Perhaps it is the indication of how little known Michael Crichton’s first novel (as Michael Crichton) “The Andromeda Strain ” is – the 2-part A&E TV miniseries came and went without making much of a splash. Although, there may be other reasons for that (see below).

The book revolves starts with a NASA satellite crashing to earth near a sleepy little town. The Army retrieval squad arrives later in the night, to find the people have carried the satellite to the town, and the only surviving person in the town is an old man. The squad does not survive to get out of the town.

While authorities race to contain the contagion,  this activates Project Wildfire: a team comprising of five top researchers in areas related to pathology and epidemiology. The team is carted off to a state-of-the-art lab, where they race against time to identify and combat the disease agent, dubbed Andromeda Strain.

The book is mostly a biological/medical thriller, as it focuses almost entirely on the lab from the moment Dr. Jeremy Stone and his team arrive there. The outside events are peripheral, just taking the story forward. The story is as much about space-born killer as it is about 5 members of team, top talents in their chosen field trying (and almost failing) to make sense of unknown in a well-equipped lab, with limited data and even more limited time. You can almost see the elements which became common later in Crichton’s work: scientists dabbling in things out of their depth, almost complete futility of what we call our best technology etc.

In the miniseries though, the story loses this focus by introducing external characters, some elements from Jurassic Park and State of Fear and that ubiquitous Big Bad Wolf of medical thriller – Big Multinational. And although this makes for a bigger bang at the climax, the main fight in the lab comes as just another storyline, not as the main thread. While the book shows their team dynamics and tensions, the resultant triumphs and failures in detail, the 5 experts in the miniseries never seem as a single team at any point of time.

Though not all story changes are bad. The overall story is “modernized” pretty well. Characterwise, the book has all 5 scientists as white men, while the series has more multi-ethnical group with both genders. The series is also more contemporary (references to bioterrorism) than book, which is almost 40 year old now. If only the core of the story hadn’t gotten lost in the extraneous elements…

Quote of The Day:

Even in the time of Newton and Galileo, men knew more about the moon and other heavenly bodies than they did about their own.

- The Andromeda Strain

P.S. It’s nice to know that rule #6 of Thriller Deaths still applies. Only the minorities killed off first are different now.

P.P.S. It did take me a little time to get used to the fact that Jordan Sullivan was a caring, talented surgeon.

Subscribe to “Lazy Habits of Thinking”

Read about other movie reviews featured on this blog.

First off, I don’t like to read “business” books. Secondly, I love books which have chess as a theme (though not core chess books). Fortunately for me, Garry Kasparov’s “How Life Imitates Chess” definitely falls in the second category, though not rigidly belonging to the first one.

A chess prodigy, Garri Kimmovich Kasparov earned the right to challenge reigning World Champion Anatoly Karpov for championship at the age of 21. The titanic championship fight would end up lasting almost 5 years, over 120 matches, going through many controversies, which ultimately ended up down the years with Kasparov creating a competing chess. This would create the longest lasting break in the world of professional chess, which he admits was the biggest mistake of his life. After his retirement after almost 20 years at the top, Kasparov is playing a major role in Russian politics, fighting for democracy under oppressive Kremlin rule.

Garry Kasparov uses the lessons learned during his early chess training, during his long climb to and the even longer stay at the top spot to draw parallels between the game of chess and life. He frequently talks about the knowledge gained from his matches (frequently referring to the championship mentioned above), as well as the quotations and experiences of previous greats in the world of professional chess (taken from his book series about previous chess champions).

He talks about how the different stages of game (opening, middle game and endgame) correspond to situations we face in real life, how looking at the game, or preparing for the game helps you prepare for challenges outside. Although different talents, strategies and preparation is necessary for triumph at different stages, the underlying principles remain the same, and it is more important to understand when the stage changes.

During all this, he makes some very interesting points about strategy, tactics, preparation, memory. There are some surprising points about use of imagination, talent vs. (or is it “and”) discipline, even analysis and hindsight, which may seem to be against conventional wisdom. He even devotes a chapter to people who almost made it to the top (the uncrowned “Best Player who never became a Champion”), and what we can learn from them, to avoid as well as to emulate.

