Just finished reading Cards by Maxwell.

[Sand]

I guess I didn't worry so much about the typos. They didn't bother me so much to pull me out of the story.

For me: Excellent book. Very intersting protagonist with compelling flaws - for some reason reminds me of Confederacy of Dunces in that way. It takes you on a great emotional ride and certainly draws an interesting picture of one "poker world".

Highly recommended.

[Peter McDermott]

And to be honest, I'm overstating the extent to which they annoyed me. I think I just didn't like the protagonist, and my disliking him made me pickier than I'd normally be.

[chessforlife]

Not to appear Like Maxwell's gay lover, but...

1. regarding "steak", he does spell it "stake" in other paragraphs.

2. I'd wager that the his aim with the repetitive adrenaline description, and repetitive irrelevant hands is to really make you feel the guy's experience. I was convinced of this when, in Atlantic City, he describes for 3 pages nothing but folding hands. Obviously this doesn't contribute a thing to the storyline, it just makes you feel first hand what the experience is like. The repeated adrenaline rushes are to physically make you tired of the feeling, just as it makes the charachter tired.

3. I support us all discussing this book in such detail, but wait a second, can we just appreciate Maxwell's writing quality: how he weaves his paragraphs, his honest description, etc. Maybe my favorite aspect of the book is the flavor of Maxwell's writing. Many here who both like and disline the book are saying "I find that I want to keep reaing it." Well, that's the writer's talent. I'd refer to p. 217, 218, 96, 106, 107. and others.

Other poker books are poker players writing. I classify Maxwell as a writer that used to play poker.

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

Other poker books are poker players writing. I classify Maxwell as a writer that used to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree, and here's why. I defy you to find a single non-poker player who could read this book from start to finish. A good writer would find ways to make his subject compelling to a lay audience, but the amount of hand-detail trivia makes the book solely of interest to poker geeks.

A little of the poker non-fiction achieves this: Big Deal, Biggest Game in Town and Positively Fifth Street, but of the recent poker fiction I can't think of one that could sustain a lay reader for long.

King of a Small World probably succeeds best in this regard, but that pales alongside a real classic like The Cincinatti Kid.

While we're still at the poker fiction table, can I commend the novels of Pete Hautman and James Swain? Hautman's crime fiction featuring cocaine addicted ex-cop Joe Crow generally has strong poker themes (ie, Drawing Dead, Short Money, Ring Game, etc.) and he has a very good children's novel called No Limit, which is something of a cautionary tale in which a teenager called Doyle takes up the game.

Swain doesn't really write poker books, but it's some of the best genre fiction I've read in a very long time. The protagonist is Tony Valentine, an ex Atlantic City cop who now runs a consultancy service called 'Grift Sense' which specializes in catching casino cheats.

Unlike Maxwell, both of these guys really have mastered their craft and know how to tell a story.

Maxwell might make a writer if he keeps at it, but he's still learning his chops at the moment.

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]
And to be honest, I'm overstating the extent to which they annoyed me. I think I just didn't like the protagonist, and my disliking him made me pickier than I'd normally be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did like him - complex character. He definitely made me wince a few times, but that is a sign of effective writing (IMO).

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]


Completely disagree, and here's why. I defy you to find a single non-poker player who could read this book from start to finish. A good writer would find ways to make his subject compelling to a lay audience, but the amount of hand-detail trivia makes the book solely of interest to poker geeks.

Unlike Maxwell, both of these guys really have mastered their craft and know how to tell a story.

Maxwell might make a writer if he keeps at it, but he's still learning his chops at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm going to disagree with you, but I want to first state that I respect your intelligence an attitude. I say this so this doesn't immediately degenerate into a juvenile pissing contest.)

I completely disagree with you, this is why:

I believe Maxwell MADE A CHOICE to approach the topic esotericly. I believe he resolved, "I am going to relate the experience of poker as it must be relayed, from the inside, to do any less would fail to relate the experience." And isn't this correct? How could this particular book be written for all audiences? In the afterword Maxwell states, "I want the reader to have the animate feeling, 'I now know what that's like.'"

Your thoughts on this rebuttle?

And how can you say he doesn't know how to tell a story, when so many here are enjoying this book so much? I really think he nailed his idea, of depicting (one) person's poker world.

And by the way, I didn't know "The Cinci Kid" was a book. I'll get it now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ewile]

I believe that this book was written expressly for hardcore Poker players with no thought given to reaching a larger audience and I'm fine with that. I'm reading it going, yeah, this book was written form me, pretty cool!

As for my progress...the plane just landed in France.

[lemonPeel]

this book just owns everything... though king of a small world was quite a good read too.

[donger]

This book should be called "inside the mind of a donkey." A truly painful read, but I was determined to finish it and just did.

I think the author is probably the guy in your local 3/6 game with a hat, ipod, and sunglasses, staring people down and cold calling way too much.

The hand descriptions and thought processes are so flawed that I can't believe anyone actually liked this book (since they comprise more than half of it.)

[Easy E]

<font color="blue">because every single player can win with good cards</font>

Sure they can..

Sounds as if I should wait for the second printing on this one.