I loved this one, too. So far this is the only book by Davidson, hopefully not the only one.
I finished reading Glaciers by Alexis M. Smith - beautiful, fragile, a little sad, but extremely enjoyable and also quite short (under 200 pages).
What Are You Reading?
- Thread starter Dana Jean
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
- Status
I loved this one, too. So far this is the only book by Davidson, hopefully not the only one.
I finished reading Glaciers by Alexis M. Smith - beautiful, fragile, a little sad, but extremely enjoyable and also quite short (under 200 pages).
Finished A Breath of Snow and Ashes, book 6 in the Outlander series, yesterday. Marathon reading weekend, I did little else! Almost 600 pages turned these last 2 days.
On to book 7!
On to book 7!
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
Just finished The Wind Through the Keyhole so now I will start book two of the Dark Tower series - The Drawing of the Three
I have started Song of Susannah on audio, listening through the whole DT-series now. I am almost jealous that you are just starting The Drawing of The Three...
The Nameless
M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
My fave of the series, but that's a strange order, for most people keyhole is either book 8, 4.5, or 1. You skipping the gunslinger or just re-reading an old fave?Just finished The Wind Through the Keyhole so now I will start book two of the Dark Tower series - The Drawing of the Three
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
I had never really heard of the whole DT series until I got on here (SKMB). I had seen them offered as graphic novels at my local library.
Now I have been collecting them by buying them at a discount store.
When we were in the States last summer on vacation I bought TWTTK so I decided I would try that one. I had read The Gunslinger (the original one) simply because it was the first in the series but, to tell you the truth, it just did not grab my attention.
So that is the reason for the weird order of reading.
The Nameless
M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
Ah, okies. I still have to read keyhole, looking forward to catching up with Roland and co again, still have 540 pages of desperation to get through first.
Enjoy drawing of the 3, I did immensely.
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
For just a second I thought your last sentence was in "Yoda speak"
Really good book! I don't love all Clancy, but the Jack Ryan books are pretty damned good, esp. this one and Patriot Games.
Daughter wanted me to start watching RIPPER STREET with her, so I did--historical inaccuracies drove me nuts (lol), so we tried WHITECHAPEL--much better show,and set today, so no anachronisms to freak me out. Anyway, they reminded me that Patricia Cornwell did a non fiction book a few years ago, claiming she had identified the real Jack the Ripper, so I picked it up. Fair writing, I learned a few things, but I'm not convinced--a lot of it seemed like she'd picked a person and made the 'proof' fit him. Now reading Lindqvist's HARBOUR--he's one creepy writer!
I read this book and I felt Cornwell really supported her choice. The fact that she had the letters tested for DNA, I think she has gone far beyond what most Ripper people believe and claim. She tracked down stationary and all sorts of additional clues like that. Everyone else is just conjecturing.
And it made sense to me that this guy had an art studio in the heart of all this activity. Very convenient to just slide in and out of that London fog.
I think the DNA is the best single evidence, and when/if they can ever get a more detailed analysis done it will be fascinating!
Most of what bothered me can be boiled down to a couple of points: first, there was a lot of hyperbole and 'emotional' adverb/adjectiving going on. To me, if a writer/researcher needs to appeal to my emotions so much, I mistrust that they've done their work to convince my mind. Maybe it was because she is a popular writer, and so felt that she had to appeal to her core audience rather than someone looking for a solid scientific analysis? Not sure.
The second thing that bothered me is that a lot of her timelines and conjectures relied heavily on whether something COULD have happened, without proof. When you string a very specific set of COULDs together, there is a corresponding set of COULDN'Ts. In quite a few of the scenarios she set up, if even one COULD was inaccurate, the whole thing would fall apart.
I'm not saying she's wrong, but without more proof hers is conjecture as well. The DNA is crucial in this case, but I wonder how likely it is that they'll ever get a conclusive answer on that.
And, and, and Fannie Flagg's new one!!
Tiny
RECEIVED:Annoying Questions award
I just finished Nightmares and Dreamscapes , I have a serious question
about one story.see the forum for Nightmares and Dreamscapes.
My question is about the story. Dedication.
about one story.see the forum for Nightmares and Dreamscapes.
My question is about the story. Dedication.
I've not read the book, but there was a 'companion' TV documentary that I saw. Her investigative method seemed odd to me, tbh, though she began well enough - new eyes, no preconceptions, etc. Later on, though, it did seem as though she seized on her favoured choice and went a bit 'writerly', making the story fit the suspect rather than following the evidence (i.e. what could be proved, which is obviously little enough).
In the end, while her own conjecture may be correct, it wouldn't stand up in a courtroom - too many coulds and it is possible that's. After all, it is theoretically possible (according to the known laws of physics and quantum theory), that I will bend time and space to go back to 1888 and become Jack the Ripper. It's just not at all likely (for all sorts of reasons).
To make an on-topic post: I'm currently reading The Burning Girl by Mark Billingham.
I have Fannie's right next to me!
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving
True, true. Yes, her guess is conjecture also, bad choice of words on my part above. But, I felt she did do a lot of connecting the dots of this person to the crimes. I hope science gets to a place where this could be proven, no matter who did it. It would be so interesting. Once they got that "he's the one" person, they could possibly move backwards and tell his story. Although it could prove difficult. I wonder if any of the possible suspects are even him? Such an interesting case.
Last edited:
I'm sitting on my fanny as we speak!
( DJ, you ought to know that neither Scott nor I could leave your sentence unscathed, right?) But, (pun intended), what book are you referring to? Is it 'I still Dream About You'? Or does she have another one out?
I read Cornwell's book and I felt that she really did 'crack' the case. DNA is pretty indisputable evidence. Especially when there isn't any way that a crooked cop from that era could plant evidence, since noone knew about any DNA stuff back then. She used millions of her own money to solve the case (which I guess would be all the more reason for her to bend facts her way to support her case) but she also has enough money that she could have just said 'Well, it isn't who I thought it was.' and walked away from it.
- Status