Ratings (153 books)
My main critique of this book is that it's a series of explanations for semi-plausible scientific principles loosely arranged into a sequence of events. An argument can be made that this does, therefore, constitute a plot, if it were not also entirely lacking in pacing, character development, and purpose.
There's other issues though. Lots of them! The characters are unrelatable and made unlikely (unbelievable) decisions as they ambled through this universe. Everyone speaks to one another in the exact same starchy voice—using a formalism typically reserved for emails to college professors—whether they're being interrogated or talking to their children. Elementary imagery is used to supplement the tone that otherwise appears to be out of reach for the author, the narrator, or both (
"in that moment her eyes truly were the window to her soul"). Every woman in this story has a slender figure. All of them. There is apparently no other way to describe female characters in this world. The main protagonist, or at least the perspective from which most of the story is told, has exactly zero backstory or reason to be participating in most of the situations he is placed within. I seem to recall him having a wife and child but Liu seems to have forgotten of their existence after their single scene. The protagonist's career is completely unrelated to the story for the majority of the plot until what some might call the climax of the story. Then his scientific research becomes a
dues ex machina to finish the action. After which it is never mentioned again. Never mind that the situation could have been written completely differently: a which would could have given our hero a career / background that made sense for the rest of the story.
All of this is to say that I was extremely disappointed in this story. I am not totally convinced I read the correct book—this deserved to win the Hugo? I am baffled by the praise this received. It's Tom Clancy does sci-fi. I read the plot summary of book no. two & three of the trilogy on Wikipedia. I was just as satisfied and probably less cranky. If you're curious about the plot, I would suggest doing the same. It could save you from writing a review like this.
If you're interested in actual hard science fiction I suggest Asimov, PKD and especially Ted Chiang.
4.5 stars. Fun and pleasant. She manages to sidestep platitudes with deeper insight into subject matter.
I guess it's really deserving of 3 1/2 stars, but Goodreads doesn't deal with fractional ratings. It was an incredibly well-written novel, more poetic prose than pure fictional narrative, often spattered with amusing word play and metaphors. Still, I can't get completely behind it because of how terribly depressing it is. It's scary to see one's self reflected in Patch, or love interests emulating Gloria. I had a tough time really enjoying the book because of the sense of dread I found myself feeling between reading breaks.
rewatched the movie to clear up some questions about the show and figured the original content was worth reading. definitely is! contained a lot of clarity, character development, and subplots that the movie couldn't cover. and the meta-content (like the Tale of the Black Freighter) adds a lot of richness.
An incredibly talented writer tackled a dark subject with absurdist humor and foresight. Written in 1936, before the reveal of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy's anti-human acts, Sinclair's warning was, if anything, understated.
writing didn't hit me in the chest the same was as
Stories of Your Life And Others but Chiang is nonetheless one of the most thought provoking authors in any genre, let alone science fiction.
Fun and fast. Nice to see Steinbeck treat historical figures as characters worthy of humanity and disrespect.
The lack of a resolved ending on Steinbeck's part (he doesn't finish the work and the reader is left with a cliffhanger partway through Lancelot's development) is somewhat compensated for through a lengthy appendix consisting of Steinbeck's personal correspondence. His writing reveals his writing process and relationship to Malory's story and characters. It was valuable, but it would have been lovely to have it as a companion to a finished work.
I was provided this copy for review.
The book is wonderful at lending depth and motivations to the vastly different biographies of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. The intentions, talents, and faults accompanying each man's rise to power are given background that contextualizes the approach each takes in the challenges of WWII. It's an enjoyable insight as the reader can recognize the insecurities and ambitions from their own lives playing out in these larger-than-life heads of state—shortcomings which are otherwise obscured by the legends of their accomplishments. In this way the follower of history can both relate to the leader as well as come to understand that these men were incredible
in spite of their flaws, not because they were without them.
The book's formatting suffers by attempting to track each ally's biography more or less simultaneously. Ancillary actors are casually referenced without a explanation, only to be given their relevant introduction a few pages (or even chapters) later. A small number of paragraphs essentially paraphrase their preceding information, which appears to be a copyediting error that will hopefully be caught in the next edition. But the writing is easy to read and engaging throughout.
Overall an enjoyable insight into an important period through the people who guided us through it.