Although it is very hard in business books to avoid that “I have read this before” feeling, the occasional use of humour in proper places, as well as how the stories tie up to Kasparov’s personal experiences at the chess board, and in life make all the difference at the end. It also helps that the book never devolves into a "cookbook for success”, as he terms it.

In short, if you need just one reason to read the book, remember that it comes from the pen of a man who survived the brutal psychological world of professional chess, with record time as the top ranking player, with 15 years with highest rating ever.

Quote of the day:

“What if?” often leads to “Why not?” and at that point we must summon our courage and find out.

- Garry Kasparov, on the importance of “fantasy”

P.S. There are two kings on a chess board, each meaningless without other. Calling Kasparov a king, still leaves place for another one. Do I need to say who?

  Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

Once again, it’s time for lost religious treasures, Secret Societies and Harvard Symbologist Prof. Robert Langdon to the rescue.

Personally, I think “Angels and Demons”, the book is much better than “Da Vinci Code”, the book. The same holds true for the movies, if you ask me.

For those who haven’t read the book, here’s the plot:

The Christian Catholic world is waiting for The Papal Conclave to begin. On the auspicious (and fateful) day, a dangerous explosive goes missing from CERN, and is hidden somewhere in Vatican. Also missing are 4 preferiti (members of College of Cardinals who are favourites to become Pope), all courtesy of an age-old enemy of the Church, bent on the destruction of the Church.

It is up to Robert Langdon to uncover the Path of Illumination as told by Galileo, and follow it to its end, to save the cardinals and find the explosive before it destroys the Vatican.

The movie (as opposed to the book) makes a lot of references to Da Vinci Code. But that won’t confuse those who haven’t see the …Code or haven’t read the book (is there any such person?). Robert Langdon has enough of “attitude”, and the Church officials enough animosity towards him, to convey that whatever happened was pretty bad from church’s point of view.

Camerlengo Patrick McKenna isn’t the potential leader he is supposed to be in the book. Except for one or two scenes, the character is definitely charismatic, and probably decisive, but not the authoritative, determined clergyman of the book. That does take away a bit from the reactions of the characters at the end, but I doubt people will recognise that if they haven’t read the book.

For most part, the battle is between Langdon, Inspector Olivetti (Vatican Police) and Il Camerlengo on one side, Commander Richter (Swiss Guards), Cardinal Strauss on the other side within the church and the Assassin haunting them from outside.

I haven’t mentioned Vittoria Vetra, because some changes in the storyline have severely reduced her role, leaving her as almost a secondary character. Which is probably why the romance between Langdon and Vittoria is almost absent.

(SPOILERS for those who have read the book)

The movie does have some changes which make the events more contemporary (*cough* large hadron collider *cough). Which does make the basic premise a bit more believable.

After an initial sequence at CERN, the movie confines itself exclusively to Rome, thus taking out the entire back story of Vetra, leaving her just as a scientist working on the project, not as a bereaved daughter. Even the involvement of CERN leading to climax is limited, with Vatican characters taking over for others.

Even the assassin’s character is severely reduced from the religious fanatic to just a hired gun. I can see how putting another controversial factor was not exactly necessary (the storyline is not affected all that much), not to mention two for two maniacal killers is bad enough. But that leaves him just as a ruthless killer, rather than manic ruthless. Of course, the end matches perfectly with this characterization.

(End of spoilers)

Overall, the end is more “Crime doesn’t pay” than “Good triumphs over Bad in The End” as in the book.

The basic premise is much more believable than …Code, and Langdon is also more believable (less “action hero”, more professor) than …Code. Keeping him out of fights was one change I didn’t really mind. But as long as it is viewed as a religious thriller, and not as a religious film, the movie is enjoyable.

P.S. It has been some time since I read the book, so in case of errata, mea culpa.

P.P.S. On the first visit to Vatican’s Secret Archives, Langdon tears up a book. On the second visit, he damages (and possibly destroys) a lot more books. If it was up to me, I would keep him as away from the Archives as possible, not give him an all-access pass.

  Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

Read about other movie reviews featured on this blog, and about books in religious thriller genre.

In what is turning out to be a (mostly) Sherlock Holmes-themed month (not that I am complaining), I decided to check out the latest stop in the author Laurie R. King’s book tour.

Laurie King is the author of multiple books in mystery genre, like Mary Russell series, Kate Martinelli series and some stand-alone books. She is currently promoting her latest book in Mary Russell (and Sherlock Holmes) series, The Language of Bees .

I am a pretty late entrant to Mary Russell series (the first book was published in 1994), having just finished the first two books (yes, yes, the reviews will be up shortly). And only my strong reader’s ethics have kept me from jumping ahead and grabbing the book from my library. Given that it is placed right in front of entrance, I am not sure how long this state of affairs will continue.

But back to the actual subject of this post:

So, the afternoon started with Ms. King describing the premise of the books in short. Mary Russell is a young woman, who stumbles into an old man on a walk in the Sussex downs. That fortunate meeting gives her a companion, and a family, while Sherlock Holmes gets a protégé, a sharp mind rivalling his own, and a partner in life.

The introduction was followed by a short reading of The Language of Bees, followed by question and answer session. Ms. King answered various questions regarding her impressions of the original series (she loves the stories), the reaction she got from Sherlockians (they quieted down when they saw her respect for original series and the author), her other series and novels (and how she would like to consider taking some characters from those into trilogies). The other questions included:

• On the research that goes into each book: the first draft does not contain any specific details, but has annotations “ask somebody…”. Those are added in later drafts.
• On Mary Russell’s character: Mary is half-American because she had to be an outsider to London scene. She is a theologian, because that is one more point of arguments for her and Holmes. Otherwise, Mary and Holmes are “birds of same feather”, except perhaps her feminism, and his interest in bees. Except for minor characters, most characters are not given certain inclinations, but they end up like that for the story purposes.
• On the dialog style: Holmes and Mary (given the era and their age difference) would have more formality than normal couples. Plus, the books are written as an 80-year old woman’s recollections of her life.
• On Watson and Mycroft: Given Watson and Holmes’ relationship, it is hard to put a third character, and achieve a balance. Which is why Watson has so little role (or is absent) in many books. As for Mycroft, he is very “useful” for any and all purposes.
• On clues and “to be continued”s in a series: The clues are useful when they are elaborated later. But they are also inconvenient, when the storyline changes and the threads cannot be tied up. That is why the book ends on a “to be continued” (to avoid people calling up saying there are some unresolved threads).

I do have the recording of her reading, and I can put it up if you want (do tell me where I can upload mp3s free).

Do check out if Ms. King is coming to your town on her tour. It will be a great experience, believe me.

Quote of The Day:

Either my friend and mentor was quite mad, a man willing to go to considerable difficulty and expense to satisfy a bizarre and romantic fantasy of paranoia, or else the life of my rustic beekeeping companion with the odd skills was extraordinarily more demanding, even dangerous, than I had fully realised.

Somehow I could not think him mad.

- Mary Russell, The Beekeeper’s Assistant

  Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

P.S. Read about some other mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, and other detective stories.

P.P.S. Check out Laurie King’s and Mary Russell’s blogs.

The Great Hiatus of Holmes’ life has always been a source of endless speculation, and inspiration to authors. “The Canary Trainer ” by Nicholas Meyer (published as ‘a lost manuscript by John H. Watson, M.D.’) is third in the series of his books explaining the absence of Holmes from his homeland.

Following his “adventure” with Dr. Freud (more about it later), Sherlock Holmes finds himself on a sabbatical in Paris. There a curious incident at the Grand Opera allows him to fulfill one of his dreams, working as a professional violinist. He is just getting used to the curious culture of the Opera, and the conductor Gaston Leroux, when Irene Adler arrives to take the place of an ill prima donna.

Irene Adler recognizes Holmes in his guise as the Swedish violinist Sigerson, and gives him 2 choices: she can disclose Holmes’ identity, thereby ending his vacation, or he can help protect her friend, the young coloratura Christina Daaè.

It seems the “ghost” who everybody knows lives in the opera (and blackmails the managers into giving him monthly allowance) has taken a liking for the young singer. He trains her as a voice in the walls, and acts as her mentor. But when the new managers stop listening to the Ghost’s warnings and when his love starts endangering the lives of people, including Christina, Holmes has to step in and face The Ghost of The Opera.

Most of you must, by this time, know where the story is coming from. But the insertion of Holmes lore into a story from a completely different genre is almost seamless. None of the characters or events seem out of the line for either stories. There are many tantalizing clues as to what Holmes feels about Irene Adler (although he is mostly clueless about him), and even that does not seem completely out of character.

Perhaps that is due to the entire tone of the series. While the world is thinking that Holmes died at Reichenbachfall, the series starts with giving a completely different explanation for his disappearance. Holmes is much more human in the series, yet keeps his superhuman skills. His sojourn in Paris starts with anonymity, which he enjoys, maybe a bit too much. So much so that he allows Irene Adler to blackmail him, but that may also be due to his ability to refuse an interesting puzzle.

The book is mostly a tussle between his two great talents: as a violinist and as The Detective, and he seems sad with the outcome. We get a much deeper insight into his psyche, because the story is narrated by him during his time at Wessex, and Watson’s role is just writing it down (err, the remembering it and dictating it in his old age home). Which is why it differentiates from the stories in the canon which are narrated by Holmes in a clinical, detached manner. That’s what makes it an interesting tale.

Quote of The Day:

… it now occurred to me that the place I should like to visit was Paris, a city I scarcely knew, which was ironic, as I am of French descent.

- Sherlock Holmes, The Canary Trainer

  Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

Read about some other mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, and other detective stories.

Continued from Part I.

Author Helen Hollick “never enjoyed the ‘traditional’ Arthurian stories”.

King Arthur and his Knights of the legend are closer to fantasy than history. Plus, there is no proof either way of Arthur’s existence. So, can we call “The Kingmaking” historical fiction?

2. Do you treat the trilogy as just another historical fiction, with characters with names similar to a legend, or do you treat it as Arthurian legend minus supernatural elements?

On the whole, neither. I have written my trilogy according to the original legends and stories of Arthur that were contemporary with the period he was probably alive. I say probably because there is no conclusive evidence that “King Arthur” actually existed. It is possible that the stories were a composite about several people, but I firmly believe Arthur lived and breathed. He was a War Lord, the son of a Romano British nobleman – and he lived and fought for what he considered his by right during the short period of time when there was a power vacuum for supremacy; between the going of the Romans and the coming of the Anglo Saxons, circa 450 – 550 A.D.

The early Welsh legends do not make him out to be a chivalric king, nor even a Christian. This was when the Church was young and developing, Paganism was still the norm. These early stories are of Arthur stealing cattle from a monastery, of kicking a woman, of being condemned as a non-Christian. And of having three sons, one killed by Arthur his own father, another was the ‘son of Arthur the soldier’. He has a wife called Gwenhwyfar. Bedwyr (Bedevere) is there in these early tales, and Cei (Kay) and Uthr. There are twelve battles which he fought and “Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell.” No mention that Mordred was his sister’s son, or that this was Civil War. They could just as easily have been fighting on the same side.

Recently, an author went on to describe the “exploits” of “highwayman” Shivaji in his book in some detail, and in the process proved me wrong in thinking that I am forgiving enough to get through the European (and sometimes, Mughal) portrayal of Shivaji.

For most part of the book (especially when he is married to Princess Winifred), Arthur has a very loose concept of morals. Forced into the marriage, he is not particularly faithful or even, (with good reason) civil to his wife. That’s quite a difference from his historical portrayal.

3. Given the legendary status of Arthur, is it easy for people (especially British readers) to accept that almost complete reversal in his character, or do you get people telling you they didn’t like books because of it?

Would it have been easier or harder for people to accept if Arthur was historically proven real person?

Or have I completely overestimated the attitude of British readers towards Arthur?

