There are some books out there that it doesn’t matter how long they are, the story is really engrossing and I really don’t want to put them down. However there are other books that start off good but are so long that by the time I start getting close to the end my eyes start glasing over and I quickly begin to lose interest. Then there are books that are basically crap. Well, this isn’t one of the last type of books, and this certainly isn’t one of the first type of books so I guess it falls into the category of being too long. Actually, one of the major flaws that I did find in this book was not so much that it was too long but rather that it contained two distinct stories and thus it could have worked much better, and been much more interesting, if Horwood has divided it into two books. Mind you, I also have books two, three, and four on my bookshelves which makes me wonder if I am ever going to get around to reading them, or whether they are going to be tossed out at the next Church Fete – we will see.

Another thing about this book is that the author seems to be using the same method that was first used in Watership Downs, though I had no idea that this was going to be the case until I started reading the book. I don’t guess that is generally a problem but it does feel like somebody is simply trying to copy an idea that was originally quite successful. Actually, it does tend to be pretty hard to be original these days, especially when there are so many influences that are going to go into your writing. However, I guess the originality comes out in how you produce your writings, and if you let your own personality and style dictate your work as opposed to simply copying something else. In fact, it does become pretty obvious when a work is forced, particularly where the author isn’t writing for the love of writing, but simply writing because they see it as an easy way of making lots of money (hint: it isn’t).

So, Duncton Wood is a story about moles, though it is more than just a story it is more of an epic. However, as I suggested, it is actually two stories in one. The first half of the book is about this nation (or system as the book calls it) of moles who live in Duncton Wood (which apparently is somewhere around Oxford). It sets up our two main characters – Brachen and Rebecca – and tells us that it is a love story. Then it introduces the antagonist, a mole named Mandrake, who is actually a pretty big mole that came into the system from afar and pretty much took over. However, he didn’t just take over but he also destroyed the religion of the moles as well by preventing them from worshiping at the stone and killing anybody who knew the sacred chants. Except that Brachen was taught these chants and managed to survive and escaped into ancient tunnels to prepare and eventually emerge. So, the two stories are thus: defeating Mandrake and freeing the systems; and then going on a quest to restore the religious beliefs of the moles in Duncton Wood.

Religion actually plays a central role in the book, namely because we have Mandrake coming along and dominating the system by destroying the religion and then ruling through brute force. Then we have Brachen go off on a quest to restore the religious rites that Mandrake had destroyed. Furthermore, to emphasise the religious nature of the story, we even have the protagonists let one of the antagonists go free, namely because they do not see a reason to kill him, but also because the antagonist (who isn’t Mandrake by the way but one of his lieutenants), has become such a pathetic individual that killing him will simply make them no better than him.

The whole thing about Mandrake dominating the system is an interesting one and he does it namely because he can – he has the power and because he has the power he basically uses it. However, he has a weakness and that is that he hates all religion and actually goes out of his way to basically destroy all aspects of it. Okay, since the religion is based around a standing stone that is located in the middle of the forest, and even Mandrake isn’t that powerful to destroy the stone, there is always going to be a reminder of the religion to the moles, but since Mandrake has ordered the death of all the priests then memories of the specifics start to fade. Mind you, Mandrake also forbids moles from traveling outside, which means that even the sight of the stone becomes a myth.

This is another key theme of the story – how time creates myths. By destroying all semblance of the religion means that everybody (or everymole as it is written) forgets the tenants of the religion, which means that in the end Mandrake is the one that they all look up to – he is the biggest and the strongest. However, there must be some sort of issue with his self-esteem if he has to do all of this. Despite being the biggest, and the strongest, he has to destroy any rivals, and religion is a big rival to any dictator, and put himself to replace this. The other aspect of time creating myth is when Bracken goes off on his journey, and he is gone for so long that people begin to forget about him, not so much that they don’t believe he existed, but rather that he takes on some form of mythological aspect.

