Astute (or extremely activity-challenged) readers will remember I watched 1973′s Westworld again back in July. This evening I saw its later (and lamer) sequel, Futureworld, circa 1976.

So – before I ‘review’ this movie I’m just going to say – I’m not worried about any of you going to rent it (turns out even the Mecca of Movies only had it on VHS) so all plot points (as may exist – and there aren’t many) will be spoiled herein.

So – basically fast forward several years from the events in Westworld – Delos has been rebuilt, bigger and better than ever. Now they have Roman World, Medieval World, Spa World and FutureWorld – no more WestWorld – although they visit its remains in this movie. Given the tragedy of before, Delos needs better PR to encourage people to come back, so they enlist a TV reporter (Blythe Danner) and the newspaper reporter who broke the story the first time around (Peter Fonda). But prior to heading out to Delos, Peter Fonda gets a clue from an informant (who is killed just before PF meets him to discuss the scoop) that something is still very ‘wrong’ at Delos this time around, too.

So they go there, and far too much time is taken up showing all the high-tech stuff, people walking here, people walking there, and there are two bit-characters (a Russian General + wife, and a famous Japanese person, probably a politician) who get some minor screen time. Very little of this advances the plot, save some (seemingly) random sequences showing people very interested in computer recordings and simulations of the main four characters.

It develops that Delos is making (effectively – they don’t name it directly) clones of world leaders and politicians because they don’t trust humans to keep from blowing themselves up. The visitors come to Delos, and the clones are sent out into the world to replace them, under Delos’ control. The movie never says if the robots hatched this plot on their own (one of the major Delos characters, Duffy, turns out to be one) or if they have mad-scientist backers (it is never revealed whether Dr. Schneider is human, robot, or something else) working with them.

At any rate, PF and BD find a (still-human) mechanic named Harry who helps them discover the truth, and then there is more running around with guns until the end, where they both escape Delos and (presumably) tell the world. Yul Brynner is wasted in a weird dream sequence with BD as a fantasy lover – I’m sure I was impressed by this back in 1976 (as a nine-year old) but it’s pretty silly now.

So….without dwelling on what the movie does wrong (mostly far too much tedium in advancing the meager plot) – i’d rather mention a few things that could have made it MUCH more interesting by contrast.

1) Futureworld never explains how the robots figured out how humans always want to destroy themselves (and thus hatched a plot to stop it and save themselves from our stupidity). By way of comparison, the recent BSG remake trickled this info out over the entire length of the series – of course to keep you coming back until the end, but partially because it kept you guessing and interested and inventing your own ideas about where the plot was going, then to watch it and confirm (or see where they went instead).

It might have been very interesting to see the ‘between’ story explained in more detail with more motives and the ‘how’. FW talks about the ’700 series’ robots as being far more advanced than those in the prior movie/robot generation, but it’s only a few lines of spoken dialog at best and nothing beyond that.

2) Just like in the previous movie, the big ‘seller’ behind the concept of Delos is ‘sex with robots’ – but at $1200/day – would that really do it? And I would think more stuff (even Disneyland has Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Haunted Mansion) than just the Middle Ages or Roman times would be required to get people there (the lack of showers and actual cooking comes to mind, but I digress ). Westworld itself might have had some attraction, I agree – but even in 1976 I’d think more would be needed (and Disney had both POTC and THM back THEN, too).

3) It would have been interesting also to see robots who didn’t ‘agree’ with the crazy clone strategy to take over the world, and if they helped PF and BD succeed to blow the story open. Here, BSG did this in various ways and various characters – creating a mosaic of character motives (if done well) can really serve to spice things up, no?

4) finally – what if Delos had actually ‘won’? What if they largely succeeded and THEN a reporter came back say, 20-30 years in the future and found out what had happened? And here comes the broken record, because now that I think of it (literally) BSG did this too – in a way – with the whole idea of Cylons being all-but human in appearance, etc. But they limited its scope by keeping it a limited number of models – in FW’s case, it might have been *many* world leaders over time – what if the clones ushered in a time of peace and world achievement, and then we found out we had all been tricked for 20-30 years? What then? I can’t help thinking of Kent Brockman saying “And I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords” with the paper sign on the wall behind him – too funny.