In my story Arthur is not the Christian Chivalric King you are familiar with. He is a Dark Age War Lord – a fighter, a soldier, and by necessity war lords, fighters and soldiers are rough, tough men. No, he is not very nice to his first wife, Winfred, but neither is she very nice to him.

British readers welcome my different portrayal of Arthur very much – I think we quite happily accept what people were like in the Dark Ages, and he is far more acceptable as the Pagan I make him than the (forgive me) sanctimonious person of the Medieval tales. I think most British people – and I am hoping American as well, are interested enough in the more accurate portrayals of historical characters over the inaccurate.

The people who will not like him, or this series, are those who do not accept that history is history not fairy tale, that the Dark Ages were bitter, harsh times, and that my Arthur is a pagan not a Christian. Those who solemnly see him dressed in armour, kneeling before God and searching for the Holy Grail may not like my pagan character.

Arthur, on one hand has enough political sense to develop his power base and alliances before making the bid for his throne. On the other hand, he is impulsive and has a very quick temper. Which is why (especially now that he is a King), I hope to find a sane and stable character in his life, acting as his counsellor and really, a guide. That is the role, more than being a Wizard, that I think Merlin would have occupied in the tale.

4. You have said in the Note that Merlin will not make an appearance in the book. I thought Cunedda initially played the part similar to Merlin, as the person who declared the birth secret of Arthur, and as a guide to Arthur. Will there be someone Merlinish in coming books, a guide and counsellor to Arthur, not to mention a calming influence?

Merlin was made up by the Normans who made up the Arthurian stories. He did not exist. It is possible that the Welsh version of his name, Myrddin, meant something like “Wise One” or “Holy One” but that is all.

Yes Cunedda, the Lion Lord of Gwynedd was somewhat of a guide to the boy Arthur in my story, but there is no evidence to prove it so. Cunedda was a real person – he founded Gwynedd in North Wales and his sons founded various other places – Ceredigion, for instance. He also possibly had a daughter – Gwyn. He therefore fit perfectly into my novel.

And no, there is no Merlinish person, except perhaps for Cei. And Gwenhwyfar, the woman Arthur loved from the moment he first saw her. But she has a feisty temper too, and the sparks often fly …

Oh yes, Arthur’s Cymraes fach is a spirited lady indeed.

And sorry, I am not divulging any more secrets!

Well, I will be waiting for the next books. What about you, the readers?

  Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

Turned out longer than I planned, so you get to enjoy it in two parts.

In “The Kingmaking”, Helen Hollick has presented the story of Arthur Pendragon, who although a gifted general and warlord, is completely different from the King Arthur of Camelot.

Many of the key points of Arthur’s life belong in fantasy: The sword from the stone, The Excalibur (two different swords, people), Merlin and quest for Holy Grail. So, my natural first question to Helen Hollick was:

1. How easy or hard is it to keep supernatural details out of the tale, while keeping it recognizable?

Hmm, I’ll have to think about this one…

It was very easy to leave out the supernatural details because I never started researching them as I had no intention of using them. Right from the start I had decided to write my story as a “what might have really happened” novel. (At that point I had no idea I was going to write enough for an entire trilogy).

So let’s leave aside anything to do with the supernatural and magical elements of the stories and deal with the historical aspect first.

I have never enjoyed the ‘traditional’ Arthurian stories, I think because I perceived the King Arthur of the Medieval tales as irresponsible and naive. He fought hard to become King, married a beautiful wife and then disappeared in search of the Holy Grail, thereby abandoning his Kingdom. Surely he should have foreseen the Lancelot/Guinevere situation? I also disliked Lancelot and those do-good knights I’m afraid!

Ouch, that was harsh. But yes, it reads more like a legend/story than a life of an actual king in any century. (Makes for a good fantasy story for kids, though.)

It all seemed so false, so wrong! From where I am now (older and wiser ) I realise that it was the distortion of history that irritated me.

