Confusing and scattershot, this is one of the worst books I’ve read by Ian Banks, though it can be said that even his worst work is better than most author’s best. The problem for me was that it wasn’t apparent until the final 50 pages of the book that there were some Pulp Fiction like chronological shenanigans going on with the story. For most of the book I was trying to figure out what one scene had to do with the last and how they were all connected. I find this type of writing to be a shame because unlike a movie, I’m not likely going to go back through and re-read the book after the final revelation. I would do it for a movie, that’s only another 2 hours or so that I’d spend doing it, whereas it took me the better part of a month to get through this book.
} ?>
I could forgive you failing to note that Brosnan was the worst possible Bond ever (and I’m including Niven in that too, so there!), but to dump on Use of Weapons? You, sir, go too far!
Are you high Father Dougal? Brosnan was the best of them all!
Use of weapons feels like a good outline to a book, but just failed to land for me.
Brosnan was the worst. This is not mere opinion, but objective, empirical fact. A mathematical certainty. And I’ll thank you to leave my state of intoxication out of this.
(yes. yes I am high.)