As Richie would say - "Australia... not an impossible task but pretty fuckin' close to it... !!"
Posted by The 12th Man on Thursday, 6 August 2015
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Two Hours on Facebook to Describe A Wretched Test
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E16: Unrequited
S04E16: Unrequited
More soldiers killing superiors in this episode, which seems to have been a semi-regular occurrence throughout the X Files. Here though we have old mate Teager who seems to have the ability to disappear in plain view, which makes it quite difficult for him to be caught. Having disposed of a couple of victims, Mulder eventually comes to the conclusion that he has gained the ability to make himself a blind spot, which is not as good as invisibility, but pretty damn handy when you want to slip away virtually unnoticed.
The part of the story regarding POWs in Vietnam still being alive but ignored by the government seems to be casually swept under the carpet at the important parts of the episode. 3.5/5
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E15: Kaddish
S04E15: Kaddish
Rising from the dead for revenge, or not dead at all? Looks like neither could be the answer here, after Isaac Luria is murdered by teenagers before his wedding day, but once buried the teenagers begin to drop one by one in mysterious circumstances. Looks as though no one was prepared for a Jewish family to set loose a mystical Jewish monster called a Golem to take control of the situation.
That's all fine, but really, the villains here are very cartoonish. I guess it is possible there are such outlandish and obvious racists out there but these guys are really over the top. Fortunately Mulder is there to believe and to save the day. Kind of. 3.5/5
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E14: Memento Mori
S04E14: Memento Mori
Scully's cancer leads she and Fox back to the site of the Mutual UFO Network, only to find almost all of the other abductees have already fallen victim to the same phenomenon. of course Scully refuses to believe this to be a government conspiracy, because that's what she does!
When Fox tries and fails to convince Skinner to let him make a deal with the Smoking Man, he turns to those bastions of geekery The Lone Gunmen to help him. Let's just say that Byers is not a field agent. Alien hybrids abound in this episode again, all protecting Scully's ova.
Skinner and Smoking Man apparently do a deal at the end over Scully's life, but at this point you can't be sure who or what will be affected in the long run. 3/5
How to Help Australia to Win the 4th Test
I must admit, I thought that by splashing out some money on England to win the 3rd Test, when they were being offered at ridiculous odds of $5.50, was a sure way to ensure victory for Australia. I was found to be incorrect in this case, but I won't lie that the extra cash windfall helped ease the pain slightly.
So how to help Australia in the all important 4th Test? Well, we really must win, we can't hope to draw and then win the 5th Test, so I need to take out both the option of England winning or salvaging a draw.
Thankfully the bookies are working for me in this instance, and so this is what I have done.
I have taken England at $3.40 to win the Test - $30 @ $3.40 = $102.00
I have also taken the draw at $3.75 - $20 @ $3.75 = $75.00
So for my $50 outlay, I will either:
- Take home $52 if England wins Test
- Take home $25 if it is a draw
- Lose $50 - but Australia win Test.
Perfectly logical...
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Continued Inconsistency Plagues Ashes Cricket
It was a tough week to be an Australian cricket supporter. Everything had appeared so rosy after the Lords Test. Order had been restored. Australia had dominated a match on an unresponsive wicket, which meant that everything looked good heading into the final three Tests, and a retention of the Ashes. In eight sessions of cricket, this was blown away in a spate of poor batting, ordinary bowling and some poor fielding, and suddenly the Australians are so far behind the eight ball one wonders how they can possibly recover in time to reverse proceedings.
Whether or not the decision to bat first is seen to have been a mistake is irrelevant in the decisiveness of the loss. The conditions were not so untoward, given Cook suggested at the toss he would also have batted. The fact that Australia's batsmen were unable to make any more than 136 in that innings is where that match was lost. Australia's batting problems have been papered over for almost 12 months now, thanks to the amazing form of Steve Smith and Chris Rogers. Even at Lords, it was their partnership which ensured a huge total batting first, allowing the failures of Clarke, Voges and Mitch Marsh to pass almost unspoken of. At Edgbaston Smith failed twice for the first time in that 12 month period, and the middle order was exposed white bellied, and was gutted unmercifully. And then, even despite bowling poorly, the bowlers could have kept Australia in the match if they had been able to remove Broad or Ali early at 7/190. Instead, the 87 partnership put enough room between the two teams that when Australia's batting failed again it could not be recovered even through the tough work of Nevill and Starc.
So what happened? How did at team that was flogged by over 400 runs a week previous turn it around to win by the better part of seven wickets and over two days? Not to be unfair to England, but it was the Australians who brought it all upon themselves. England certainly improved, but not to the degree that the result suggests.
The truth of Australia's batting is now there for everyone to see, and the good news for England is that there is very little Australia can change to improve it. Take out Rogers' 52 from the first innings and Warner's 77 from the second innings, and ten Australian batsmen over those two innings contributed only 58 runs in total. It is a worrying trend. The swinging ball is again proving to be an insurmountable obstacle to Australia's batting, and precious few look likely to dig themselves in and fight their way through it. The dismissals of Voges and Marsh in particular reveal a technique raised on Western Australian wickets that is not sustainable in English conditions. Voges will be vulnerable in selection for the 4th Test given that the elder Marsh brother has scored a lot of runs in the county fixtures. The fact that they have been scored against substandard bowling attacks will not disguise the fact that he has form on the board, and Voges does not. If the change is made, it will not make Australian supporters feel any more secure, nor will it disappoint England's bowlers to have another left-hander to attack. Mitch Marsh's only replacement could be the recently deposed Shane Watson, but again that change would not really boost the confidence of Australians. No matter what the selection policy is in regards to an all rounders position in the Test line-up, you cannot bat at number 6 in Test cricket without scoring runs, and plenty of them. No ability to nip out wickets with the ball should replace the runs that are a prerequisite of batting in the top six of the Test team.
There seems to be an overreaction once again to an Australian captain who is a little short on runs. We saw it with Chappell, Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. They all had a slump when they were approaching a zenith in their career, and all had their heads called for as a result. each and every one of them fought out of it, scored memorable innings to again prove their talent, and were able to (more or less) leave the game on their own terms rather than on the cry of the media wolves. And now its Michael Clarke's turn. His courageous century in Adelaide last year has been set aside, and the fact that it has been five Tests since then and he hasn't made a 'big' score. That's right, 5 Tests. Not to mention that he top scored in the World Cup final not that long ago. There's no doubt he doesn't look comfortable at the crease due to his well publicised injuries, and opposing bowlers know he has weaknesses because of this that they can target, which they do. And the dropped chance at slip off Ian Bell didn't look good. But seriously, who remembers the last one he grassed? And why does the media feel it must hound a player of Clarke's stature into retirement? If you would back anyone to succeed with his back to the wall, it would be Michael Clarke. His century in South Africa 16 months ago showed that. Clarke has more credits in the bank than just about anyone in Australian cricket. He deserves the leeway from the media and the public to fight his way back into form without his future being questioned at every turn.
What happened to Australia's bowling attack? All five were on fire at Lords and couldn't do a thing wrong. At Edgbaston they couldn't put the ball anywhere near the right areas. They were short, they were wide, they were too full. There was no pressure on the batsmen, and Bell and Root in particular were able to play as they liked. If these two hadn't both thrown their wickets away in the first innings it could have been an innings victory for England. The McGrath comparisons of Hazelwood at Lords dissipated at Edgbaston, his four wickets conceding runs at over 5 an over. Starc was wayward, almost back to his old ways of 18 months ago. Johnson bowled two cracking overs but couldn't back it up consistently. Lyon bowled with surprising penetrativeness without ever really looking as though he could bowl his way through the order. Were they underdone, as some speculated in the days that followed? Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to occur. Did they take the break between Tests too easy? Did they just believe they had England's measure? None of that makes sense in a professional environment. It was obvious however that, whatever the reason, the Australians as a bowling group was as poor at Edgbaston as they were terrific at Lords.
Will there be changes? It appears highly unlikely. Peter Siddle has been advocated as a possible change to provide stability and accuracy, but at whose expense? And given Australia must now win at least one of the final 2 Tests - and probably both - to retain the Ashes - surely they need their most attacking bowlers in tow? What I wouldn't give to see Fawad Ahmed given an opportunity. It won't happen unless injury strikes Lyon, but seeing him against these English batsmen would be tantalising.