Mind you, we are looking at a fairly primitive society here where even the ability to write and record the past generally doesn’t exist (though we are told about scribe moles, and yes, while they are moles they are also written as if they were sentient beings). In such societies mythologies develop much more often than does one in a society like ours where pretty much everything is recorded. Even then, as time starts to intervene, the past does become more and more of a distant memory, though we are much more able to record those memories than the past. However, to me, a memory is much stronger, and more valuable, than a photograph ever will be because there are just things that a photograph simply cannot catch.

Despite this book being the progenitor of pretty much all of the pirate books of the 20^th Century, as well as being an influence of many of the adventure and 'boys' books that came afterwards, I found this book rather dull. Maybe it has a lot to do with my lack of enthusiasm for 19^th Century English novels (which does not include [author:Jules Verne], since he is French). In fact, I can't really think of any 19^th Century English novels that I would actually jump up and say 'this is brilliant'. Personally, I really don't know what it is that makes me find much of the literature of the 19^th Century boring, but generally I do (though I probably should make a note of the fact that Stevenson is actually a Scot).

Anyway, this is a story of a boy, Jim Hawkins, who stumbles across a treasure map and then goes and shows it to a mutual acquaintance, Dr Liversey. Together they hire a crew and go and look for the treasure on Treasure Island. However, while they are hiring a crew, they bring on board a cook, Long John Silver, who then goes and hires the rest of the crew. As it turns out, Long John was the cook on the ship of Captain Flint, the pirate who buried the treasure originally, and the crew he hires were all pirates on that same vessel. So, when they arrive at Treasure Island, Long John and his men take over the ship, and those still loyal to Hawkins and Liversey, manage to escape. However, to cut a long story short (not that Treasure Island is really all that long), they outsmart the pirates, get the treasure, and all return to England happy men.

Now, this was Stevenson's first novel, he wrote travel narratives before that, but this book was his first foray into the realm of the imagination. Further, his adventure into this realm pretty much changed the scene of the novel ever since, and many of the 'boys books' of the 20^th Century can all look back to Stevenson for inspiration. It is not that Stevenson wrote the first adventure novel. Such stories have been floating around for eons. What Stevenson did is that he constructed it so that that appealed to the modern reader. Not only is it supposed to be exciting (I didn't find it all that exciting) but it was also short and easy to read. It is aimed at a young audience, though many adults have read and come to appreciate it (me not being among them).

Now, the best character in the book by far is Long John Silver. I always expected him to be a pirate captain, but he is much more sneakier than that. The fact that he escapes at the end of the book goes a long way to show this character's shrewdness. However, he also has a sense of morality (one which almost gets him killed). When he had captured Hawkins, the other pirates wanted to kill him, but Silver intervenes (and in the process almost gets himself killed). Silver, while being the man with the plan, demonstrates that it is not easy to take charge of a gang of pirates. He planned on taking over the ship, but the pirates ended up jumping the gun, as they do most of the way through the book, which in the end sows the seeds of their failure.

However, the character that I found the most out of place would have been Jim Hawkins. He is a seven year old boy who is looking after his sick mother after his father dies, and he simply runs off on an adventure to find a lost treasure. Granted, one could argue that he went off after the treasure to support his mother, but considering the time it takes to travel, and the fact that the adventure would take at least a year, if he is lucky, then it really makes no sense. However, this is a 'boys' book which means that the character is one way to appeal to boys.

The other interesting thing is to notice all of the pirate jargon and paraphernalia in this book. Phrases such as 'pieces of eight' and 'shiver me timbers' as well as the Jolly Roger, all find their birthplace in this book. While I may consider the book, and the story, somewhat dull, one cannot help but admire the influence that Stevenson's writing has had upon the literary world.

While not strictly related to the books, I must mention that when I went to England one of my destinations was Oxford. While in Oxford I went and had a beer at Tolkien's pub, visited Tolkien's house (20 Northmoor Avenue, there is a plaque on the house that identifies it as such) and paid a visit to his gravestone. Tolkien was a professor of English literature at Oxford and it shows in his writings. As mentioned previously, he borrowed as lot of ideas from the many books that he had read and incorporated it seamlessly into his epic.