Let me show you what I mean: what if someone was to write a novel about King Harold II and William the Conqueror, 1066, the Battle of Hastings – but the historical accuracy in the story was off by 500 years? You would have Harold and William (late Anglo Saxon v Early Norman) wearing English Civil War clothing from the 16^th Century, the period of King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. Weapons and tactics would be cannon and muskets. Buildings would be post Tudor. Could you imagine reading an historical novel written so incorrectly without commenting on the inaccurate absurdity?

I guess it is pretty common to look at history through glasses tinted with knowledge of present. Plus, the departure of Roman legions did start a long dark period (at least from credible history PoV) in English history.

This is how I felt about the Arthurian tales. Add to that, I have never been a fan of the Normans anyway – bad enough that they conquered England and murdered our rightful King!

The Medieval Tales about Arthur were blatant propaganda – this was the time when the Church was beginning to build its wealth and claim supremacy; the time of the Crusades and the eve of the Spanish Inquisition. There was an immediate need to promote the Glory of God, to chivvy men into taking the Cross and go to the Holy Land. To put it bluntly, Arthur was the ideal advertising campaign. A noble King with his magical sword riding to seek for the Holy Grail –coercing young men to go to an unnecessary and pointless war by making them feel it is a glorious thing, has never changed has it?

The Medieval Knights were not the chivalric saints the tales and romantics made them out to be. The Chivalric Code only applied to their own rank. It was considered wrong to rape a woman of similar nobility, but perfectly alright if the woman was a peasant, a Jew or a foreigner. The hypocrisy also annoyed me. And – I will be honest here – as with many British people, I am not particularly religious. We often keep our personal beliefs to ourselves here in the UK, and many of us do not regard religion with the same credibility or importance as you do in the USA.

Oh, after surviving A Song of Ice and Fire, I am painfully aware of how Knights minus Chivalric Code look. This was one more lesson in that.

I therefore always felt somewhat uncomfortable with the over-zealous devotion to God in the Medieval tales.

So, I was determined not to write the Medieval stories – for that is all they were, fantasy stories with barely no historical fact behind them. I kept away from the supernatural because of the “what might have really happened” element, and because the majority of the fantasy was Medieval invention. There would be no knights in armour, turreted castles or Holy Grails, No myth, no magic. No Lancelot, no Merlin.

Instead, I went back to the much earlier Welsh legends of Arthur and his wife, Gwenhwyfar.

These legends turned out to be far more emotionally exciting than the Medieval stories – even without the supernatural and fantasy scenes. This Arthur, the Welsh (British) Arthur was more plausible.

This Arthur was believable and real!

And yes, it still makes for an epic tale. Plus it puts the Arthur and Gwenhwyfar in the centre, the Queen the King deserves (in many ways, I am afraid).

I still have a few more questions remaining, in Part II.

Subscribe to "Lazy Habits of Thinking"

The title ‘Once and Future King’ is not lightly given, and there are very few kings (or queens) in history of the world who have so permeated into the psyche of a nation.

But in Helen Hollick’s “The Kingmaking ” (first of her Pendragon’s Banner trilogy), the story of Arthur is separated from its mythical aspects of magic and chivalry.

When Uthr Pendragon is murdered, his friend and ally Lion Lord Cunedda reveals the secret of Arthur’s birth before the dispirited army, and declares him the rightful Pendragon as Uthr’s son. But before Arthur can gain his throne, political expediency demands that he serve under his father’s enemy and murderer, King Vortigern. The same forces push him into a loveless marriage with Vortigern’s Saxon daughter, Princess Winifred, and away from his Cymraes fach, Gwenhwyfar.

While Arthur is gaining allies and reputation as a cavalry commander, Vortigern’s father-in-law, Hengest is amassing his Saxon forces on British shores. The Saex “allies” of Vortigern form an insurmountable obstacle between Arthur and his two goals: the throne of Britain, and Gwenhwyfar.

King Arthur is synonymous with Chivalry, Round Table, Merlin, and most important of all, the Quest for the Holy Grail. Many of the highlights of the legend are woven seamlessly into the story here, but this book is as far away from the myth as possible. The book strips the Arthurian legend of all those layers, leaving a period of violent struggle, when Rome had abandoned British isles and Saxons and other barbarians were fighting for dominance over the roman remnants.