What the 4th Test will come down to is how much Australia want to fight back, and whether it can be done. England will be without Jimmy Anderson, but the possible return of Wood will make England feel comfortable. Their batsmen, Adam Lyth aside, will feel they have the Australians measure. If nothing else, this Test match should be the most competitive of the series so far, and hopefully the most watchable.
Whether or not the decision to bat first is seen to have been a mistake is irrelevant in the decisiveness of the loss. The conditions were not so untoward, given Cook suggested at the toss he would also have batted. The fact that Australia's batsmen were unable to make any more than 136 in that innings is where that match was lost. Australia's batting problems have been papered over for almost 12 months now, thanks to the amazing form of Steve Smith and Chris Rogers. Even at Lords, it was their partnership which ensured a huge total batting first, allowing the failures of Clarke, Voges and Mitch Marsh to pass almost unspoken of. At Edgbaston Smith failed twice for the first time in that 12 month period, and the middle order was exposed white bellied, and was gutted unmercifully. And then, even despite bowling poorly, the bowlers could have kept Australia in the match if they had been able to remove Broad or Ali early at 7/190. Instead, the 87 partnership put enough room between the two teams that when Australia's batting failed again it could not be recovered even through the tough work of Nevill and Starc.
So what happened? How did at team that was flogged by over 400 runs a week previous turn it around to win by the better part of seven wickets and over two days? Not to be unfair to England, but it was the Australians who brought it all upon themselves. England certainly improved, but not to the degree that the result suggests.
The truth of Australia's batting is now there for everyone to see, and the good news for England is that there is very little Australia can change to improve it. Take out Rogers' 52 from the first innings and Warner's 77 from the second innings, and ten Australian batsmen over those two innings contributed only 58 runs in total. It is a worrying trend. The swinging ball is again proving to be an insurmountable obstacle to Australia's batting, and precious few look likely to dig themselves in and fight their way through it. The dismissals of Voges and Marsh in particular reveal a technique raised on Western Australian wickets that is not sustainable in English conditions. Voges will be vulnerable in selection for the 4th Test given that the elder Marsh brother has scored a lot of runs in the county fixtures. The fact that they have been scored against substandard bowling attacks will not disguise the fact that he has form on the board, and Voges does not. If the change is made, it will not make Australian supporters feel any more secure, nor will it disappoint England's bowlers to have another left-hander to attack. Mitch Marsh's only replacement could be the recently deposed Shane Watson, but again that change would not really boost the confidence of Australians. No matter what the selection policy is in regards to an all rounders position in the Test line-up, you cannot bat at number 6 in Test cricket without scoring runs, and plenty of them. No ability to nip out wickets with the ball should replace the runs that are a prerequisite of batting in the top six of the Test team.
There seems to be an overreaction once again to an Australian captain who is a little short on runs. We saw it with Chappell, Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. They all had a slump when they were approaching a zenith in their career, and all had their heads called for as a result. each and every one of them fought out of it, scored memorable innings to again prove their talent, and were able to (more or less) leave the game on their own terms rather than on the cry of the media wolves. And now its Michael Clarke's turn. His courageous century in Adelaide last year has been set aside, and the fact that it has been five Tests since then and he hasn't made a 'big' score. That's right, 5 Tests. Not to mention that he top scored in the World Cup final not that long ago. There's no doubt he doesn't look comfortable at the crease due to his well publicised injuries, and opposing bowlers know he has weaknesses because of this that they can target, which they do. And the dropped chance at slip off Ian Bell didn't look good. But seriously, who remembers the last one he grassed? And why does the media feel it must hound a player of Clarke's stature into retirement? If you would back anyone to succeed with his back to the wall, it would be Michael Clarke. His century in South Africa 16 months ago showed that. Clarke has more credits in the bank than just about anyone in Australian cricket. He deserves the leeway from the media and the public to fight his way back into form without his future being questioned at every turn.
What happened to Australia's bowling attack? All five were on fire at Lords and couldn't do a thing wrong. At Edgbaston they couldn't put the ball anywhere near the right areas. They were short, they were wide, they were too full. There was no pressure on the batsmen, and Bell and Root in particular were able to play as they liked. If these two hadn't both thrown their wickets away in the first innings it could have been an innings victory for England. The McGrath comparisons of Hazelwood at Lords dissipated at Edgbaston, his four wickets conceding runs at over 5 an over. Starc was wayward, almost back to his old ways of 18 months ago. Johnson bowled two cracking overs but couldn't back it up consistently. Lyon bowled with surprising penetrativeness without ever really looking as though he could bowl his way through the order. Were they underdone, as some speculated in the days that followed? Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to occur. Did they take the break between Tests too easy? Did they just believe they had England's measure? None of that makes sense in a professional environment. It was obvious however that, whatever the reason, the Australians as a bowling group was as poor at Edgbaston as they were terrific at Lords.
