a virus with a lethality rate of 3 days is going to be spread around the population like mad? Fat chance! People don't have sex that often in a 3 day time period (not even cybersex) so it wouldn't be able to spread effectively. And anyway, if somehow a large outbreak did manage to occur, everyone would just stop having sex for 3 days out of fear and then the virus would totally eliminate itself from the Earth.

    This concepts in this book aren't believable. I won't be buying it.
    • Ebola had a hard time spreading because you have to be in direct contact to spread it. Imagine if ebola could spread via vapour (you cough??) Then it would definitely have the potentiol to cause serious damage. Virii that transfer via bodily fluids need a long incubation period to spread, because people don't have a lot of fluid - fluid interaction. But this book is about a virus replicating itself over cyberspace. For that.. 72 hours would be enough to cause considerable harm.
      • FWIW, Ebola Reeston does, but although lethal to monkeys, it isn't to humans.

        I agree though that an electronically transmitted virus would spread very quickly, however only to people who indulge in cybrsex.

      • Ok, people, repeat after me:

        "A biological virus can only be introduced to one's body via some sort of transmitting vector like a mosquito, a tiny droplet of inhaled liquid, or a pecker."

        "A biological virus can only be introduced to a human body if it is in a physical form capable of being introduced. This means an actual physical viral structure, in some form that can be insinutated into the body."

        "Because a biological virus must be insinuated into the body in physical form to infect it, the virus cannot be transmitted electronically. Electronic transmissions can only convey concepts, not physical things (like a virus). Even if you built a cybersex suit with vibrating attachments for tickling unmentionables, the only thing you could transmit would be the control instructions for the device." (Let's say this one twice.)

        FINALLY,

        "Even if you built a cybersex device which directly stimulated the brain, at best you would be stimulating the parts of the brain which correlate to sensual stimuli, like vision, smell, touch, taste and hearing. Thus, you could possibly use the imagery you're transmitting to SCARE someone to death, or freak them out, or even hypnotize them, but you could not give them a virus."

        Ok, gang? Let's all just swiiiiiiing our focus back to reality here. The premise of the book is dumb. I, for one, am pretty turned off every time I hear someone try to say you can catch a virus from your computer -- it makes me feel like I'm the only techie that took Biology in high school, which cannot be true (can it?). If modern American society is so techno-illiterate that they'll buy THIS kind of thing, we're fucking doomed.

        Say it ain't so!

  • Wait a minute - wasn't "cybersex" sort-of the envisioned killer app back around 1994 or 1995? Hasn't anyone figured out that it's not happening, or that it never really happened? It seems kind of pointless to write about it, and even more pointless to read about it. What's this guy's next book going to be about? The characters are surfing the web in 3-D and talking in 3-D chat rooms? These are the sorts of cliches that non-technical people scoop up, not the Slashdot crowd.
  • When you cyber someone, you're cybering everyone that person has cyber'd and everyone that person has cyber'd, and every person that person has cyber'd.. and so on a PSA by cheapoboy.
  • I highly recommend this read for anyone under 40. Over that, (unless you're somewhat feral) I don't think you'll get it.

    I will be too old to understand this book by the end of the week! Need to download and complete it quick ;-)
  • "Poof! Kills you in 72 hours"

    Big deal. I know of a VHS tape [ring-themovie.com] that will kill you in 7 days :p

  • Uh-oh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @11:40AM (#4923429) Journal
    Fourth - It's written in a style I've never read before. I can't compare Arquette to any other writer, which in itself is something of an accomplishment.... Where other authors imply things, Arquette writes them in black and white.

    Uh-oh. Either:

    the reviewer doesn't read a lot, or

    Arquette has figurted out something that Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, and Pynchon missed, or

    Arquette's writing is a bad attempt a creating a 'new style', apparently ("Where other authors imply things, Arquette writes them in black and white") short on subtlety and long on pure exposition: "See Dick. See Jane. See Dick run."

    • Re:Uh-oh. (Score:3, Funny)

      by ottffssent ( 18387 )
      > "See Dick. See Jane. See Dick run."

      You did read the review, right? "See Dick. See Jane. See Jane fuck Dick. See Dick die three days later. Poor Dick."
    • Arquette has figurted out something that Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, and Pynchon missed,

      Err, well, as far as I know, nether Dante, Shakespeare, nor Milton ever wrote a single line of prose in their lives, so I wouldn't expect them to figure out anything about novel writing.

      Plus, Dante wasn't even an english writer. Styles are a product of the language they're written in. On that vein, I remember a quote about Pope's translation of the Illiad (which is second only to Milton's poem as far as english epics go). Thomas Bentley said to him, "It's a very pretty poem, Mr. Pope, but you musn't call it Homer."

