Ben Saufley

I honestly couldn't tell you what the overall plot arc of this book was. I know how it started and ended and I know several things that happened it it but the focus of many characters for the whole book had little to do with what could be called the climax.

Oster's stance on COVID matters has been disappointing to uncover after making it most of the way through this book; but the book in general is a pretty level-headed and un-opinionated overview of data that I found helpful. I'm not taking anything in it as gospel, but it was at least a good high-level overview of a lot of topics, including some I didn't know I needed to know about.

Love Ruth Ware and her storytelling kept me in this till the end but it was disappointing overall—predictable almost from the start.

Really enjoyed this. Resolved the series well. Found that I had grown really attached to the characters by the end.

two spoiler things:First, dunno if it was this book or the last, but I wasn't up for the redemption of Tactus the rapist. I did not feel sad when he got his comeuppance.And second, I feel like the twist near the end here could easily have come off as Deus Ex Machina but I believe it was pretty well-executed. My only gripe is that at no point in the trilogy before that point had we seen such an unreliable narrator. Yes, Sevrus had swooped in a few times without warning, but it seemed like we saw real emotion from the protagonist when he “died,” which is more than withholding information. But still, even with that, I liked it. It was set up well and was a big moment of joy when it was revealed.

I enjoyed it but it's a little unsatisfying once it's all unfolded. basically: “oh no, they're gonna frame her—but they failed, the end”

Honestly I'd rate this book higher if it weren't for the weird side plot with the junior detective. She seems to be on the spectrum, but she's played as this weird, angry “kids these days only care about themselves” character that seems to have no purpose and amounts to nothing other than weird, hateful scorn. I'm probably missing some subtext but it felt very out of place.

Honestly I tend to enjoy Brent Weeks books and this was no exception but I have to knock it down a little because of several over-the-top “men writing women” bits and some implied or explicit sexual violence that really didn't need to be there.

Some really interesting stuff that, over and over, descends into silliness that is not just goofy in how it relates sci fi to real world tech, but extremely credulous or over-ambitious and not at all wary of the dangers of the things it's proposing. The actual, scientific, brain stuff is interesting. The “maybe we could recreate The Force from Star Wars” stuff feels amateurish and goofy.

This came highly recommended from a few people but it didn't do much for me. It was fine. I listened to it on audiobook and like six of the nine recurring characters are pendry/hendry/tendry or something? Why do that?

I think the resolution wasn't as strong as the setup but it was still very interesting. Really enjoyed the book overall. A lot of fascinating philosophical questions wrapped up in a sci-fi thriller. Good stuff.

I really like the science fiction stories and found myself fading out during the fantasy ones. It's a good read and I'd recommend it but I liked Paper Menagerie better

It's fine. Nothing special. And the very end of the book drives home how it's full of things that take you out of it and feel like author interference.

By the end I really liked this but the arc is kind of weird: it feels like it's still getting started and then very quickly it resolves and is over.

Most of my feelings about this one are wrapped up in how it ended. Spoilers are not specific but will tell you what to expect from the ending so read at your own risk. It's tough to read a lot of this book because it's a lot of people being relentlessly cruel to each other and a lot of “they don't know what we know” frustration, but while I spent a portion of the book worrying that this would be one of those “everybody loses” kind of dark reads, it wasn't, and because the ending was satisfying, I ended up liking the book.

It takes a long time to get interesting, but I'm interested enough that I'll pick up the next. It still feels a bit devoid of character, even with some big bombs near the end that seem like they should be shocking. But there's enough in there to keep me intrigued.

Bad copaganda. IA as cartoonish bad guy, right down to cartoonish names. I'm sure it's a product of its time. It could be worse, I suppose.

I enjoyed the book overall but I do think that the eventual revelation that the women were lying, while maybe necessary to keep the twists coming and reveal the big twist (which was an interesting if not entirely unpredictable one), wasn't really twisty itself and is obviously problematic. I spent a lot of the book wondering if the author would reveal their politics, and while I don't think the twist is an endorsement, it builds up these women to a real extent, somewhat intelligently presents all the things people tell themselves so as not to believe the victim, while presenting them in a way that seems to indicate it's not a great thing... and then says “yep that's right they weren't a victim” and that sucked

I enjoyed it but it suffers a bit from “book two” syndrome, where a clear purpose and arc to the plot is lacking, as characters kind of just maneuver around the board after the last book and setting up the next.

I enjoyed it. As it wrapped up though, there was a bit too much going on. Too many red herrings or dark secrets. Even though that's kind of what these books are about, it was just a little too much. Still fun though.

I don't think I understood this book. I found it interesting, written in a way where the topic was kind of danced around rather than directly explained, but then it ended and I don't know that I understood what was being danced around, for the most part.

This one was pretty challenging in some ways for me, as a straight, cis man—not because the cis men have become zombies, but because the life experiences I was reading about were vastly different from my own, and in some ways, unfamiliar or new to me and in others, just hard to hear about because I know how real some of that trauma etc is. The characters and the plot were novel and entertaining. I rooted for the protagonists and enjoyed their victories. I also appreciated some of the winks—I think some of the characters traveled through Derry, Maine (? maybe I misheard, listening on audiobook), and the terfs' warship was named the Galbraith, an obvious nod to JKR's pseudonym which I understand itself is a nod to a historical transphobe of some kind?

The narrator mispronounced Worcester, which is basically a crime for a book set in New England.

This was a kind of exercise with a fun concept that was handled well from start to finish and managed to build a decent feeling of story arc despite the disparate casts of characters.

This is the first romance novel I've ever read. It's a charming story and I enjoyed it, with well-written characters and fun dialogue. I liked the way the leads' traumas were handled and how they complimented each other. I didn't need or enjoy the sex scenes, but that's a me thing and it's my understanding that it's kind of part of the genre, so I recognize my issues there are more of a me thing. They were written fine, for what they were.

This would be an unremarkable three-star book that blends into the broader Anglo fantasy genre except that it goes on these weird asides to advocate for monarchy and plutarchy.  Nothing to do with the plot, except I guess as an intended red herring? And the primary “anti-monarchist” revolutionary never even says anything that's wrong. But the protagonist still calls her “despicable” and then goes on a small rant about how her rich parents are self-made. It's weird and unnecessary but I guess it is, like, the one thing in the book that stood out. The magic is unremarkable, the villain is generic. Blah.

When I was in high school, a catholic school, I asked my religion teacher (social justice, I think, which is interesting in retrospect because of how so many Christians currently treat the concept as demonic) a question about hell: “if Satan was cast out of heaven for wanting to be greater than God, why would he make Hell a horrible place—wouldn't he want to make it the best place he could?” And the answer I got has stuck with me for twenty years, despite my agnosticism bordering on atheism: “God is the source of all goodness. No matter how good Satan would want to make Hell, Hell would remain a place out of God's light and thus devoid of any goodness.” It's compelling and, frankly, terrifying. And honestly I've never heard it discussed like that again, until one of the stories in this book. The story notes at the end also add some really interesting context to that story.

Arrival was one of my favorite movies in years, so I had to pick up this book, which features the short story it was based on. That story is very different in literary form, but just as good, and the other stories approach that same level of excellence. I especially love the last story, about a scientific advance that allows people not to see beauty and ugliness in faces. Really thought provoking. I'd definitely give it a go.

Highly recommend this collection to anyone and everyone.