Ryan Hannebaum
I'll be honest: I don't understand the rave reviews for this one. The ending was so anticlimactic that I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, call it an “ending” at all. The pacing was rushed; the characters archetypical; the story all too predictable.Obviously you know Cain isn't the murderer. The author is way too heavy-handed in trying to prop up Joe Brady as an alternative theory in readers' minds. And he's also too forceful in trying to get the reader to loathe Suzanne. That really only leaves you with two options in your head (due to the complete lack of characters and their development): Claire and Jane.You know it isn't going to be Claire, since she's set up so blatantly (noticing a pattern here?) as Cain's only ally and eventual love interest. Oh, and not to mention the fact that she has no motive.That leaves only Jane.And that's without the hilariously out-of-place-unless-it-serves-as-a-clear-motive side plot of Jane prepping a run for Congress.Woof. Brad Smith should be glad I've read [a:James Patterson 3780 James Patterson https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1468347205p2/3780.jpg], so I know what a true one-star book looks like—[b:The Jester 13157 The Jester James Patterson https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347270829s/13157.jpg 2513115], anyone?—as that's about the only reason for the second star here.
Couldn't get through 200 pages. The story was predictable and uninteresting, and there were far too many grammatical errors (typos or otherwise) for any published book to feel good about. The editors should be ashamed of this one.
One of the worst books I've ever read. Patterson took a time machine back to fourth grade when he wrote this one. Awful.
Very, very similar to Pillars of the Earth, but without the charm and engrossing plot of the original. Still a quality read, however, as all of Ken Follett's books are.
Sadly, the snide accusations in this corporate satire are spot-on. A very witty, socially pointed read.
Could have been great, but just a little too saturated with meaningless asides aimed at tongue-in-cheek humor.
A total “look at me” effort that sheds little light on principles and approaches that can be applied universally to various creative projects.
Enough detail to hold interest, enough skimming to keep the pace up
I enjoyed the middle ground this book plays in. It would never be mistaken for a Neal Stephenson book with regard to scientific exploration, but there was enough meat to it to keep it believable all the same. Writing a snarky female protagonist can't be easy for a male author, either.
This was sort of like a Harlen Coben novel set on the moon.
Quite simply the type of book politicians on Capitol Hill fear the American people will read, which is reason enough to read it. Besides that, it's an extremely fresh idea, backed with piles of data, and supported by hordes of economists who support laissez-faire tactics.
Simple question: who would you rather have determine the amount of taxes you pay; you, or your government?
More specifically, would you rather be taxed on what you voluntarily spend, or on what you strive to earn?
Let the money you earn be yours. Get Uncle Sam's hands off your paycheck. Start the revolution.
The book is well-written as all of King's are, but after so much buildup and anticipation for the end, the end left me wanting.
Unique concept in need of a conclusion
It's Neal Stephenson, so of course the idea is novel and intriguing.... though I do tire somewhat of the infinite multiverse theory. It's a little too deus ex machina for my taste. But this narrative suffers in the end from the lack of resolution. It's like the narrator ran out of ink instead of the story running its full course.