      I know I'm being a little pedantic, I think we all get your point. I do not doubt that this "Arquette" guy is a total dumbass, but you could have been more accurate by mentioning real english novelists, such as Melville, Dickens, Twain, Crane or, um ... I guess Pynchon ... sorta.

      • Err, well, as far as I know, nether Dante, Shakespeare, nor Milton ever wrote a single line of prose in their lives, so I wouldn't expect them to figure out anything about novel writing.

        Yeah, you're right, I'm a total dumbass rube. No doubt Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton would all be horrible at writing novels: they had no experience at all in exposition, character development, or plotting. They couldn't tell stories at all; all they did was, like, rhyme and stuff. Filthy hacks.

        And style never crosses language barriers, taht's why that Pole Conrad's stories all sucked in English. And I'd hate to have to read Dante, in like, translation or sum'thin'.

        Thanks for impressing us more with your erudition, and less with your ability to think an argument through.

  • I am not a demographic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ENOENT ( 25325 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @11:47AM (#4923499) Homepage Journal

    To summarize the review:

    Like, dude, it's targeted at the 18-39 demographic! And it has, like, really short chapters! And all the sentences are short, too! None of the characters are around for longer than 6 pages! And, check this out, you don't have to look up any hard words in the dictionary! It's like MTV, only on paper! Not at all like books by inaccessibly cerebral authors like Dr. Seuss...

    Perhaps the reviewer doesn't realize that some people in the 18-39 demographic are still able to enjoy books that aren't written to the same spec as the latest mindless blow-em-up action flick. Some of us even read books that don't have pictures in them, on occasion. There are even a few of us who read books that have no lines matching "[Cc]yber" or "[Tt]echno".

    By the way, I get REALLY PISSED OFF when I'm reading a book and notice that the author is making an obvious overture to a particular demographic instead of following the internal logic of the book. So nyah.

    I'm not the only under-40 person who loves to read intelligent, well-written books, am I?

  • "Most best selling author’s are over forty" (Score:4, Funny)

    by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @11:58AM (#4923614)
    Never use an apostrophe in front of an 's' when you are creating the plural of a singluar noun.
  • I first thought this story was about that fucked up cannabalistic pervert in Germany.

  • Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgerman ( 106518 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @12:06PM (#4923676)
    ...just started reading the free sample that he gives out. Definitely not going to buy the book. I think I'd describe his style as... childish. Incredibly unrefined. His character development is really poor. It honestly reads like the first efforts of an eighteen year old. (That's not to say that an eighteen year old can't write extremely well, check out Confederacy of Dunces).
    • Hmmmm, the further I get in this book the more I'm beginning to realize that this guy not only has probably never had sex, but is pretty clueless about technology as well.
  • Lois Duncan edited this book - if you visit the author's website, you'll notice she's his mom. That's so sweet - mother/son bonding time with semi-pornographic novel editing. adorable.
  • From the so-called review (actually, from the introductory text, the rest of it looks like a marketing text) I guess this is Snow Crash II, the CyberSex Wars.

    I think I prefer Stephenson.
  • Excuse me, but has anyone bothered to read the book? As an author myself, I would not _dare_ publish a book with spelling mistakes and even completely wrong terms. Since when is a man capable of performing a fellatio on a woman? Perhaps the author would benefit from consulting a cunning linguist :-) Sorry, but this is really amateurish pulp. Not worth my $15. Good job the author allows you to download a sample!
    • That's what I'm saying, not only the spelling errors but the fact that this *ahem* "novel" is simple minded crap would be enough to encourage me not to publish it. It reads like the Calvin and Hobbes Tracer Bullet strips (I've got three slugs in me two bourbon, one lead).


      His characters are truly paper thin and just really god awful. Did you notice how each character is introduced as the greatest this or the best that? I just can't help but get the impression that this guy is an idiot. Trying to produce a best selling book by mixing two things that are (sort of) popular right now. Techno books and biological catastrophes.


      It's truly, truly bad. The bum has a flaccid penis the thickness of a beer can? Come on, it's like some adolescent fantasy.

  • And for those that finish it, and are looking for more classic bad sci-fi, you should check out some of the movies made by Ed Wood.

    You can probably find Plan 9 from Outer Space [imdb.com] at your local video store. It involves aliens who resurrect our dead, and use the zombies to get our attention. You can find the DVD for $10 now at Amazon [amazon.com]

    There's also Bride and the Beast [imdb.com]. Here, a woman falls into a deadly perversion also - interest in her new husband's gorilla!!! Bwwaahaahaa!

    And to think, when I first saw this slashdot story, I thought it was a serious review!

Slashdot Top Deals

User hostile.

Close