Will there be changes? It appears highly unlikely. Peter Siddle has been advocated as a possible change to provide stability and accuracy, but at whose expense? And given Australia must now win at least one of the final 2 Tests - and probably both - to retain the Ashes - surely they need their most attacking bowlers in tow? What I wouldn't give to see Fawad Ahmed given an opportunity. It won't happen unless injury strikes Lyon, but seeing him against these English batsmen would be tantalising.
What the 4th Test will come down to is how much Australia want to fight back, and whether it can be done. England will be without Jimmy Anderson, but the possible return of Wood will make England feel comfortable. Their batsmen, Adam Lyth aside, will feel they have the Australians measure. If nothing else, this Test match should be the most competitive of the series so far, and hopefully the most watchable.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Review: Cricket as I See It
Cricket as I See It by Allan BorderMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
I was hoping for more from this than I got. Like most of us who love cricket, I have Beyond Ten Thousand, which means that most of the stuff AB goes over from his playing career we already know. To be honest, I was looking for some real information on cricket since that point, and especially from his point of view of being a selector and a board member. In the long run, we get snippets rather than full shots, and it's more of a tease than anything else. Still, it's an interesting read for anyone who enjoys cricket and has a love of everything on and off the field.
View all my reviews
The Goodes, The Bad and The Ugly Side of Barracking
The past week has seen a media blitz explosion over the continued booing by AFL crowds of Adam Goodes, the varied interpretations of what lies behind these actions, and debate over those interpretations from all corners of the general public up to the so-called leaders of the land. And the opinions have been many and varied, stretching from those that believe it is a racist action and must be dealt with accordingly, to those that believe it has nothing to do with racism at all but is more about the actions of the man himself, and that he has brought it all on himself. Yikes.
Opinions have been noted. None of this is good. It should never have escalated to this point. And this week has really polarised rather than brought together those opinions. There is a big fence there separating two sides of the debate, and neither appears willing to adjust their field of vision. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy and of sitting on that big fence, there must be a little give and take in the minds of both sides, whether or not it is seen rightly or wrongly.
Those out there who say it has EVERYTHING to do with racism are not doing the argument much justice. Crowds at sports events who bond together to take on a collective disgruntlement in booing one player are generally boofheads with the collective IQ of a plastic cup full of beer. Goodes has been outspoken on a number of issues, some of which would go right over the top of the head of the mug footy supporter, and he is also seen as a player who has taken the opportunity to play for free kicks in the game if it arises. This kind of behaviour will always rile up opposition crowds, especially when at their home venue. When this kind of thing catches on with the football fraternity, it can catch like wildfire, and the initial reason behind the protest is forgotten - all that is remembered is that other crowds booed him, so we will too, but louder and longer! This is not meant to be seen as an excuse, but somewhat of a possible explanation for the continued rising of this phenomenon.
Those out there who say it has NOTHING to do with racism are just as blind and out of touch. Goodes has made his stand in recent years on many issues dealing with the indigenous people of Australia. He has made a stand on racism on and off the football field, publicly and on the biggest stage. Amongst that booing mob at every game have been people yelling racism comments, throwing racist taunts. This has been acknowledged and proven. Some of those people were ejected and barred, not all were caught or punished. Does the argument "a few bad eggs doesn't make it racism" count here? How many bad eggs were there? 10? 20? 50? How MANY bad eggs DOES make it racism?
The argument that this concerted booing is solely for his actions on the football field is also not viable. So he may play for free kicks when he can. That's why he's booed, and not for his skin colour? Why don't crowds boo Joel Selwood in the same way then? He has bought more free kicks in the last eight years than anyone by ducking his head at an opportune moment. How about the argument that because the crowds only boo one black man, and not all of them that play AFL - that means it isn't racist? Where does this mentality come from?!?