Anyway, if you find the book of this movie on a seedy bookshelf somewhere, and you are killing time on the beach, read it. Otherwise, just rent BSG and get the same thing only done far, far better. They should have quit while they were ahead with Westworld.

candybowl

I caught this article in the latest issue of The Utne Reader – not online yet – it’s originally from Notre Dame magazine (yes, the school).

I was kind of taken by surprise while reading this. Without stepping into the ‘big picture’ issues around a potential motive he may have (prison reform – a subject I’m not very familiar with by any means) – this article really made me stop and think about several things, namely:

a) The comparison between ‘young man decisions made in ignorance’ vs. ‘old man never able to escape them’. This of course brings up the tired cliche of ‘youth being wasted on the young’ – but certainly with more than a hint of irony. I’m not sure the lesson to be learned here is much more than ‘impulsive decisions can sometimes cost you dearly, sometimes forever’. We don’t know the circumstances of what this guy did, but it was obviously permanent (he hints it was murder) and may not have even been done with any sort of planning, or ‘evil’ – although certainly the outcome ended up that way. No excuses – and even the most ignorant person in this country knows what happens when you kill someone, right?

b) This type of essay makes me think – what is the cost? What is the cost to our society (not thinking of $$, but that’s a factor too of course) in terms of lost potential (both by what he and others might have contributed had things gone differently, and by what else society itself may have gained as a result)? What does it say about us? Are we really willing to treat others’ lives like a permanent UFC reality show behind bars for decades if not their entire lives? And how does that square with what they did, proportionality and other ‘rules’ such as ‘eye for an eye’, etc.? All tough questions with no easy answers.

c) One of the most interesting points made was that of prison = a society of captive children. everything (save defecation and eating) is done for them and they aren’t allowed to do almost anything for themselves even if they want to. Does this imply they are ‘frozen’ in an immature state (also may depend on the age at which they enter and other background factors, to be sure) – and how do we change that? DO we change that?

c) Beyond running the prison laundry, making license plates and the like, one thing WA has done of late is allow prisoners to tend gardens and grow food. I don’t believe the food grown leaves the prison (unlike the license plates and other products they may manufacture) but rather they eat it, too. Why wasn’t this done decades ago? It’s not like tending gardens is a 21st century innovation? even if a person is going to be in prison for life (and even if deservedly so) – why not let them tend a garden? And certainly for those slated to eventually rejoin society – it might actually help rehabilitate them? If nothing else, it might give them a break/respite from the otherwise nearly constant violence he describes? Yes, I get it – prison is not ‘vacation’ and not intended to be easy – but there’s a difference between imprisonment and ‘perma-riot’, no?

d) The point made about society’s perception of the prisoner being made when the person entered prison (and doesn’t really change), while the person inside – especially one growing old inside for literally decades – is increasingly reminded of those early, permanent mistakes. And as he notes, the aging, frail body conveying those thoughts serves as a second, painful reminder of same.

e) It is human nature for many to want a black and white solution – to want to make an easy (or even hard) decision and then be DONE with it, period. Locking up a malefactor and (effetively) throwing away the key may be one way – the guy did his crime, regardless of his background/upbringing, environmental factors, etc. – and now he pays with his life (as he made someone else pay, whether that person was an innocent victim or someone who was seconds from doing the same to him). No matter the circumstances – is that all there is to it? Again, not arguing excuses or softening the blow of permanence – just wondering if this is the only answer…..

As noted when I sent this article around via email prior to this post – one thing is certain. I am very, very thankful I haven’t made the mistakes this guy did – and that I have the life I have, and not his.

candybowl

What is it about Alan Rickman that rocks? Well, for starters I think I’ve liked nearly every movie he’s in (or at minimum, his part in it). Despite being ‘genetically predisposed’ to like Galaxy Quest in being a big nerd – I could only put up with the first half hour or so. However, Alan Rickman’s bit as an alien with the catch phrase (‘By Grapthor’s Hammer’) uttered both at critical plot points – and at the grand openings of car lots – is TOO classic.

Who else goes from German terrorist (Die Hard) to guardian angel (Dogma) to sarcastic, doomsayer robot (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) to Professor Snape (not all the HP movies have near enough of him in them, but most have a good amount )?

I think it’s the combination of subtle, voiced exasperation, sarcasm without even trying, and just his mannerisms that do it for me. The guy just cracks me up!

candybowl

(Re)watched the ancient sci-fi classic WestWorld late last night. It was shorter than I remember (in other words gets to the killing spree/chase scenes/etc. faster than I remembered), but definitely some classic performances in there, most notably Yul Brynner in the title role as The Gunslinger.

