Recently read: River of Darkness by Rennie Airth

Competent (if a bit stilted in spots, especially the female characters) but not tremendously interesting.

I was prepped to be interested in Rennie Airth's "John Madden mystery", mostly because of the time period: detective story set in the aftermath of Great War England. But I should have heeded the back paper, where Robert Goddard comments "...takes what seems to be a twenties drawing room murder mystery and transforms it into an edge-of-the-seat serial-killer thriller."

As with so many "things that seem one thing but then turn into something else", River of Darkness is, sadly, not much of a twenties drawing room mystery, and also, not really much of a thriller either.

What it appears to be is yet another stock "serial killer chiller" book, and, frankly, I'm sufficiently tired of those to really never need to read another. The book's villain is of the "savagely competent" mode and not the "uber-intelligent competent", at least. And his competence is, to one degree or another, somewhat explained and rational. And the book's protagonist is, as is de rigeur, sensitive, intelligent, and also competent, but tragically damaged, needing psychological and sexual healing which he gets thanks to a progressive woman's attentions.

It's all there, and, as I say, competently written. And it has more than a mere dash of procedural detail in it. But it's all a bit too stock for my taste (it even has the traditional "Fatal-Attraction-Oh-Noze-He's-Not-Dead" ending, although in this case, again, reasonably rationally explained). The serial-killer-thriller genre is, to me, about as played out as the sexy-vampire genre: others may like it, but I'm tired and done with it.

The setting is reasonably interesting, the characterization is decent (moreso the men than the women), but I doubt I'll be buying any of Airth's follow-on books (although I might borrow them from library or friend). For me, a C+ or B-, mostly thanks to subject matter -- if you like the serial-killer-thriller genre, then I suspect this is a B+ book and you probably won't be disappointed.

Recently read: River of Darkness by Rennie Airth

Competent (if a bit stilted in spots, especially the female characters) but not tremendously interesting.

I was prepped to be interested in Rennie Airth's "John Madden mystery", mostly because of the time period: detective story set in the aftermath of Great War England. But I should have heeded the back paper, where Robert Goddard comments "...takes what seems to be a twenties drawing room murder mystery and transforms it into an edge-of-the-seat serial-killer thriller."

As with so many "things that seem one thing but then turn into something else", River of Darkness is, sadly, not much of a twenties drawing room mystery, and also, not really much of a thriller either.

What it appears to be is yet another stock "serial killer chiller" book, and, frankly, I'm sufficiently tired of those to really never need to read another. The book's villain is of the "savagely competent" mode and not the "uber-intelligent competent", at least. And his competence is, to one degree or another, somewhat explained and rational. And the book's protagonist is, as is de rigeur, sensitive, intelligent, and also competent, but tragically damaged, needing psychological and sexual healing which he gets thanks to a progressive woman's attentions.

It's all there, and, as I say, competently written. And it has more than a mere dash of procedural detail in it. But it's all a bit too stock for my taste (it even has the traditional "Fatal-Attraction-Oh-Noze-He's-Not-Dead" ending, although in this case, again, reasonably rationally explained). The serial-killer-thriller genre is, to me, about as played out as the sexy-vampire genre: others may like it, but I'm tired and done with it.

The setting is reasonably interesting, the characterization is decent (moreso the men than the women), but I doubt I'll be buying any of Airth's follow-on books (although I might borrow them from library or friend). For me, a C+ or B-, mostly thanks to subject matter -- if you like the serial-killer-thriller genre, then I suspect this is a B+ book and you probably won't be disappointed.

Recently played: Race for the Galaxy

This evening, I played a quick game of Race for the Galaxy with my son. I have come to the conclusion that the extra supplement cards add flavour to the game, but they also vastly increase the luck factor in two-player games. Viz.

I managed, through blind luck, to start the game with New Sparta, three Rebel world cards, and a production halo world. Turn one, Settle, Consume-Trade. My son, nicely, explored on turn one: I drew a six point bonus card that benefitted Rebel worlds. On my first turn trade, I scored one more Rebel world card, a six point military bennie card, and another production halo world. Turn two was lather rinse repeat.

My poor kid didn't know what hit him. 15 minutes later, he notched up a respectable score in the mid-twenties (respectable for him when playing against a strong military hand that makes the game race through). I, on the other hand, ended with a score in the mid-seventies, without a single victory point chit. My largest point total to date, indeed, the largest point total I've ever seen. My son was very brave about it. I worked hard to convince him, and my wife, that it was really all complete luck in the card draw.

I still really like Race for the Galaxy, but the luck factor makes it not tremendously much more than a quick filler at this point, and my son's interest in the game has flagged somewhat. I suspect that soon, in order to dampen the luck factor, we're going to have to play with the extra rules in the supplements and not just the extra cards and the rules from the base game.

Still enjoyable, though; highly recommended game, and great value for the money.

Recently played: Race for the Galaxy

This evening, I played a quick game of Race for the Galaxy with my son. I have come to the conclusion that the extra supplement cards add flavour to the game, but they also vastly increase the luck factor in two-player games. Viz.

I managed, through blind luck, to start the game with New Sparta, three Rebel world cards, and a production halo world. Turn one, Settle, Consume-Trade. My son, nicely, explored on turn one: I drew a six point bonus card that benefitted Rebel worlds. On my first turn trade, I scored one more Rebel world card, a six point military bennie card, and another production halo world. Turn two was lather rinse repeat.

My poor kid didn't know what hit him. 15 minutes later, he notched up a respectable score in the mid-twenties (respectable for him when playing against a strong military hand that makes the game race through). I, on the other hand, ended with a score in the mid-seventies, without a single victory point chit. My largest point total to date, indeed, the largest point total I've ever seen. My son was very brave about it. I worked hard to convince him, and my wife, that it was really all complete luck in the card draw.

I still really like Race for the Galaxy, but the luck factor makes it not tremendously much more than a quick filler at this point, and my son's interest in the game has flagged somewhat. I suspect that soon, in order to dampen the luck factor, we're going to have to play with the extra rules in the supplements and not just the extra cards and the rules from the base game.

Still enjoyable, though; highly recommended game, and great value for the money.