What about the argument that he's an elite athlete and should be able to handle being booed, just like Stuart Broad was in Australia last summer, or other players from any assortment of sports codes have been in the past, or even us mugs who just play at our club level far beyond where courtesy should be shown? Well, how many of them were booed EVERY SINGLE TIME they touched ball during the game, not just for a week or two weeks, but every single week? Pretty sure the answer is none. Put yourself in Goodes' shoes. If you were booed constantly, every week, no matter how you played or what you did, how long before you cracked? How long before it really began to sink in to your psyche? Think about it honestly, because no one likes being hated, and imagine how that would affect you week in week out.
The round of AFL played this weekend brought forth support from players, clubs and fans alike in many different ways. However, the only way this can be stopped is by the fans themselves. To collectively and individually refrain from targeting one player. That in itself would be a victory. There's no need to participate in cheering the player if you don't feel it warranted. By simply choosing not to follow the mob in booing one player will be enough to conclude this ugly business, and allow the game to return to the players as it should, and not the gossip columnists as it has been this past week.
Opinions have been noted. None of this is good. It should never have escalated to this point. And this week has really polarised rather than brought together those opinions. There is a big fence there separating two sides of the debate, and neither appears willing to adjust their field of vision. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy and of sitting on that big fence, there must be a little give and take in the minds of both sides, whether or not it is seen rightly or wrongly.
Those out there who say it has EVERYTHING to do with racism are not doing the argument much justice. Crowds at sports events who bond together to take on a collective disgruntlement in booing one player are generally boofheads with the collective IQ of a plastic cup full of beer. Goodes has been outspoken on a number of issues, some of which would go right over the top of the head of the mug footy supporter, and he is also seen as a player who has taken the opportunity to play for free kicks in the game if it arises. This kind of behaviour will always rile up opposition crowds, especially when at their home venue. When this kind of thing catches on with the football fraternity, it can catch like wildfire, and the initial reason behind the protest is forgotten - all that is remembered is that other crowds booed him, so we will too, but louder and longer! This is not meant to be seen as an excuse, but somewhat of a possible explanation for the continued rising of this phenomenon.
Those out there who say it has NOTHING to do with racism are just as blind and out of touch. Goodes has made his stand in recent years on many issues dealing with the indigenous people of Australia. He has made a stand on racism on and off the football field, publicly and on the biggest stage. Amongst that booing mob at every game have been people yelling racism comments, throwing racist taunts. This has been acknowledged and proven. Some of those people were ejected and barred, not all were caught or punished. Does the argument "a few bad eggs doesn't make it racism" count here? How many bad eggs were there? 10? 20? 50? How MANY bad eggs DOES make it racism?
The argument that this concerted booing is solely for his actions on the football field is also not viable. So he may play for free kicks when he can. That's why he's booed, and not for his skin colour? Why don't crowds boo Joel Selwood in the same way then? He has bought more free kicks in the last eight years than anyone by ducking his head at an opportune moment. How about the argument that because the crowds only boo one black man, and not all of them that play AFL - that means it isn't racist? Where does this mentality come from?!?
What about the argument that he's an elite athlete and should be able to handle being booed, just like Stuart Broad was in Australia last summer, or other players from any assortment of sports codes have been in the past, or even us mugs who just play at our club level far beyond where courtesy should be shown? Well, how many of them were booed EVERY SINGLE TIME they touched ball during the game, not just for a week or two weeks, but every single week? Pretty sure the answer is none. Put yourself in Goodes' shoes. If you were booed constantly, every week, no matter how you played or what you did, how long before you cracked? How long before it really began to sink in to your psyche? Think about it honestly, because no one likes being hated, and imagine how that would affect you week in week out.
The round of AFL played this weekend brought forth support from players, clubs and fans alike in many different ways. However, the only way this can be stopped is by the fans themselves. To collectively and individually refrain from targeting one player. That in itself would be a victory. There's no need to participate in cheering the player if you don't feel it warranted. By simply choosing not to follow the mob in booing one player will be enough to conclude this ugly business, and allow the game to return to the players as it should, and not the gossip columnists as it has been this past week.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
So Few Wins Needed for Finals Spot
With five rounds remaining of the NRL before the finals begin (apart from tomorrow night's non-event between the Titans and the Eels), it once again appears that at least one of the teams that finishes inside the top eight will have lost more games than they have won in the regular season.