Since this is an old movie, even for me (in 1973, I was 6) let’s recap – a very expensive ($1,000/day), exotic resort (Delos) opens up in a distant desert (they never say where, but looks like the American Southwest), where there are three distinct ‘worlds’ people can visit – Roman World, Medieval World, and West(ern) World – each is tailored to fulfull guest fantasies based on advanced robots to cater to their every whim, within the theme of each ‘world’. In an early part of the film, an announcer talks about enjoying the ‘relaxed morality of earlier Roman times’ (meaning guilt-free sex with lifelike robots, let’s be clear here ) And this is consistent with the other ‘worlds’ – the main two characters (james Brolin and Richard Benjamin) visit WestWorld (and at least one brothel therein). Then, things subtly start to go wrong, and mayhem ensues in a variety of ways.

So, this is a pioneering and influential sci-fi film in many ways. It is very well made for its time, obviously a bigger budget than some of its contemporaries (yeah, Omega Man, i’m talking to you). The decor, sets and computers/effects are spartan, but still look decent, and unlike many sci-fi movies, don’t get in the way of the plot. Not on the level of the earlier 2001: A Space Odyssey – but almost NO movies (sci-fi or otherwise) compare to that one even now.

WW has to be considered one of the first ‘relentless, unyielding stalking killer’ movies – Yul Brynner’s Gunslinger – used to great effect many times later in countless horror movies but also every Terminator movie ever made, elements of The Matrix movies, etc. Even Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men is reminiscent of this theme (and also very scary). In WW, this may be considered more remarkable because The Gunslinger stalks Richard Benjamin throughout the day – never at night – so his power over the intended victim grows not through cheap special effects or misdirection, but ultimately on the strong, almost silent performance of Yul Brynner (who hardly has more than maybe 3-4 sentences of dialog in the whole movie).

WW’s story also builds one of the earliest ‘no matter how perfect our technology gets, it will get us in the end’ themes – and does it about as subtly as the 16-ton weight from the classic Monty Python sketch. But the early ’70s was definitely a time of ‘man is doomed’ themed-sci-fi movies (Soylent Green, the earlier Omega Man, Silent Running, etc.) so not really surprising in hindsight.

Another thing that struck me this time around has to be the interaction between the resort guests and the robots who serve them. At one point after a barroom shootout, James Brolin remarks about ‘the beauty of the place is you never know if it’s real’ (or words to that effect). The guests feel free to just shoot the place up, start bar brawls, have sword battles (in effect act like a pillaging pirate – no Pirate World? ) etc. – and let someone else pick up the pieces. I guess at $1,000/day, i’d expect the same – but it’s interesting how easily they just slot into it and tear it up with no consequences (well, that was the Delos sales pitch anyway). Given that the director/screenwriter was Michael Crichton – author of this theme many times over (The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, etc.) again, not a big surprise.

Stepping back (to a soapbox) it’s also interesting here is that despite continually warning us of the dangers of technology and how we overreach ourselves far too often in his books and films – MC was one of the biggest global warming deniers on the planet, right up there with Big Oil and James Inhofe! Like Mel Gibson of recent past, MC shows that many times in Hollywood – appearances can be VERY deceiving. Was he having fun at our expense on either side of the issue? I’ll have to look around to see if anyone ever asked him that question – he’s dead now (2008) so we may never know. End soapbox.

All symbolism and soapboxes aside – WestWorld is still an entertaining movie despite being now almost 40 years old. Yul Brynner makes the movie for me – without him, i don’t think WW would have been near as effective – his Gunslinger really is a Hollywood icon, sci-fi or otherwise.

candybowl

Saw this in today’s NY Times and it got me thinking – what is a ‘generation x’ anyway?

First, there are a lot of big words in the first few sentences and beyond. Far be it from me to castigate anyone about using an overabundance of enormous, hyperpretentious and likely overreaching words when a simple piece of profanity will otherwise do – there are still many I don’t understand in here.

