Finished "The Client" (and "Eaters of the Dead" for that matter).

The Client

The Client was pretty good. I like John Grisham's books, but he's not really one of my favorites. He definitely immerses you in the legal system, which some people can't get enough of. The part about legal thrillers that intrigues me is that the law is a game. Let's face it: it's a set of rules that are sometimes arbitrarily created, so it's kind of like a logic puzzle. The characters in Grisham books are always trying to find ways to do something the law was written to prevent, but do it with lesser known laws and elaborate schemes. That part is interesting. But sometimes the overarching theme isn't all that compelling. The Grisham books that I really like (The Runaway Jury, The Partner, The Firm) keep me going because you're not sure how it's going to pan out, and there's a surprise at the end. The other ones (The Broker, The King of Torts) seem to be more of a series of events that unfold slowly, with no real ending or conclusion. The interest in these comes from watching characters slowly change due to the situation they're in, but you don't end up flying through the last few pages while holding your breath. The Client is one of the latter.

Very briefly, an 11 year old boy has a chance encounter with a mafia lawyer who confesses some things to him before committing suicide. Now the legal system wants him to talk and the mafia is trying to shut him up.

All in all, it's a good book with interesting characters on both sides of the law. If you're into the legal genre it's a good read, but it's one of those books that I finished and thought "Okay, what do I read next," not "Holy cow that was great!" I never stayed up too late reading it, but in retrospect in was interesting to watch the story unfold. I haven't done a book report since high school, but I guess I'll give it a 7 out of 10 on the Marc approval scale, which I just made up.

The Marc Approval Scale (subject to spontaneous changes as I feel like it)
1-3 Don't waste your time
4-6 Well done, but not my cup of tea
7-10 I liked it and recommend you give it a go.

Eaters of the Dead
I'll let you know right off the bat- I looove Michael Crichton's writing, so there's a pretty slim chance that any of his books will get a bad review from me. He always has interesting plot concepts, the story keeps you going, and he researches the hell out of whatever the topic is. I think of him as the archetype of "Faction." The stories are fictional, but the backdrop is based on real-world events. So while you're reading, not only are you entertained, but you learn something. I guess Edutainment works for adults, whereas children run screaming from things like Mario is Missing.

The great thing about Crichton is that he's always writing about future technology, with frightening accuracy. Take a look at The Terminal Man and see how close that is with bio-mechanical implants, or the movie Runaway with autonomous unmanned vehicles. It's enough to make you worried about the nano-technology in Prey.

But enough about my unnatural love of all things Crichton, on to this book. I resisted reading it because several years ago I saw The 13th Warrior (the film adaptation), and it was a crappy, crappy movie. I only saw it because we went to see The Sixth Sense and it was sold out. Upon adding that link just now, I did some reading about the film. Apparently it was "completed" a few years before it's final release, but was deemed "unwatchable." So, Michael Crichton himself took over and re-shot several key scenes before it was released. Apparently, it wasn't enough to sway me, but I do know several people who really liked the movie and I could never figure out why. Movies are never as good as the book they're based on (except maybe Sahara, where the movie was in many ways better) because movies can never cram in the thid person omniscient narrative and background that make books so engrossing. Now, I saw the movie once six years ago, but I like it better in retrospect having read the book. Maybe I'll have to rent it again.

On to the book! It's written as though it is a translation of some long lost Arabic manuscripts, and just so no one's confused, it's not. Apparently the book has been referred to as a "Literary hoax," and within the book itself, there's nothing telling you that it isn't all true. So, the text presents itself as main character Ibn Fadlan's report to his superiors after he is sent on a ambassador assignment, but instead has a run in with Norsemen (Vikings). One of the more noticeable traits of the book is the use of footnotes, in which Crichton offers a longer explanation of something Fadlan glazes over, or a little background on cultural differences between Arabs and the Norsemen that explain why Fadlan finds certain things amusing or shocking. In some instances, he offers multiple translations of words or phrases, that give fairly different meanings and allow a different interpretation.
The book has a lot of adventure sequences, and definitely kept me interested. It's chock full of dry humor (which I love) and it's interesting to watch Fadlan become a member of this group that he initially despises. And, in Crichton's style, I learned a lot about the two cultures in the process. For instance, one footnote tells us that Vikings abandoned the whole horned-helmet thing hundreds of years before this book takes place, yet that's what the dude on the cover of Kate's 1976 copy is wearing. If Crichton would've taken over the cover art, I bet that goof never would have happened.

It's a pretty short book, and it's very different from standard Michael Crichton fare, but it's definitely worth a read. And, it makes that movie seem less crappy, which should please Antonio Banderas fans. I give it an 8 on the Marc approval scale.

In a related note, I recently read Congo, and it was also way better than the movie.

The Joy of Sudoku

I realized that I'm pushing a month with no posts, so I'll make one quick one before I forget about it.

If you haven't tried Sudoku yet, you're really missing out. It runs in USA Today right next to the crossword, as well as several other papers. It's sort of a crossword puzzle for those of us who are better with logic than words. What I like is that every puzzle is solvable- it's just a matter of time. Whereas I can stare at a crossword puzzle for hours and never think of 12 letter word for "hearty guffaw or jailable offense."

For those of us who wasted many hours while we should have been studying by playing Snood, there is a Sudoku variant appropriately titled "Snoodoku." Instead of being based on numbers 1 through 9, it uses nine different Snoods (since there isn't actually any math in the game, any symbol will do). I haven't tried it yet, but it seems like it would be Sudoku only more difficult for no good reason. I'm guessing they only made it because the name "Snoodoku" was so perfect.

And by the way, the crossword answer was "manslaughter" and I did eventually figure it out. I gave myself a gold star that day!