Arthur in this book is a the product of his time. He drowns his loveless marriage in wine and women. A ruthless warlord and a gifted general, he understands the politics of power enough to serve under Vortigern (and later, briefly with Vortigern’s son Vortimer), and to understand the threats around him in the court. He is circumspect enough to play the long game and form the foundation on which he will later build his famed elite cavalry army, the Artoriani.

At the same time, that one moment of passion which will ruin all is never far below the surface. That’s why he can see far enough to forge a bond of friendship with a man who can provide him horses for his cavalry, yet at the same time he can lust after his newly-formed ally’s wife, blind to everything else. And he has more than enough people in his life (including his wife) who are ready to push him over that edge. It is at such times, that his friends show their importance. Cunedda, Arthur’s cousin and his second-in-command Cei, and even Gwenhwyfar form that essential radar which keep Arthur from straying too far from his path.

Gwenhwyfar, the youngest sister in a household of older brothers, is a bit of “tomboy”. She pledges her unborn sons to Arthur’s service, still a girl, when her father declares Arthur as Pendragon. And though she has to go through many difficulties and personal devastation to gain it, remains true to her love for Arthur.

I can safely say that if I hadn’t survived A Song of Ice and Fire (the series has grown on me by now), I wouldn’t have found the book as readable as I did. As it is, once you get over the gory details of dark ages and absence of fantastical elements, the story is very engaging. I am looking forward to the next books in the series, though if this book is any indication, I am pretty sure I will be taking frequent breaks from reading to get over the more “historically accurate” parts.

Subscribe to “Lazy Habits of Thinking”

Check out more Historical fiction, and specifically, kind of backstory to Arthur, “The Last Legion“.

The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon are notorious for their meteoric rise and equally sudden demise. “The Last Templar ” by Raymond Khourie (on which the NBC miniseries is based) is one of the novels which revolve around the famous (and famously lost) Templar treasure.

In 1291, the Templars are fighting for their last stronghold in Holy Land, Acre. Two Knights, Martin and Aimard, are charged by the Prefect to carry the news of loss and the Templar treasure back to Paris aboard Falcon Temple.

700 years later, in New York, 4 horsemen dressed in medieval armor gatecrash the opening ceremony of exhibition showing the treasures of Vatican. Archeologist Tess Chaykin, who was one of the victims of the attack, starts investigating the resemblance of the attackers to Knights Templar, and the importance of a mechanical device they stole. Meanwhile FBI agent Sean Ryan (Sean Daley in the series) finds the leads of his investigation (overseen by Vatican emissary Monsignor De Angelis) being cleaned up.

Their investigations lead them to the mastermind behind the plan, but the trails lead much deeper into the past, and the voyage of Falcon Temple.

The story is much more a quest than a suspense. Before half the book is over, the identities and motivations of the actors involved are known (or guessed), and the search for the treasure of Falcon Temple takes centre stage. It also is a debate between Faith and Truth, between dogma and the faith that permeates the life of common people.

There are quite a few differences in media version and the book. William Vance is no longer motivated by grief, and is almost reduced to a common greedy treasure-hunter. The book moves between Martin’s (the last living Templar) journey to understand and come to terms with the secret Aimard is carrying, and the search in current times. But the tv version has Martin and Aimard equally knowledgeable.

But perhaps the biggest change is in Tess’ character. Tess Chaykin in the book is a common archeologist and a single mom, far cry from the Miss Indiana Jones (or actually, Miss Lara Croft given the gender) that the miniseries shows us. Her interest in the story is strictly academic (limited to Templars). She is placed in the middle of Sean’s investigation by chance, and does not barge into it as in the series. Tess in the book is torn between her budding relationship with Sean, and the discovery of lifetime that awaits her. Tess on TV on the other hand almost comes out as a tomb raider, who doesn’t care much about Sean except flirting with him.

But then, both the book and the series contain enough cinematic scenes to drown this out. Right from the first scene of 4 Knights riding out of Central Park, to the ill-fated voyage of Falcon Temple and its recovery provide a huge stage on which events are taking place. Which is why you can easily enjoy each version independent of each other (though the historical basis for the central premise is really thin, even compared to other books in the Vatican Secrets genre). Just don’t compare them as I had to, having read the book.

