Book Reviews for the Semi-Literate

When reviewing chess literature, it's important to state one's credentials, and what level the reviewer feels the book is appropriate for.

My USCF rating is 2029, expert/candidate master, and as a young teen, I was one of the top 15 players in the US for my age. Still, I'm not a master, and consider myself too weak to get anything from the chess series written by Dvoretsky and Yusupov, for instance.

"Chess for Dummies" is ostensibly written for beginners, and yet, is one of the very worst introductions to the game I have ever come across. I read it when I was 10 years old and reasonably new to the game, and even then, it was utterly unhelpful.

For starters, Eade spends dozens of pages going over the names and appearances of the pieces, real or imagined points of chess etiquette, and many other things that have nothing to do with actually learning to play chess well! It's just pointless filler; a way to pad out the book length, as there isn't enough content otherwise.

When he finally gets around to basic tactics and strategy, it's done in a very hodge-podge manner.

We get only a few basic tactical ideas like pins and forks, and never go into more complicated concepts like deflections, mating patterns, or X-rays. Hell, we are barely offered any examples of pins and forks! Those that we do see offer a poor illustration of the variety of said tactic.

One might argue that this might be too much for beginning players, but it's standard material in just about every book discussing tactics I have ever come across, even ones that number about 100 pages and were written for rank beginners. This, by contrast, is a 350 page book!

The section on strategy is simply embarrassing. A few famous illustrative examples are cherry-picked here and there, with no real rhyme or reason given to their selection. There's no method to their selection, or any overarching idea on what Eade wants to impart to the reader. The annotations are an absolute joke; Eade hardly bothers with any real analysis of variations, favoring flowery (and often misleading, oversimplified) prose instead. Of course, that's when he bothers commenting at all.

Perhaps the most buffoonish part of the book is the "10 Famous Games" it presents at the end. Like the rest of the book, there is no real criteria for its inclusion. Andersson's famous Evergreen and Immortal Games are presented alongside Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov on the Black side of the Alapin Sicilian.

The commentary is even more limited than it was for earlier parts of the book. In fact, they might as well be presented with just notation for the moves; they're ten random famous games.

Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing the reader will gain from seeing these games, especially the beginner that this book is aimed for. They illustrate no concept or ideas, nor is there worthwhile analysis to make sense of what's going on.

As a whole, the book focuses on very few, seemingly random elements of the game. However, within that limited scope, they can't even do a thorough job with a single one of them! The analysis is sparse and lazy. That, of course, is when Eade is not wasting dozens of pages on etiquette, hasty and highly inaccurate player biographies, and other material irrelevant to its stated goal.

Look, if you're new to chess, I strongly recommend GM Yasser Seirawan's outstanding Play Winning Chess book and its follow-up sequels. Alternatively, some of Bruce Pandolfini's and Andy Soltis's books are quite good. Hell, if you don't mind descriptive notation, and are willing to put up with some dogmatic writing, you can even check out the introductions to the game that Tarrasch or Capablanca wrote in the early 20th century.

In fact, even rival series The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess is monumentally better than "Chess for Dummies". Really, just about any reasonable intro to chess is better than the lazy crap that is "Chess for Dummies".

Yet another awful book we were forced to read back in elementary school that I absolutely loathed even then. Aside from an insipid, fucked-up message, it's an all-around poorly written, boring mess.

Let's start with the prose. It's written from the point of view of its protagonist Jess, a 10 year-old boy in a small, hick town. He has no friends, two older sisters he hates, and few aspirations beyond becoming the fastest runner in his year. When used correctly, a first person child narrator can be amusing and immerse the reader in the work, like in "Huckleberry Finn". However, it can also be a lazy crutch to cover up for clunky language and the author's inability to write eloquently in the third person. Guess which one it is here?

Jess's observations are never insightful nor amusing in the way Huck's are; his similes are primitive and lifeless. Furthermore, they're not even realistic enough to actually come from a 10 year-old country boy. Not realistic, not entertaining, and generally stupid. An all-around failure.

Okay, so what about the entertainment value of this book? It's essentially nil. Leslie Burke, the wild and wacky out-of-towner from a rich family that becomes Jess's best friend, is supposed to be 10 year-old female perfection. She's the fastest runner in her year, girl or boy, intelligent beyond her years, and a creative, independent person that follows her own path in life.

She teaches Jess to use his imagination and enjoy life. Awesome, right? Well, except for the fact that she is more a Mary Sue for what the author wishes she was at that age than a remotely believable version of any 10 year-old girl.

