Ben Saufley
I was really looking forward to this book and I think I just ... don't get it.
I talked to my father-in-law, who is Serbian, a while back about how he enjoys reading Russian/slavic authors, even in English, because their thoughts are structured in a familiar way to him – I felt the opposite here, wondering if what was being said would click more with me if I had grown up in China. That's not a criticism, really, just an observation. Much of the book felt like it was told as an allegory that I just wasn't getting, or a fable with a moral that went over my head. The characters all seem motivated by some emotional resonance with the Three Body game that I feel expected to understand, but I definitely don't.
The surface story, beyond any attempt at finding a deeper meaning, was intriguing but ultimately underwhelming. Like I said, I feel like there's more meaning beneath it all but I don't feel particularly compelled to continue the trilogy because I suspect it would be similarly lost on me.
Not quite what I expected. Witty and interesting. A bit disjointed (although it's clear that that's intentional). I wish some of the things she explored were fleshed out or explored a little more. I also think Atwood walked a tough line between accepting [b:The Odyssey 1381 The Odyssey Homer https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1390173285s/1381.jpg 3356006] as truth and treating it as an unreliable narrator.
In fairness I think I might've liked this book more if I hadn't listened to it on Audible. The narrator's voice wasn't actively bad, but I think it had an impact on my enjoyment – she constantly sounded like she was on the verge of tears, and what should've been an intriguing adventure became just kind of sad and pathetic sounding.
The story itself, I think, was fine. Not particularly special – no shining moments that stood out and stuck with me; characters blended together and the arc of the plot felt kind of level through much of it. But the concept was interesting enough. Some of the mystical bits were kind of intriguing.
It did feel like it ended at the kind of ... beginning of the story. Not just in terms of a trilogy or whatever, but like, this arc seemed like it was just starting, regardless of the broader plot.
I probably won't read the next, but that may be more to do with the narrator than the book (if I read it at all, it'd be audio).
I'd be curious to see this live. The medium did it no favors - the writing style is so far from Rowling's that it read more like fanfic than the “real thing.”
The story itself is fun and interesting. The pacing is more like a play than a novel so I'll grant it some leeway there.
The dialogue is often quite bad and feels like it was written by someone unfamiliar with the characters he's writing.
Happy to have gotten a little more time in the Potterverse; kind of bummed/underwhelmed in what I ended up getting. Beggars can't be choosers I suppose.
Kind of fun. Felt a lot like Snowcrash early on, but went much more toward politics than tech and action. The characters weren't very fully developed and the whole thing felt kind of light. But I appreciated that so much of the world was insinuated rather than spelled out. If there were a sequel (the plot was fully realized but I could see more here), I'd probably pick it up.
I picked this book up as some pulp to listen to while running. The first half set up a lot of intriguing clues and presumable red herrings, and I was hoping it'd be a fun kind of mystery/thriller in the vein of (if not as good as) Girl on the Train, etc. It seemed like it might be. But it ended up feeling closer to a cheap Lifetime movie than anything else: most of the secrets are unveiled or at least heavily telegraphed in the early second half, and... well, spoilers:
SpoilerThe final chapter before the epilogue, which reveals that the protagonist was in on it all along (...?), seems to imply that the entire thought process of the character, through the whole book, relayed in the third person, was ... a lie? If she was in on it, why was she so confused the night of his disappearance? Why was she shocked to find he was alive? Why didn't she seek him out? It's a pretty ham-handed effort at the “unreliable narrator,” a trick which can be mind-blowing when successful, but there's not even an attempt at an explanation here. I think there was something about medication? But the medication was not properly established up to that point, if so. Or even properly asserted at that point.
I don't know. Maybe I'm being too harsh. I liked the first half. I just felt like it unwrapped poorly, and Spoilerthe weird attempt at a final twist didn't come off well.
Rowling (as Galbraith) is really a fantastic storyteller. This book is pure genre fiction, no doubt, but it's also very well executed. I particularly enjoyed this installment, in which Rowling's own convictions (many of which I share) shone through without ever seeming heavy-handed or detracting from the story.
Fun. I think this one was ruined a bit by listening to it rather than reading it – the reader wasn't bad, but was very much present in my mind, meaning I couldn't entirely lose myself in the story. It took a weird turn in the middle, not so much plot-wise but storytelling-wise. But it's interesting enough that I may try to pick up the next at some point.
It is one more YA novel where I didn't get a very good feel for the world – the author was too caught up in a few (pretty standard) characters and telling the general plot. I'd like to know more about the world, the way it feels, looks, operates. I think authors can get lost in worldbuilding and that's never good, but YA novels too often forego setting the stage, establishing the setting. This is one of those novels. Maybe now that we've established some characters etc, she'll build out the world a bit more in the next one?
A lot of self-promotion, not a ton of actual information. A few breakdowns of things like how to go from outline to sketch to draft (etc) were helpful to me as someone who's still trying to figure out the process. Short enough that I feel like it wasn't a waste of my time. Got a few things and can move on to the next thing. Might try to read something else from this author with a bit more in-depth discussion.
Decent. Nothing I'd take as dogma but listening to it in the context of the story I've been trying to get out forever has I think helped me get over some of the problems I've had with the pace etc of what I've written and sketched out. There's some confusion - three acts overlaid on a four-quarter breakdown is a bit awkward - and the last chapter (“make sure your verb matches with your subject” etc) was hilariously useless. But the points about how to structure the major plot points etc, with a lot of flexibility in what those really are, gave me some decent food for thought. Also it's short so it wasn't a huge commitment. We'll see if the effect it's had on my thinking lasts in any noticeable way.
Not bad. I really like the concept of the multiple Londons and how that world was built, but none of them got particularly fleshed out or realized. The characters were alright, but I didn't feel much connection with either of the protagonists by the time the book ended. I think the narrative arc could've used a bit more restraint – some pauses, some time to get to know the setting and the characters. It felt like a pretty standard YA arc, where something propels the characters on some half-explained adventure, generally fraught with nondescript streets and halls full of faceless bad guys and some general sense of evil, building up with few twists until the final confrontation. The concepts that were introduced were fun and interesting but I think the author was afraid to let up for a minute, which left me at the end less invested or interested in the whole story. Not that it was particularly chaotic, it just felt like the story lacked ... texture?
Part of this may just be due to the audiobook format in which I experienced it. I'd recommend you read it rather than listen to the audio, either way. The guy's voices were ... weird.
I think I only understood about 30% of this book. That's not a criticism of the book, more a caveat of my review. But it was interesting how much time was spent emphasizing how nobody could understand CODs, credit default swaps etc, and then assuming I understood it.
The overarching plot was interesting and I liked the writing style but I kept waiting for it all to click and the Big Short to be laid bare ... and then it was over. I was left with the understanding that yeah, everything they'd bet on had I guess come true and that was bad and also I must be pretty dense to have made it all the way through this book without really understanding some of the key issues.
I'd probably look them up if I were on my kindle but I listened to this on Audible. I should probably go back and fill in the gaps.
Tl;dr - probably a good book that deserved a more informed audience than me.
Having listened to Amy Poehler's “Yes Please” and Mindy Kaling's “Why Not Me” before this, I'd say this was my favorite of the three. All good, but this one had some of the sharpest stuff in it. Funny stuff, insightful cultural commentary, interesting stories. Each had these (and that's part of why I group them - the other reason being that they're of course all semi-autobiographical books by modern women of comedy), but I felt like this one brought the most.
It was weird though to hear her talk about 30 Rock like it's still on.
And the chapter about her dad was sweet and interesting but in parts really sounded like she was justifying some, at best, “dated” (more realistically: racist) views. I think she was just sort of explaining how her dad grew up and came to believe what he believed but there were a few things that seemed to dance close to justification rather than just ... I don't know, explanation. Don't even know if this paragraph makes sense. I just felt like it got a bit uncomfortable for a minute in that chapter.
I picked this book up a while back and put it down pretty quickly because I just couldn't get past the constant and verbose references to God and God's will. That's not to say I was offended or upset in any way, I just found it really distracting. I'm not a religious person, so that may be part of it, and though English has its own set of curses and invocations – “oh my God,” “God willing,” etc, these were long sentences, sometimes paragraphs, with very little to do with the actual conversation. I wondered if they were translations of common Muslim utterances? This is of course a fictional world, but it appears to be built around something like Islam the same way much Anglo/Western fantasy is built around Arthurian and therefore Christian myth.Anyway. I picked it up on Audible more recently, and that made it easier for me to elide these distracting tangents. It became more of a seasoning to the book rather than a heavy-handed and constant thing. At that point, I shot through the rest of the book.It's fun to read fantasy that's not based on the same Anglo tropes – already this year, I read [b: An Ember in the Ashes 20560137 An Ember in the Ashes (An Ember in the Ashes, #1) Sabaa Tahir https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1417957944s/20560137.jpg 39113604] (Roman/Middle Eastern), [b: Shadow and Bone 10194157 Shadow and Bone (The Grisha, #1) Leigh Bardugo https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1339533695s/10194157.jpg 15093325] (Slavic), and [b: Uprooted 22544764 Uprooted Naomi Novik https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1420795060s/22544764.jpg 41876730] (a different vein of Slavic), and this was a great addition.In animation, they teach you to create unique and identifiable silhouettes for every character, and I felt like this book had the literary version of that: each character was unique, built on archetypes but a bit deeper, and each contributed something unique to the adventure and to the story. In my head, they also had literally unique silhouettes – the large, bearded ghul hunter, the stiff and skilled swordsman, the small feral (literally and figuratively) girl, etc.I found myself wondering how it would all wrap up, which you don't always do in genre books like this, and at the same time I definitely enjoyed the ride – the spells, the settings, the characters. I'll definitely end up picking up the next one.
3.5 if I could. Definitely not as good as the first. It dragged a lot through the middle. Still a lot of interesting stuff and it was fun both to revisit the characters and to see what happened after the events of the first book. But the story arc didn't have the same pull as the first, and it had the disadvantage of lacking the thrill of discovery from the first book. Can't rediscover Rakhat. It's worth reading, especially if you enjoyed the first, but it's definitely not on the level of the first book, in terms of characters, plot, storytelling, and introspection.
I'm not really a crime novel reader, or whatever this genre would be called. I've listened to a few (listened to this on Audible as well) and they weren't awful but I found myself mostly impatient to know the end and be done with it. Here, I definitely wanted to know what happened but I also found the characters pretty entertaining and the process of getting there pretty fun.
I had no idea what to expect from Rowling in such a different genre, but she's a really good storyteller, and it showed here as it showed in the Potter books.
It wasn't a perfect book. But I think it knew its strengths and went with it – it didn't spend very long establishing Deeby Macc as a rapper, or go into much detail about his music, and I think that was a good choice, because that pretty much never ends well. Strike is a kind of cartoon of a private eye, but I loved it. It was good pulp. I mean, basically that's it. It was a fun read. I'll read the next one.
I really enjoyed this book. I'd been looking, for a while, for the next book that would capture me, make me care about the characters and really look forward to picking it up again – which hadn't happened since I finished Lev Grossman's Magicians trilogy – and this was it.
I don't know if this book is YA. It's hard to tell at a certain point. The vocabulary is good but probably not overly challenging. The subject matter borders on adult? But in a fantasy genre that appears to mark itself as “adult” by competing to show misery and depravity (“historical accuracy”), or at least requires massive tomes with hundreds of characters, a book like this feels out of place. Like Gaiman's Stardust, it's got more of a fairy tale than a strict “fantasy” feel. In the end I'd categorize this as YA-appropriate but probably not a YA book.
Like Leigh Bardugo's Shadow and Bone series, this book opts for a Slavic backdrop rather than the obligatory Anglo-Saxon/Arthurian roots of the vast majority of fantasy, but I thought it was better executed here than in Bardugo's books (her first, at least) – it felt more authentic, for whatever reason. Even though I think largely the names and myths of the book could've been replaced with Anglo equivalents and succeeded nearly as well, the way this universe blended “real” Slavic myths like Baba Jaga into this fictional world, and built the magic and the adventure around those sensibilities (the magic wood, the creatures that inhabited it, the way the songs are sung like traditional folk melodies rather than epic castings) really worked well.
A note: with place names like Rosya, Polna, and Venizia (or something like that) I constantly found myself trying to fit this adventure into real-life Eastern Europe. At the end of the day though, my conclusion was that this world drew inspiration from ours, but was not intended to be one and the same. Maybe I missed it. But if Polna is Poland, what is its capital, Kralia (which seems closest to, say, Kraljevo in Serbia, as far as I can tell)?
Another thing I liked about the book was that while it existed in a kind of fairy-tale world, I was never fully sure what to expect. The adventure wasn't laid out before me when I started the book, and it didn't turn out to do what I did expect. Yet with that said, I rarely felt like the new developments were forced or overt maneuverings of the author – it was just a well-built narrative.
This book wasn't perfect. I felt a bit let down by the climax – by the partial explanation/history that was unveiled, and by the underlying concepts there. Not overly so, but just a little. I had been built up: I wanted to know! To know more, to understand better.
I want to give this 4.5 stars because I have read better books, certainly. But this was so fun, so well-crafted. 4 stars would be too low. So... 5 it is.
The writing style and the depth of the characters were about as expected, but I actually really enjoyed the story and its concepts – more than I expected. It was intriguing and didn't have me rolling my eyes nearly as often as I was afraid I might. Maybe I'm giving it four stars because my expectations began so low? Which isn't to say I expected it to be terrible – I expected to enjoy it, but more in the way one enjoys “bad television,” or similar media: largely in spite of itself. I expected it to be mindless fun, and while it certainly wasn't high-brow, it was interesting and entertaining from start to finish. I'd read another one of Child's books before I read another Dan Brown (whose books purport to be intellectually compelling).
I'm not sure it's particularly better than a bunch of the YA competing in the space right now, as far as writing or ingenuity, but I found the slavic/Russian slant an interesting complication, with so much of the genre leaning toward Anglo fantasy. The main character clearly has some body dysmorphia but otherwise strong and interesting, and the plot didn't really do what I expected to, which I always appreciate. Will probably take a stab at the next one.