It is conceivable that three of those teams in the top eight will have less than a 50% win record and yet still get the opportunity to play finals football. I have a real problem with that. I just don't see that if you can't win a majority of your games over 26 rounds, that you should have the chance to win a premiership if you happen to win four finals in a row. And no, that hasn't happened yet, but Canterbury went close to doing it last year from seventh position, after having 13 wins from 24 matches. And no, it isn't a likely event in any case, but would you ever rule out a team such as Melbourne or Canterbury, currently 6th and 8th respectively, being able to do it?
There is no way of course that Channel 9 will allow the top 8 finals to change. It offers three extra finals matches than the old top five used to, which is all dollars and ratings they would be unwilling to lose. I guess the quality of the games will still be a deciding factor in the future, and the finals in the first week between 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7 are generally the best of the first week.
It is conceivable that three of those teams in the top eight will have less than a 50% win record and yet still get the opportunity to play finals football. I have a real problem with that. I just don't see that if you can't win a majority of your games over 26 rounds, that you should have the chance to win a premiership if you happen to win four finals in a row. And no, that hasn't happened yet, but Canterbury went close to doing it last year from seventh position, after having 13 wins from 24 matches. And no, it isn't a likely event in any case, but would you ever rule out a team such as Melbourne or Canterbury, currently 6th and 8th respectively, being able to do it?
There is no way of course that Channel 9 will allow the top 8 finals to change. It offers three extra finals matches than the old top five used to, which is all dollars and ratings they would be unwilling to lose. I guess the quality of the games will still be a deciding factor in the future, and the finals in the first week between 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7 are generally the best of the first week.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Cricket Takes Hold for Josh
Josh asked me to play cricket with him this morning, which was the first time in some time. Most afternoons he likes to go out the front himself, and bowl away at the stumps, commentating on the game as he goes. He has also spent six months running around the house, constantly doing his bowling action, never able to be still.
Anyway, it was great to see how much he has improved in everything since the last time he asked me to play with him. His batting is good. He is trying to watch the ball and wait for the ball before he plays his shot. He is trying to get forward, but will also wait to go back if he needs to. His bowling is quite amazing. His action has smoothed out even more than it had before, and he likes to try and throw in a leggie action on occasions. Most impressive is his catching. He isn't afraid of the ball anymore, and catches about four in every five I throw back to him. At seven and a half years old he is going great.
He asked Helen the other day if he had to play Milo cricket this year, and was disappointed that he couldn't play "real" cricket. I explained to him today that it will be a good way to improve his sills before he plays that "real" cricket, which he will still qualify for Under 10's for two seasons after his year of Milo cricket. It's great to see his enthusiasm and his skills.
Anyway, it was great to see how much he has improved in everything since the last time he asked me to play with him. His batting is good. He is trying to watch the ball and wait for the ball before he plays his shot. He is trying to get forward, but will also wait to go back if he needs to. His bowling is quite amazing. His action has smoothed out even more than it had before, and he likes to try and throw in a leggie action on occasions. Most impressive is his catching. He isn't afraid of the ball anymore, and catches about four in every five I throw back to him. At seven and a half years old he is going great.
He asked Helen the other day if he had to play Milo cricket this year, and was disappointed that he couldn't play "real" cricket. I explained to him today that it will be a good way to improve his sills before he plays that "real" cricket, which he will still qualify for Under 10's for two seasons after his year of Milo cricket. It's great to see his enthusiasm and his skills.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Review: A Scanner Darkly
A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. DickMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
It took me a long time to get around to finding and reading this book by Philip K. Dick. Now that I have done so, I am happy I got the chance. There's no doubt that it isn't easy to follow, and you have to be in your best frame of mind to get through it. Once you get through the introduction however, and understand the flow of the story, it becomes very enjoyable, and more interesting than you may initially imagine.
Is it predictable? In some ways yes, the story that plays out on the pages does at times follow a well worn path, but the battle that is taking place within Bob Arcter and his alter-ego Fred becomes more interesting as the story progresses.
When it comes to illicit and psychedelic drugs, this novel is most intriguing in that the author was renown for indulging himself. If you can set yourself to wade through the complex layers that Dick has written this in, then it is well worth the effort.
View all my reviews
Friday, July 24, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)