Or the fact that she's actually insufferably annoying. And every bit as much of a walking, one-dimensional cliche as every other character in the novel, being zany and quirky in all the conventional, standard ways. One of the biggest things about her that makes her so unique is she doesn't watch television. Seriously. Neither did a bunch of kids growing up. Especially in small towns where this book is set in. Hell, I didn't even watch television for parts of my childhood!

Jess and Leslie dream up the magical kingdom of Terabithia, but are never actually shown playing in it, describing its folklore, magic, or anything else. Defenders of the book will argue that this is so that the reader can imagine it to be whatever he or she wants, but come on; when you have been pushing the imagination motif so hard, why not show it in action? We didn't need an exhaustive summary, but something needed to be there. Of course, that would have took real creativity and writing ability, two qualities the author sorely lacks.

Finally, we get to the themes of the work. Unlike the prose or entertainment, they're not just duds. Instead, they're downright insulting and idiotic.

A big theme at the end of the work is that Leslie dies because Jess chooses to go on a field trip to an art exhibit with a kind teacher instead of playing with her. The novel treats this is a serious point of view, pushing the idea that Leslie's death is "punishment" for Jess not being slavishly devoted to her. That apparently, it was selfish of Jess, at 10 years old, to attend an art exhibit instead of wasting the afternoon playing with a friend.

This is a pretty shitty message to send to kids! Is the idea that instead of growing and learning, they must constantly chain themselves to the people of their past? That they shouldn't have a life outside of a friend or two?!

Moreover, there is no resolution or real point to Leslie's death. (Not a spoiler, since the back cover mentions this fact) The most Jess's father can offer is "Hell, ain't it?".

Instead, her death is one of those lazy, cruel events children's authors use to draw emotion from their young readers. It's easy to get a kid to feel sadness or fright. And hack writers abuse this to toy with children's emotions. It's a way to cover up weaknesses in their writing.

Why think of a truly unique, interesting character with genuine three-dimensional personality (like a Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn) when you can think of a paper-thin, fake personality like Leslie Burke, but have her die?

"Bridge to Terabithia" is a worthless, shitty book, written with lousy language, possessing no entertainment, and bearing an awful, emotionally manipulative message.

Johnny Tremain is the story of a talented young silversmith apprentice whose hand is badly burned by a jealous rival. With his bright future snatched from his grasp, he becomes a messenger embroiled in the American colonists' struggle for independence from the British. Johnny meets many legendary historical figures, like John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere (himself a silversmith) and participates in many seminal events, like the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere's midnight ride.

It's a fascinating premise that could have made for an excellent book. There was opportunity to craft a work of historical fiction that made the lives of the New England colonists come alive, or else a gripping adventure with incredible, larger-than-life personalities.

Instead, the book is a boring, simplistic mess.

There are three main elements of writing;

1. How well the author uses words to construct sentences, thoughts, and imagery.
2. How exciting the work is.
3. How intelligent the work is; its themes and ideas.

The book is a failure on all three points. In terms of the first, it's hard for me to fathom that Esther Forbes was a professional writer. Her sentences are stunted and banal, reporting the bare minimum of facts, with an absence of imagery or metaphor. Very rarely does she even touch upon a character's thoughts or feelings, just their actions. Now, this style works for some authors, but unfortunately, Forbes' words are rarely crisp and efficient. They blunder along, sloppily describing the barren world she imagined.

In terms of excitement, "Johnny Tremain" best resembles a plodding mule. There aren't any surprises in the book! It's predictable the whole way through. It's like Ms. Forbes had a checkpoint of historical figures and events she wanted to include, but introducing any kind of suspense or twist was more bother than she could muster.

The book also lacks any intelligence. Again, we almost never get to go into the mind and feelings of the characters, and when we do, we're only exposed to the most basic of emotions. There's no cleverness or significant brain activity by any of the characters in the novel. One might say this is defensible in a children's book, but I counter that even Winnie-Pooh or Brer Rabbit are far more intelligent, and they're ostensibly for much younger audiences.

If you want a dull, simplistic read which can be fully summarized in a paragraph, read "Johnny Tremain". Otherwise, avoid this lousy hack job.

Before going into a review of the classic work by GM Polugayevsky and IM Damsky, let me explain my own chess credentials, and what level of players I feel this book would be most beneficial for.

My USCF rating is 2029, expert/candidate master, and as a young teen, I was one of the top 15 players in the US for my age. That being said, I consider myself too weak to get anything from the chess series written by Dvoretsky and Yusupov, so it's very important to realize the proper audience for a tome.

