Alright, recent reads.
Read the 3rd Joe Ledger novel by Jonathan Maberry. Maberry's writing has definitely improved. There were no real hiccups to be found. This novel was by far the most entertaining, I think. There was admittedly less characterization but the plot was so intriguing that it really didn't bother me. Besides, you don't read Jonathan Maberry for character development (though he does slowly move them forward). If you want a class on suspense, then he is your man. He does this by flashing back and forth between the good guys and the bad guys and by the third novel he's got it down pat.
My only complaint (and if you've read the book feel free to comment) was that halfway through the book there is a single mention of the name one of the anonymous bad guys. I thought it must be a mistake because there was a single mention of the name and then nothing after. If it wasn't a mistake then it was a really cheap way of letting the cat out of the bag. If it was a mistake then I hope it gets fixed. About the only other thing that is off is how the main character is dealing with all of the trauma he's witnessed in the past year. I haven't done a headcount, but I'd venture to say that Joe Ledger has killed close to fifty people and seen at least three times as many die. Maberry pays lip service to what this is doing to the main POV, but most of the time it's a "can't think about this now, I'm in the fight." That part is true, but when you are consistently put into a high stress environment, your hypothalmus (sp?) begins to light up like a christmas tree until soon it doesn't shut off. This is one effect of PTSD. It's your brain's way of helping you survive. Unfortunately, a heightened fight or flight response, with the switch thrown permanently to the flight side, will have lasting effects. And Joe Ledger rarely shows any effects. Outside of that, great read.
Twelve by Jasper Kent was interesting. Think War and Peace meets Anne Rice. I didn't know he was English, but its one of those curious things that within the first chapter I tend to recognize if the author is American or English. It was confirmed at the end of the book. I felt that reading this book was like watching the development of a writer. The beginning is sparse in description, a lot of talking heads, etc. By the midpoint when the vampires begin to really materialize (not giving anything away, the hints are heavy from the beginning) the description is much better. In some ways, this really did feel like the main character was taken right from War and Peace. A part of the army, but not really beholden to them with a mistress. Not neccessarily a bad thing, but I felt there was a lot of overlap between the two. It was nice to see vampires that weren't sparkling in the sun. Instead, if they were in the sun, they were burning. I don't mind vampires that aren't inherently evil, but the last few creations I've read have not been that good. Kent spares no one in this novel and beloved characters drop left and right. The ending was a long, twisted ride which was fun. I like thinking I know what's going on and then finding out I"m wrong. Kent only withholds a few items so it doesn't feel forced. The only complaint about the ending is that the main character waffles back and forth over certain parts that drag on for pages and pages. That got old and slowed the pacing down. Outside of that, solid read.
I've been reading the Gone Series by Michael Grant. Think Lord of Flies meets Stephen King (The Dome/The Stand/The Myst). Grant isn't as good a writer as King, but he's not bad. This series is tough for me. It's interesting, but maybe it's hard for me to remember what I was like at 14. Everyone over the age of 14 has mysteriously vanished. The issue I have is that 14 year olds that are good kids seem more intelligent than the bad ones, but somehow the bad kids are infinitely more capable. Each book seems to show that everything that could go wrong does. Instead of there being an even shake between good types of people and bad, it's predominantly bad. I also don't like that his solution to continiuing the series seems to be the good guys letting the bad guys go rather than imprison or kill them. Mind you, this is after the bad guys kill babies and other kids. Then the main POV agonizes over every person that has died, but seems oblivious to how many of those deaths could have been prevented. It's the classic all that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I don't like reading books where evil seems to be consistently winning up until the end. It just seems a little fake that suddenly at the end the good guys wake from their stupor, act, and win the day, only to let them go and begin the cycle all over again. Still, Grant's writing isn't bad and it has kept me buying the books, but if I hadn't accidentally bought the latest novel first, I probably would have stopped on book two.
Finally, read Superfreakonomics, the sequel to Freakonomics. I'm not going to go into detail about it as it's basically the same premise as the first book which I reviewed. There are just different topics like prostitution, global warming, and a bunch of others. Very good read which I highly reccomend. Especially if you're interested in economics.