It reminds me of an otherwise horrible book about Smashing Pumpkins (the band I like, Billy Corgan, a.k.a. Bat Boy, I can do without) that had so many big words rammed into the first 5 pages I couldn’t even finish the foreword without retching – back to the library (and for once, on time!) it went.

but back to the article. I will have to look at the underlying book they are indirectly reviewing here – ‘The Ask‘ – never heard of it or the author. But then they mention the much-despised (by me) Douglas Coupland who coined ‘generation x’ in the first place. Thanks, El Doo-shay – we’ll never live that one down. I had a roommate in college who was obsessed with that book, which naturally I read at one point and have loathed ever since.

What’s very spot-on in this article is the repeated slams on our aging 40-something sense of cool (“fake-vintage rock ’n’ roll T-shirt and thick-framed glasses”), the constant need for pop-culture-quip-meets-relevance in our daily conversations, and calling out John Cusack and Ben Stiller as movie archetypes of our generation. There are others, but these will serve quite well (and Lloyd Dobler loved Fishbone, so there!). I haven’t seen Greenberg yet, but will definitely have to now.

Also – the article implies/hints at the marked difference between compatriots of mine who have had children (and thus, being responsible adults, had their priorities completely adjusted for them by reality) rather than the self-indulgent ‘high drama’ I seem to have mastered of late. Or maybe not of late – maybe for way too long? Dunno.

this quote is telling:

“But what if you never gave up adolescence in the first place? What if you donned the binding garment of maturity only tentatively, and accessorized it with mockery, as if it were a hand-me-down from Grandpa or an ugly shirt plucked from a used-clothing rack? And what if, from the start, your youthful rebelliousness had been a secondhand entitlement, without a clear adversary?”

As someone who still revels in ‘sticking it to the Man’ (regardless of what form, major or minor, that takes, even if only a delusional metaphor many days) this sticks pretty well. If you are middle class, grew up in a suburban-style town, went to public school, went to college, etc. and now have a job that pays the bills – barring chronic illness or some sort of major tragedy – what do you have to bitch about? So where’s my ‘adversary?’ I’m not going to answer that, if you’ve been around me more than 10 min. you already know at least one – but one thing is certain – even in going to graduate school, i’ve never connected with ‘suit society’ – and it’s only due to luck (being in the tech industry with its -shall we say ‘loose’ – theories of proper dress and hygiene) that i’ve largely avoided it as an adult. Being on the West Coast doesn’t hurt either. So maybe I never did grow up? Again, dunno.

Is this rambling getting anywhere? Back to the article – in talking more about the main character of The Ask – this quote sums it all up, doesn’t it?

……“If I were the protagonist of a book or a movie,” Milo says to his onetime boss, “it would be hard to like me, to identify with me, to like me, right?” The response is devastating: “I would never read a book like that, Milo, and I can’t think of anyone who would. There’s no reason for it.”

Wow. the above reminds me of Woody Allen’s classic Annie Hall quote about his relationships “I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.” Boom!!!! or the more modern version, from the (other) spokesman for our generation, Homer Simpson – and his attempts when a kid to join the ‘No Homers Club’ – Sad, but effective use of plurals, that.

What was the original point again? That someone wrote a book summing up ‘modern 40-something’ – yet most of us it describes don’t want to read it? Or that we are simply beginning to reach the midlife angst felt by others before (and will be felt by ‘millenials’ someday – ha – suck it!) and we 40.x still can’t deal with it.

Who knows? Interesting to ponder, though. And for those in the same age group who parade around like they’ve got it figured out – ha! I fart in your general direction! Your mother is a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries! The point is, they’re kidding themselves too – which based on the Bill Watterson book I literally just finished reading – gives me that evil, evil Calvin grin…muhhahaha!

So in summary, if you can find real meaning in the above, I have some beach property in Tibet that I’ll sell you for a song…

candybowl

just got back from seeing IM2 – pretty good! Was *slightly* disappointed to not see Terrence Howard back in this one, but Don Cheadle is about the best sub they could have hoped for (otherwise, we might have seen Chris Tucker or Eddie Murphy? – I like them both, but not here!) One pleasant surprise was Mickey Rourke as the bad guy Ivan Venko – I think he’s been on a roll since Sin City, really – and seems to have left loser movies like Wild Orchid far behind, thank god. Sam Rockwell is always funny and entertaining, too, and I’m glad they didn’t really try to have him be the second coming of Jeff Bridges from the last movie, either.