I read "The Art of Defence in Chess" when I was 11 years old, and played at a 1300-1400 level. That is, I was an avid junior tournament player who studied and played very regularly, for a few hours every day. For anyone beneath that strength, I don't see much purpose to reading "The Art of Defence in Chess"; the tactics alone are too complicated.

That being said, "The Art of Defence in Chess" is a terrific masterpiece that will aid players from 1300 all the way up to national master (2200).

As the title states, it concentrates on what to do when a player finds himself under a vicious attack from the enemy forces. The examples of attacks range from relatively innocent-looking positions to ones where you would swear the defending side has no way to avoid being crushed!

There are a wide variety of types of defense discussed, all split up into their own chapters. There is "passive defense", "counterattack on the kingside", "counterattack on the queenside", "the Exchange Sacrifice", "counterattack in the center", "exchanging off the pieces, and taking endgame refuge", and several others.

In each case, we see how employing that type of defense has allowed players to draw or even win against the most skillful and tenacious of attackers.

Each illustrative position for each theme is highly diverse, and primarily drawn from high-level GM games from the 1950s to the 1980s. Thus, there's no risk of seeing pawn structures and types of positions incompatible with modern openings.

Also, GM Polugavesky and IM Damsky do a great job providing analysis for each positional example, going through all the relevant lines and variations for each move. They never overwhelm the reader, and keep the main defensive idea clear at all times.

Lastly, at the end of each chapter, we're presented with problems for the reader to solve. Each of them is chosen well, and is a specific test of the themes discussed in the chapter.

Ultimately, a book like this is determined by its results.

In my case, it completely changed my outlook on chess and entire tournament career.

Thanks in part to this book, I went from being a decent junior to one of the best juniors for my age in the country, and a junior high state champion less than two years later.

Specifically, I used to hate defending before this book, and was not very good at it.

Nowadays, I absolutely love defending, and it is my single biggest strength as a player. While I have a hard time winning games, I also very rarely lose; the techniques in this book have helped me hold the draw many, many times in critical tournament games, even against masters.

As such, I have to applaud the book as a true masterpiece. It tackles a subject that deserves more attention in chess literature, defense, and doing it in a thrilling, exciting, but most importantly, effective manner!

While author Patrick O'Brian had never been a sailor, he did do a lot of meticulous research about boats and the 19th century British navy. Unfortunately, he felt the need to dump every bit of that research into his debut novel. Instead of picking and choosing which details were relevant, and which could be omitted, he decided to fling every last one into the book.

It's the equivalent of a chef with a stocked kitchen throwing all his ingredients and spices into a giant pot.

The result is a deathly boring work. Of the book's roughly 450 pages, well over half are spent on minutiae. And most of those are spent cataloging every aspect of a ship, from the precise nature of the hull, to its rigging, to the sails, to the first mate's interactions with the purser, etc. These are all presented in the most dry, lifeless manner imaginable. And while it might have been tolerable for perhaps 10 pages, this type of tedious description dominates the entire work. And I'm someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid reading descriptions of, and looking at pictures of old ships.

However, even those non-fiction books were vastly more interesting than Master and Commander!

In fact, while reading this, I couldn't help comparing it to my favorite sea-faring books, particularly Rafael Sabatini's Captain Blood and various Joseph Conrad novels. Captain Blood didn't feature any of those endless, irrelevant details whatsoever. Instead, it focused on the adventure. It focused on its bold, larger-than-life characters.

Now, while you might dismiss Sabatini's works as being more lighthearted and less serious, what about Conrad? Conrad, after all, was actually a mariner in the British Royal Navy for 16 years! He was the very type of sailor that O'Brian is writing a fictionalized account of.

And yet, Conrad's own works set on ships never go into those little details, either. He too was more interested in the men on board the ships, not trivial details about the exact type of wood used on the hull.

When O'Brian finally gets around to the story itself, it's simplistic, sorely lacking in imagination. Before reading this book, I never would have guessed that a description of one ship defeating another in battle and taking it prisoner could be so utterly boring. I almost feel like the author deserves a prize; I wouldn't have believed it possible before.

And the characters? Forgettable personalities with no distinguishing qualities. Even introducing secret identities and vague conspiracies (the standby of a writer out of creative ideas) couldn't breathe any life into them.

In fact, that's the best way to describe Master and Commander; whether it's regurgitating copious amounts of research, or advancing a cliched, childish plot, it's thoroughly dull and lifeless.

Malcolm X was a violent street thug. He beat people up, robbed them, and dealt drugs. His primary source of income, however, was by being a pimp. As glorified as this piece of subhuman trash has become in rap songs and much of modern pop culture, let me explain exactly what it means.

Malcolm X kept a bunch of women as his personal slaves. He controlled them through a mixture of drugs, fear, intimidation, and physical beatings. Then, he took all the money that they made from sleeping with other men. He spent only enough money on them to make sure they were fed, clothed, and had a small apartment.

Eventually, Malcolm X was arrested and sent to jail for a long time. Once there, he realized that there was a much better racket than armed robbery, drug dealing, or even pimping.

Professional racism.

Malcolm X was an innovator; like future successors including Louis Farrakahn (who, incidentally, Malcolm X's daughter is convinced was behind her father's assassination), Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, Malcolm X fanned the flames of racial hatred to earn a comfortable living.

Of course, for a smooth-talking conman, this new career path was a natural fit.

In a particularly ironic twist, Malcolm X, who had beaten and raped multiple women as a pimp, constantly invoked the need to "protect our black women" in his speeches. He constantly paid lip service to how much love and respect he had for black women. This would be the equivalent of Hitler professing his love for the Jews after being captured by the Allies. (And yes, I try to avoid Hitler comparisons, but it's so damn natural in this case)

Unlike Martin Luther King Jr, who preached a message of love and unity, Malcolm X preached hate and division.

This is why white segregationists never had much of a problem with Malcolm X, while they hated and feared Martin Luther King Jr. For white racists, Martin Luther King Jr's message was the dangerous one, while Malcolm X's desire for all-out racial warfare and mass murder is exactly what white racists wanted, as they felt it was a war they would win.

It also explains why Martin Luther King Jr was shot by a white segregationist, while Malcolm X was killed by his one-time friends and brothers, the Nation of Islam.

It's a shame a wonderful, holy man like Martin Luther King Jr was killed. It's no shame that a professional hatemonger, racist, and despicable degenerate like Malcolm X was killed by his fellow thugs.

The fact that Malcolm X is revered by so many young white liberals today (who he hated and wanted dead), and his autobiography is required reading in posh universities is a part of what's presently wrong with the US.

Jericho's first autobiography, "A Lion's Tale", covering his life in wrestling from childhood to his debut in WWE in 1999, is one of the very best in the genre. It was an honest, revealing look at the struggles and squalor involved in making it as a professional wrestler. Jericho was also very frank in assessing the various opponents and promoters he came across.

These are all qualities the sequel lacks. To me, this book was simply a cash-in by Jericho and his publishers on the previous bestseller. It has none of the heart and honesty, and in fact, is frequently boring.

For one thing, Jericho spends much of "Undisputed" describing his life outside of wrestling. Touring with his band, run-ins with musical celebrities, and various other miscellaneous stories. Experiences all having nothing to do with wrestling. As a result, it lacks a focus that the original had.

However, if presented well, these could still have been entertaining on their own. Unfortunately, Jericho is not a writer, and they mostly come across as stilted and forced in his recounting. Either that, or his ghost writer sucks. Even if the core story was potentially interesting, the end result is frequently lame and uninspired.

And the parts of "Undisputed" that actually deal with his life in wrestling (only about half the book) are disappointing, too. It covers just 6 years of his career, from mid-1999 to his return in September 2007, with 2005-2007 being a hiatus period.

And while Jericho was refreshingly honest in "A Lion's Tale", he is very reserved in this memoir, particularly since at the time he was writing "Undisputed", he still wrestled in the WWE with many of the same bosses and figures. (Particularly Vince McMahon and Paul Levesque/HHH)

Many times, it seems like there is far more to be said, or there is a great story Jericho is sitting on, but he neglects to uncover it for fear that it might hurt his future wrestling career.

I understand this, but if that was the case, Jericho should have waited until his career was over. Then again, he wouldn't have capitalized on the previous book's success.

Instead, many matches and angles are recounted in a very dry manner, with limited commentary by Jericho.

In all honesty, I view this book as more "mediocre" than actually "bad", and Jericho's optimistic, fun personality still shines through. A few of the stories are funny, and Jericho is at least partially honest in describing how the WWE botched his reign as Undisputed champion, making him into a joke.

We also catch a glimpse of what an honest follow-up would have looked like when Jericho tears into Joanie "Chyna" Laurer, who he characterizes as an absolute nightmare to work with in the ring and an incredibly deceitful, entitled, little monster outside of it, with both Vince McMahon and HHH wrapped around her finger.

Of course, she is no longer with the company and later became a drug-addled porn slut, so Jericho can be honest there.

But overall, this is a drab, disappointing book, even for a huge Chris Jericho fan like myself. I encourage any wrestling fan to read "A Lion's Tale", but skip "Undisputed".