For me the books have depth that the TV series doesn't – and can't – have: some of the plots are dumbed down a bit to give more visual impact, and of course you don't get the same depth of characterisation, or the insights into Lamb's and the others' pasts because much of it comes out in interior monologue, and it's much harder for the shows to, erm, show.
And you miss one of the glories of Herron's writing: as a stylist is on a par with Terry Prachett for cramming wisdom into short witty phrases. He is very good at memorable phrases skewering contemporary life, and particularly politicians. The shows bring some of this out, but there's only so much that you can do in dialogue.
Take this passage from the first book:
> Peter Judd. PJ to his friends, and everyone else. Fluffy-haired and youthful at forty-eight, and with a vocabulary peppered with archaic expostulations – Balderdash! Tommy-rot!! Oh my giddy aunt!!! – Peter Judd had long established himself as the unthreatening face of the old-school right, popular enough with the Great British Public, which thought him an amiable idiot, to make a second living outside Parliament as a rent-a-quote-media-whore-cum-quiz-show-panel-favourite, and to get away with minor peccadilloes like dicking his kids’ nanny, robbing the taxman blind, and giving his party leader conniptions with off-script flourishes. (‘Damn fine city,’ he’d remarked on a trip to Paris. ‘Probably worth defending next time.’) Not everyone who’d worked with him thought him a total buffoon, and some who’d witnessed him lose his temper suspected him of political savvy, but by and large PJ seemed happy with the image he’d either fostered or been born with: a loose cannon with a floppy haircut and a bicycle.
Herron, Mick. Slow Horses: The bestselling thrillers that inspired the hit Apple TV+ show Slow Horses (Slough House Thriller 1) (p. 187). (Function). Kindle Edition.
That is a brilliant piece of characterisation, and if you know anything about British politics, you know exactly who he's describing, and how accurate a character assassination this is. The TV show's Peter Judd goes out of its way to make the character a lot more generic – their Judd is merely 'typical cynical nasty venal politician' and it loses a bit of force accordingly.
Or take the set piece descriptions which start every book: they recreate the seedy world of Slough House in a way that the shows can only hint at.
Not to say the shows aren't very good – they are one of the best things on TV – but the books are even better.
Yeah, I mean he has a lot of really strong flaws that almost seem purposefully to put one off (which could be his whole angle, who knows), but between his drinking, terrible health, horrid treatment of his team (who, yes I know, he actually does care for), you're often not on his side, but more eager to see how what he's put in place will unfold.
it does when the goal is not reading per se but consuming books that are available in audio format as well as printed. and increasingly with better TTS tools any text can be converted into audio.
I read hours most every day for decades but audiobooks never worked for me. After ten minutes, I notice my mind has drifted elsewhere and I didn’t listen to anything that was said. Funny how it takes me lots of effort to concentrate on listening but seemingly no effort to read (or watch movies). I hope my eyesight stays with me for a long time.
that happens to me if i have lots on my mind or if the story is not very engaging. the reading style can also be factor (sleepy voice :-)
i believe part of the issue is that our eyes are our primary source of input. we can control what we see by the direction where we look, or we can close our eyes. we can not control hearing in the same way, and therefore we instead learn to focus or not focus on specific sounds. but that happens much more subconsciously than how we control our eyes, therefore it can happen even if we don't intent to. (ok, when you are deep in thought you can also gaze into nothingness without closing your eyes, but that's less common)
If you're a parent of a recent college grad who is on Hacker News, haven't you been in tech for some time? I would expect your perspective to include experience seeing at least a couple cycles of economic ups and downs.
> It’s Christmas and we aren’t celebrating. No decorations. No pretending things are okay. I’m completely shattered as a parent, mostly because I don’t have answers. I told her for years that merit would protect her. It didn’t.
This is pretty bonkers on multiple levels. IDK what your family's overall situation is, but based on what we can infer, your family is not in economic jeopardy. If I'm mistaken, then I apologize, but it seems you are just one of the many, many families with an unemployed recent college grad, and if you're positing on HN, I assume you and your wife are doing at least adequately.
I don't understand how you, as a grown man, could be under the illusion that "merit would protect her" or that somehow graduating from a good school guarantees someone anything, or how you could lack the perspective that this is temporary and less important than health, family, etc.
Nobody is above broader, universal developments and forces, whether economic vicissitudes or worse (war, societal collapse, etc.) Your arrogance in thinking that "merit" could protect an individual from these things is justly punished.
I also went to a top school, and there is also something to be said about your daughter's lack of resilience and naiveté here, but she's a ~22 year old girl, so that's acceptable. From you, this is not, IMO.
Your entire view of the world was mistaken and brittle, and reveals a stunning lack of value placed on things other than career and such, but the good news is that it's much better than you seem to be stuck thinking right now. Economies get good again, and your daughter is in a better position than many because she at least had one job and has a good CV.
The men. Again, I'm writing there about what women didn't have to do.
>In most places and times, didn't all men just get conscripted into war frequently?
Yes, and thus what I wrote is that women didn't have to do it.
(My point was: "yes, women did the house tasks, but on the plus side, they didn't have to do those other far more dangerous and hard things").
>Why do you think it didn't consume all waking hours?
I don't think it didn't, I know it didn't. For starters it was shared among larger family units (including several kids). And even when it wasn't, like some people living on their own, it hardly took a few hours each day, and that's including maintaining a fire, cooking, some cleaning, feeding some nearby hens, bringing water, and things like that. Modern people over-dependent on modern conveniences overestimate how hard all those things were, as if it was some horror survival movie.
In these here parts, people in the country did all the same things people did in the 19th century or the 15th century well into the 20th century (with cars and electricity not reaching many places until the late 1950s), all with plenty of time to spare and socialize.
You're completely missing the single largest source of domestic work, which was clothing. Spinning thread and weaving by hand are incredibly time consuming and consumed 40% of women's working hours.
Here's an overview by an actual historian, who estimates that women in a medieval peasant household worked 3,760 hours per year, which averages out to 80 hours per week.
After that it gets pretty easy, just time consuming. Keeping an old school saw sharp would be far more challenging.
I grew up in a household without power tools, and helped gut rehab a few friends houses. Certainly not exactly comparable, but you learn pretty quick sawing is at least as much about technique and skill vs brute strength and stamina.
Ferrari, McLaren, Pagani, Lamborghini, Tata, Honda, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Zuora (named after the two founders), Garmin (also named after the two founders).
He mentioned in an interview Hashicorp was just a corporate entity that he used as a teenager to do some contracting here and there. He and the other founder weren't that keen on using it but the name stuck.
I don't know the specifics of naming that particular company, but being the majority stakeholder of two companies myself I can tell you that naming companies is just as hard as naming things in programming. Both of my companies are named after myself, one directly so and the other being a portmanteau of my business partner's and my names.
It had very little to do with self aggrandizing and more to do with the tax authorities need a name and time was limited. The names were used mostly as placeholders and then stuck. Branding is hard.
Charles Schwab has written (my memory) that putting one's name on the business stakes its reputation there, and such a business is theoretically more trustworthy.
reply