While at least one situation was a bit too much (ok, yeah TS owns the F1 car, but kicking out the driver just before the race is to start and having Tony Stark drive it instead? Yeah…..) – but all in all, this was a good summer movie, good performances all around and they tell us more about Nick Fury and SHIELD, too, so that’s not a bad thing either.

here’s another review (spoiler alert on it) – IMHO it’s way too cynical – lighten up! This is a COMIC BOOK MOVIE, for pete’s sake – not Saving Ryan’s Privates! Just go to IM2 and count the days until TRON Legacy

candybowl

I’m not watching any other trailers for this. I’m just glad they made a sequel! Dec. 17 2010, welcome to Cinerama…….

candybowl

Watched Pirates of Silicon Valley again (all the way through this time – only had seen bits and pieces of it before). It’s not the world’s most riveting film in a second watching, but it’s decent (more so if you are a computer nerd, definitely). If you didn’t already know – it’s basically a TNT-made movie, the story of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates – with ancillary players including Steve Wozniak, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and a few other assorted personalities. Woz and Ballmer take turns narrating it, depending on whether the movie focuses on Apple or Microsoft at any given point. The movie basically covers the period in time from the very earliest days of Apple and Microsoft in the mid-late 70s, up until about 1998.

This is an interesting film for me on so, so many levels:

a) Watching what goes on in this movie (and having read a bit on the subject of Silicon Valley craziness elsewhere) and by virtue of simply having worked in the software industry the last 12+ years – it still to this day boggles my mind as to the money flying around. With Apple and Microsoft – it’s at the level beyond what most COUNTRIES have, let alone personal fortunes – really! How many countries can you name that have $40B+ in the bank like Microsoft does? Not bloody many, barring our own, maybe Canada, and possibly some of Western Europe and Japan? It’s just beyond the ability to comprehend.

b) It’s not completely clear how many actual situations in this movie are ‘factual’ – and they sure don’t paint a nice picture of Steve Jobs (Gates gets off a bit easier in my view, because he gets to be the ‘business nerd’ that doesn’t care about saving the world and then points out Jobs’ hypocrisy on this point to his face in a short, but effective outburst) – but in a recent speech (2006), Woz noted that they got the real feel and gist of what happened all but exactly right. The fact that this movie is already over 10 years old, the events in it already over 20-30+ years old makes ME feel old – doh!

Side comment – Dr. Edward Roberts, creator of the Altair 8800 (the home computer Gates and Allen wrote their first software for) passed away earlier this month – RIP.

c) I guess this movie in many ways crystallizes what I perceive as core dysfunctions (and crazy advantages) the tech industry has and to some extent, still enjoys – Certainly most corporate environments end up creating ‘empire builder’ people who care most about getting to the top and lording it over the rest of us – that’s not exclusive to the tech industry by any means (nor are egomaniacs – sadly that’s a human problem, not a tech problem). But on the other hand, if a tech company is driven and (definitely) lucky at being in the right niche at the right time, the acceleration from bootstrap to crazy wealth happens in such a short time it’s not to be believed. Along the way, many yes-men and bottom feeders manage to attach themselves for the ride, and naive people in at the start may be left behind (through a combination of their own ignorance/personality, coupled with key people deliberately taking some advantage). The old adage ‘looking out for #1‘ applies in many ways across the tech industry – mostly neutral, but some crazy good (for a lucky, often early few) and some actually really bad in a few cases.

d) I remember from dot-com days when I would sometimes look around the office and muse whether the founders were in it for ‘building the best software x we could build’ – or just for the money/IPO cashout – or some ego thing, or something completely different and not apparent. I never did figure it out, although certainly people cashed out quite well, and we did have a great product for a time, too.

I guess the moral of the Apple/Microsoft story is ‘watch your back, because just when you think you’ve conquered everyone and established yourself as untouchable – someone is poised to knock you right off the mountaintop’.

Certainly just when Jobs thought he had obtained the crown jewels from Xerox (the ‘rich neighbor/open back door’ analogy Gates makes – pretty spot on, whether or not he actually said it), Gates was there to take them away and move in a completely different (and far more lucrative) direction. It helped enormously that Gates also built a monopoly (which they milk to this day), but those parameters weren’t apparent until much later and not to Jobs until it was too, too late.