It is said that Tolkien hated Shakespeare and considered his writings unoriginal and contrived. One thing he points out in Macbeth is where Macbeth is told that he cannot be killed by one of woman born. This meant that it was only McDuff, who was born by caesarean section, who could kill him. This, Tolkien thought, was rubbish, and wrote into The Lord of the Rings a concept that he thought was much better, that is that the Witchking of Agmar could not be killed by the hand of man and it was Eowyn, the daughter of Theodren, that ends up slaying him. Personally I think this is just as contrived, but Tolkien's dispute with Shakespeare can be left for another day.

As with the opening of the Two Towers where we are introduced to Theodren, a king driven mad by the power of Saruman, in Return of the King we are introduced to another mad ruler, the Steward of Gondor. Gondor does not have a king, and has not had a king for a very long time. Instead the land is ruled by the Stewards, but there is an anticipation that a king will return and take the throne and this is something that the Steward does not want happening. He has become corrupted by power and the only way that he is able to let go is through death.

In Lord of the Rings power corrupts, and corruption leads to madness. We see this clearly with Gollum. He finds the ring and upon finding it he is immediately entrapped by its power. Bilbo has pity on Gollum, and in the end so do we. His life is corrupted by one desire and that is to possess 'his precious' - the one ring. The ring dominates his entire life and he ends up hiding in a dark cave staring at his precious. However when he loses it his life is destroyed. It is at this point that even we, the reader, pity him because we know that his life has no meaning beyond possession of the ring. This drives him to then search for the ring, and this greed that has corrupted his heart pretty much makes him untrustworthy. The only reason he helps Frodo is to attempt to get back his precious.

There is a point where Gollum appears to have beaten his demon, and truly understands Frodo as a friend, but this changes when Frodo is forced to betray Gollum. What Gollum does not realise, and never realises, is that Frodo did this to save his life. However Gollum is an individual that is driven by one obsession and it is this obsession that drives him to separate Sam from Frodo. He knows that the only thing standing between him and his precious is Sam, and he does what he can to get rid of Sam. However, as mentioned previously, it is Sam's undying loyalty to Frodo that drives him, and even when Frodo sends him away Sam always remains there, ready to step up and save his friend.

It is not that Tolkien is original with his stories, he is not, but rather it is the way that he uses his knowledge of European literature to create such a colourful and engaging world. His characters are not shallow, nor is he strictly black and white. Granted, there is absolutely nothing good about Sauron, but his better characters are not necessarily pure either. In this regard I think of Gandalf. He is the closest character to what one would consider a good guy in his story, but instead of calling him good, I would say that he is incredibly wise. However it is not that Gandalf is immune from corruption, it is just that he is wise enough to avoid it.

Now, Gandalf is what is called an Istari. He is one of an order of magicians who were sent by the Valar to Middle Earth to combat Sauron. The Valar chose not to physically come to Middle Earth for fear that any war against Sauron would leave the Middle Earth a desolate wasteland, so instead they sent agents in the form of the Istari. The two major ones are Gandalf and Saruman. Now, it appears at first that Saruman is a 'good guy' but it ends up becoming very clear that he has been corrupted by Sauron and has switched sides. In this part of the story Saruman is the main protagonist as he raises his army of orcs to destroy the land of Rohan. However it should be clear that if Saruman is not beyond corruption then neither is Gandalf.

When we are introduced to Theodren, King of Rohan, he is gripped with a madness and is the puppet being manipulated by Worntongue. Now, Wormtongue is dealt with quickly, but it is interesting how Tolkien's characters show mercy. While Wormtongue, a traitor allied with Saruman, deserves death, Gandalf causes them to hold back their wrath and let him flee. In that sense he is shown mercy, and this mercy is indicated because to act on instinct and give Wormtongue what he deserves is to sink to his level.

The action in this book revolves around Frodo and Sam attempting to make their way to Morder and the others defending themselves against Saruman. The idea is that Sauron's forces are to attack the lands of men (Gondor and Rohan) from the east while Saruman attacks from the west. Sauron's army is dealt with later and the main focus of this book is the battle against Saruman. However Saruman is not killed. While Pippin and Merry trick the Ents into going to war against Saruman, Saruman is not necessarily defeated (and we discover that at the end of the third book).

I want to finish this section off exploring another of the themes that runs through these books: friendship. We see the theme of friendship most clearly with Frodo and Sam. While Frodo is innocent, Sam is loyal. He refuses, point blank, to let Frodo go off by himself. Now this friendship is stretched at times, but Sam never gives up. He is determined to stand by Frodo until the end, even if it means that both of them die.

Another element of mercy that is seen in these books is in relation to Gollum. I will say more on Gollum in the next section as he is a very important character in the story. However, he is also a very pathetic and pitiful character, and while he does things deserving of death, we are reminded that he is not killed because the characters pity him. It is in this that Frodo shows friendship, even though he is not deserving of friendship, and is also very traitorous, but more on that later.

Well, this is my last night in Phuket and even though I wrote this review a couple of years ago I still need to go over it again just to iron out all of the little spelling and grammatical mistakes that I may have made. Okay, you are probably asking me why, since it is my last night and it is a Saturday, why I am not off having fun. Well, I just spent the day cruising around Phang Na Bay looking at all of the awesome islands, including the island that was made famous in Man with the Golden Gun.

Like some of the islands that I visited (Khai Island in particular – which was made famous in that Leonardo Di Caprio film The Beach) there was absolutely nothing there prior to those films, and all of a sudden a heap of bars and souvenir stands popped up after everybody who had seen the film wanted to go and check the places out. Anyway, enough of that because this has absolutely nothing to do with the book.

This is the first Stephen King book that I ever read and it was the book that made me realise that he was not a bad author at all. This story is not a traditional horror story but rather a blend of horror and fantasy. As is typical with a lot of King's writings, the horror does not evolve around powerful monsters ripping and tearing their way through middle America, but rather it deals with the horror of life and how we face it. The catch is that, once again, like many of Kings other stories he still uses the supernatural to supplement the horror.

The Talisman is a story about a young boy that must go on a quest to find a talisman to save his dying mother, who happens to be an actress. While the story starts off in our modern world, it switches between a parallel magical world which mimics our world in a sense. In this world his mother is a famous actress, and in the parallel world his mother is akin to a faerie queen, however in both worlds his mother is dying.

Thus the boy must make a trek across the country, from the East to the West Coast, a journey that not many boys of his age could easily make. It is made easier in that the parallel world is smaller than our world, so when he is travelling in the parallel world he is crossing distances much quicker, however he still must walk, at least, because he is a boy and he cannot drive (though I do believe he does hitch). On the way he has numerous adventures, one that comes to mind is when he is trapped in a bar and forced to work as a slave.

Along the journey he meets a werewolf, however unlike what we expect werewolves to be this werewolf is a friend and an ally. We do see the power of friendship, and friendship with that which is not like us. Normally the werewolf is the monster that seeks to destroy us, however here the werewolf takes on a vastly different role, a role where his power is used to protect the boy, and remember that the boy is alone and vulnerable and has a quest to attempt to save his mother.

In many stories that involve children as the main character the story tends to be written for children. It is done in this way as children tend to relate much better to characters their own age rather than characters that are older. However, this story is far from being a children's story because there are a lot of adult themes involved, and much of the horror that revolves around the story is the vulnerability that the child represents. I guess the horror of this story is the horror of not just having an impossible quest to complete that is far in excess of your own ability, but also the fact that one is vulnerable and one must complete the quest despite the vulnerability.

Some have suggested that many of Kings characters tend to be quite twisted and mean, but I once again believe that this is the essence of the horror that King is trying to create. It is easy to write schlock horror when the main antagonist is a nasty monster, but it is much harder to write good horror with no supernatural elements beyond the evil and barbarity of humanity. Then there is Stephen King, whose horror is focused on the evil and barbarity of humanity, thrown in a dark setting with supernatural beings that only work to empathise the horror of humanity. Good book and well worth the read.