And while we are on the subject of comparison, why the need to provide a “closure” to the Templar secret? It almost seems NBC didn’t want angry letters from Christians, and so didn’t keep the question of authenticity open as in the book.

P.S. This is second time I have come across a female character “enabled” in TV version of the book. But then, the first time (Legend of the Seeker) gave us Kahlan in leather Mord Sith costume, so I am not complaining.

When I first started reading about WW II outside of history syllabus, the first hero who emerged was Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Later, Commando comics introduced me to the other side: The legendary Long Range Desert Group (LRDG). “Killing Rommel” by Steven Pressfield is the story of the wars between these two groups.

Lt. R. Lawrence “Chap” Chapman is serving as an officer in Royal Armour Regiment, while Rommel and his Afrika Korps have almost pushed Allied forces to the edges of Egypt. An impatient man, his wish is finally fulfilled when he is assigned to LRDG (Well, he will take even a temporary attachment in a technical capacity as a ticket out).

Once at LRDG headquarters, he meets his childhood hero and now SAS Major, Paddy Mayne. After a quick training, three patrols are given their assignment: locate and kill Rommel. And while (being a temporary assignment) Chap is just a passenger, he will have to be ready to step in as a leader when need arises, on the welcome but and suicidal mission.

Lt. Chapman is a citizen soldier who doesn’t really fit in as a tank officer. Moving to LRDG, he tries his best to fit in, yet constantly considers himself as an outsider. The story is as much of his exploits in LRDG’s role, till the famous flanking of Mereth Line, as his growth as a man and as a leader of men, respected by his command.

Field Marshal Rommel was a legend even when he was alive. Nicknamed “Desert Fox” by the British press, the courageous daring strategist led from the front (and sometimes beyond that), often seen roaming the front lines in his open staff car and biplane. He escaped death quite a few times due to this (once when his plane landed on allied airstrip, once when he drove into a British camp by mistake).

Apart from these exploits, it was his old world honour code (e.g. humane treatment of POWs, and repeated refusals to obey the command from Berlin to kill all Jew POWs) which made him “hard to hate”. That is what makes this “mission” all the more plausible: given the status of Rommel in eyes of soldiers from both sides, his death would have been a complete disaster for German armies while a huge moral boost for allied forces, completely disproportional to what death of just one man could cause.

On the other side, Rommel admitted that LRDG was the biggest thorn in his side. One of the first specialised forces in modern warfare, LRDG (initially called Long Range Patrol: LRP), often worked behind enemy lines. Along with missions like reconnaissance and intelligence gathering, they also sabotaged Axis airfields and maintenance facilities, and conveyed SAS operatives on similar missions.

And these two enemies are fighting in the most difficult theatre of the war. The biggest desert in the world is their most dangerous enemy: the place where a simple thing as running out of fuel or diverging a mile or two from your intended bearing (as close as you can get it) can prove fatal.

Perhaps that understanding made the African war different from all other theatres in WW II. The medics from both sides would often work side by side (and sometimes together) unmolested. A British machine-gunner firing on friendly tankers getting out of their disabled tank catches hell for firing on any troops in that condition.

Told as a manuscript by Chapman (who becomes an editor later in life), the book brings forth the camaraderie and competition between the LRDG members, while invoking legends like Major Easonsmith of LRDG, Major paddy Mayne of SAS and others. It also captures the savage decisions necessary in war and its effects on the leaders and men.

But essentially, it captures the essence of the desert war, with its dangers, mutual respect and chivalry shown by both sides, kindness to enemy which may even result in death or capture.

Quote of The Day:

We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general.

- Sir Winston Churchill (talking about Rommel after Tobruk)

Subscribe to “Lazy Habits of Thinking”

For other WW-II related books, check out reviews of: Band of Brothers, Churchill series by Michael Dobbs: Never Surrender and Churchill’s Triumph, and the famous “book” Where Eagles Dare.