To me, the bigger lesson (which I think in many companies has yet to be learned) is ‘most people don’t care about building an empire, they just want to be treated well, paid a decent wage and valued for their input and contributions (dependent on role).’ It’s too bad that money, egos, and turf battles often obscure this simple fact and make far too many people’s lives otherwise unhappy for no good reason.

candybowl

So I finally watched Akira recently. This is one of the anime movies that started it all, way back in 1988. It shares many (now) typical anime plot devices (angry head cop going-it-alone against the system, devil-may-care central characters that live (and often die) completely in the moment, a post-apocalpytic Neo-Tokyo that has more than one section of the city living in all but anarchy, subtle yet pervasive technology throughout everything the characters see and experience, etc.) – many of these themes, however, originated in *this* movie, so small wonder these influences persist to this day – Akira is by far among the best anime I’ve seen to date.

Like the first Ghost In The Shell movie, this one doesn’t seem to have any CGI in it – given that TRON and The Last Starfighter weren’t too many years before this movie, the lack of CGI (or, CGI integrated into anime) isn’t very surprising. The scenery and drawings are fairly impressive with a meticulous attention to detail, and the characters are drawn with a wide range of emotion throughout.

There are definite external inspirations within Akira in turn. The super-bikes all the main biker gang characters own are obviously influenced by the TRON light-cycles (and 80s ‘crotch rocket’ street bikes from the real world of the same era). And there has to be a shout-out given to Escape From New York (and similar but far cheesier early 70s post-apocalyptic sci-fi) as influential upon the burned-out city in Neo-Tokyo.

Without revealing very much – essentially one of the main biker-gang members, Tetsuo, is inadvertently exposed to a mutant on the run from a secret army agency. This exposure (of course) begins to create powers in this kid and one can begin to predict what happens next – although it’s still not near as predictable as you might think, and just when you think the movie is ending, another plot twist moves in another direction – nice!

To repeat, definitely one of the best anime I’ve seen yet – others have amazing animation/CGI but largely flat characters (Appleseed); interesting stories that sadly create inherent plot contradictions over time that aren’t resolved (Witch Hunter Robin); or very simplistic (but fairly entertaining) plots in a completely fantastical setting (Mars Daybreak – all hail talking Belugas!). Akira stands way above all of those – if you only ever see one anime – make it this one.

candybowl

So I finally finished the Inheritance Trilogy – the 3rd trilogy in a series – the first is the Heritage Trilogy and the second is the Legacy Trilogy. Ultimately, this is a nine novel series about the ‘US Marines in space’ – and how they end up battling a mysterious and powerful alien menace (the Xul) several times while morphing into an interstellar fighting force that support’s mankind’s galactic expansion.

As with other military sci-fi I’ve read recently – there are positives and negatives with this type of space opera. On the one hand, I don’t really expect philosophy or complex characterizations (say, compared to Childhood’s End, Stranger in a Strange Land, or even the Hyperion series) but on the other hand, I *do* expect to be entertained, I do expect there to be a purpose (bad, good or indifferent) behind what the main characters are doing, and I do expect some historical setup/context to be provided.

I think on most counts this series succeeds. While I don’t think it’s quite as good with the ‘interpersonal politics’ as the Clone Republic series – it has many similiar themes (central characters are mostly ‘fish out of water’ as regards society; most love battle and seek it out in most situations; most soldiers are played pretty sympatheticallly to the reader – which might not necessarily be the case in reality, etc.). The back-story and history set up here is more diverse (and potentially interesting) than many, even if fairly focused on the Marines above all other story elements. Mr. Douglas – if you put out any other books using this universe/these characters, there are a LOT of great potential alien cultures and potential side-stories here to be explored – just a thought.

Besides the human themes noted above, there are plenty of other tidbits to interest the reader. Douglas does a good job of setting up, describing and carrying the reader through the various battles with a sufficient level of detail. You get a decent sense of ‘you are there’ despite the novels being set in the far future with far more advanced technology, weapons, etc. Ever since reading several Tom Clancy novels a few years ago, it’s always clear who can adequately describe combat, technical details and the human element all at the same time, successfully. Clancy certainly does (although not science fiction) – and I’ve tended to measure novels with a strong dose of military action in them by that yardstick since. Douglas does not disappoint.

I’d rather not spoil anything – but I would also recommend starting with the 1st trilogy (Heritage) if you think you might want to read them all – because if you mistakenly start with one of the last books, it will spoil much of the earlier books due to quick summarizations of earlier events from the previous trilogies. In my case, I missed out on the middle trilogy largely for that reason. But if you like the early stories, you will most likely enjoy the rest of the series.

candybowl