Jon

Started good. Became meh.

Revisado: 10-22-22

It started pretty good with an interesting storyline and good characters and you wanted to see what was going to happen. Then the story devolved into a teenage novel with shallow one dimensional characters and unbelievable reactions to their situations. Couple that with a scattering liberal political talking points mixed in and I was pretty disappointed.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Narrator sounds like a robot

Revisado: 06-09-19

Not sure if this is deliberate, given Asimov's fascination with robots, but I don't think so. I find this narrator difficult to suffer through. It's a little less annoying if you listen at 1.25X speed.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Surprisingly uninformed on the issue

Revisado: 06-04-15

Would you try another book from Stephen King and/or Christian Rummel?

Yes

What was the most interesting aspect of this story? The least interesting?

I was surprised to hear of Stephen Kings publication of "Rage" and then to find that it had some influence in multiple shootings afterward. I applaud him for pulling it from publication because of this.

Have you listened to any of Christian Rummel’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

No

Was Guns worth the listening time?

Yes

Any additional comments?

First, I should say I am a centrist, one of the meager minority in our country according to King, and I would advocate for some forms of gun control myself, though King doesn't include many ideas that might actually help our gun problems, with the exception of background checks. In summary, he advocates limiting magazine capacity to 10, banning assault weapons, and comprehensive background checks. The background check is a no brainer, and no thoughtful person can make a case against that one. However, the term 'assault weapon' doesn't have a specific meaning. People include such things as flash suppressors and barrel shrouds, pistol grips, collapsable stocks, etc. None of these will have any effect on casualties in a mass shooting situation. The Clinton gun ban was also vague in it's definition, stating: "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Before we proclaim that we should 'ban assault weapons' we need to clearly define what that means. For most people it is a catchy term and sounds like something that should be banned, and it seems King is in that group. Next, limiting magazine capacities to 10. He presents no evidence at all that this ban will be effective. What is the point of banning something (relinquishing our freedom) if it won't have any effect. First, there are literally millions upon millions of magazines already existing in the US. Is the government going to grandfather them, or confiscate them? If they confiscate them, do we actually think the criminals will hand theirs over? Or that they won't be able to smuggle new ones in? Outlawing drugs has been real effective at keeping those off the streets... Also, in the age of 3D printers, a magazine is simply a piece of plastic and a spring that holds bullets. You could very easily print your own. Finally, he claims that the australia gun laws have been a success. In fact, the conclusions drawn by the vast majority of people looking at the issue, including snopes and factcheck, 15+ years after the ban went into effect, that there is no measurable difference in murders or gun violence. Great Britain's statistics after it's gun ban are similar. Oh, and one more thing, if you'll pardon the rant. He asserts that nobody wants to take your revolver, your hunting rifle, your sporting guns, etc, and seems to think that anybody who thinks otherwise is a crazy, paranoid idiot. I beg to differ. They tried to ban guns in Chicago and Washington DC, and that included all of them. When it finally went to the Supreme court, in spite of the fact that we have a second amendment and the court is supposed to uphold the constitution, these banning laws were voted unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4. That's right, if one of those 5 justices had voted the other way, then guns would be banned in 2 cities, and the precedent would have been set that politicians had the power to ban guns in defined areas. Are we honestly to believe that it would have remained only in Chicago and DC? No, I assert very strongly that we, pardon the pun, dodged a bullet on that supreme court decision, and that there are plenty of people out there who would love to take away our guns...and will continue to try.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas

Another King masterpiece

Revisado: 04-19-15

Where does 11-22-63 rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

Top of the heap.

What other book might you compare 11-22-63 to and why?

Similar to other Stephen King's great works, like the stand.

What does Craig Wasson bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

His narration is phenomenal. He adds emotion and inflection to the dialogue, that fits dead on with the descriptions. One of the best narrators out there. Bravo!

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

No

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great story, poor reader

Revisado: 04-19-15

If you could sum up Under the Dome in three words, what would they be?

Modern twist on Lord of the Flies

How did the narrator detract from the book?

Horrible voices. He seems to pick the most annoying nasal voices he can come up with to do the characters. It's like he's trying to annoy you.

Any additional comments?

A shame to have a good story botched by a lousy narrator.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña