Dennis shares real challenges with doubt and suffering in life and how he has engaged with these doubts to escape the confines and strictures of his "mortal cage". Filled with personal stories and care, a must read for any person, religious or not, wrestling with the challenges and difficulties of life. Or just for those tired of Christian apologetic! An excellent book that I could not put down.
Many positive reviews of the book mention how this is supposed to be a critique of fantasy titans like Harry Potter or Narnia.
Except... a critique needs to have a sensible plot with coherent characters. Just like saying a film is "subversive" doesn't make it good (or true), saying this is a critique doesn't make it an enjoyable book (or good critique).
Instead, Lev Grossman crams 5 different books in one and burns through tropes as fast as he can, often skipping over plot just so he can do a depressing take on another scene from Narnia or HP.
Its too bad. The original idea is interesting "What if magic was real, how would it actually affect and warp people?" Except Grossman is more interested in ripping off other books than exploring this question.
Except... a critique needs to have a sensible plot with coherent characters. Just like saying a film is "subversive" doesn't make it good (or true), saying this is a critique doesn't make it an enjoyable book (or good critique).
Instead, Lev Grossman crams 5 different books in one and burns through tropes as fast as he can, often skipping over plot just so he can do a depressing take on another scene from Narnia or HP.
Its too bad. The original idea is interesting "What if magic was real, how would it actually affect and warp people?" Except Grossman is more interested in ripping off other books than exploring this question.
A very confusing, poorly written and thought out book. Long, random digressions. No real information.
It's a weird mix of discussion of varietals and basic science explainer with thought bubbles and such? Bizarre.
Seems like someone took a short talk(s), ran it through Google Translate, and copy/pasted it into a book. It doesn't address or offer anything on "fake science" or the "perfect grape" other than what you would find in a couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia.
It's a weird mix of discussion of varietals and basic science explainer with thought bubbles and such? Bizarre.
Seems like someone took a short talk(s), ran it through Google Translate, and copy/pasted it into a book. It doesn't address or offer anything on "fake science" or the "perfect grape" other than what you would find in a couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia.
A wafer thin plot with even thinner characters.
Every character's a great person and the bestest of friends. There's nothing to latch onto - the plot is largely nonexistent and conflicts are solved in a snap, the characters do not grow (or growth is instant and superficial)... It's mediocre YA masquerading as adult fiction.
This is a good book for my 10 year old daughter.
Every character's a great person and the bestest of friends. There's nothing to latch onto - the plot is largely nonexistent and conflicts are solved in a snap, the characters do not grow (or growth is instant and superficial)... It's mediocre YA masquerading as adult fiction.
This is a good book for my 10 year old daughter.
The quickest way I'd describe this book is it's a Young Adult novel. I know the jacket says it's Paolini's first adult novel but that's not the case. This is a book for teenagers. If you are a teenager, or like YA fiction, you might still enjoy this book. (Although I still think it's a bad book for YA too).
An easy way to spot YA fiction (and why I personally think its almost all shit) is because it's very, very easy to tell who's a "bad guy" or a "good guy". In even average fiction characters have some complexity of motivation and action, there is a "grayness" to the world. In fiction for children and teenagers, often the world is neat divisions of black and white.
I have a number of specific criticisms of the book. I made it to page 300 and it just became too painful to read.
*minor spoilers*
1) I have not read anything else of Paolini but he's not yet a good writer. His craft is shallow.
2) You can tell a book is bad when characters can be summed up in a single word. One character is summed up by being stern, another by being mysterious, the protagonist is nice. By those single descriptors you effectively know everything you need to know about each character. I don't need to describe the protagonist, Kira, beyond saying she is nice. That seems to sum up everything about her personality and drive.
3) A good chunk of the plot is a McGuffin to find, I kid you not, "The Staff of Blue". I wonder if the Sword of Shanarah popped up at the end of the book?
4) This has been said show more elsewhere, but the sex scenes are awkwardly atrocious. But even the relationships are 2 dimensional. The book opens with Kira and her lover Alan who is the most perfect and admirable boyfriend. They are going to start a wonderful life together. This boring perfect is of course a lazy setup for the doom to come.
5) Paolini clearly made no effort to do any sort of scientific research on space travel (theoretical or real). So the novel ends up as fantasy in space with blatantly wrong distances, science, etc. You don't need to be a science nerd to quickly pick up on the handwaving Paolini uses.
6) The book is 3x too long. By page 300 I was bored to tears and the plot was moving at a snail's pace (sorry to all snails). I can't imagine what Paolini filled the last 500 pages with.
This is the worst kind of fiction that takes lazy tropes from the genre and adds nothing in return. It's a Young Adult novel (which is fine if you're a teenager) that the publisher decided to call an "adult' novel.
The one star? It has a beautiful cover. Which fucking tricked me into buying this book! If only there was an aphorism that might have saved me... show less
An easy way to spot YA fiction (and why I personally think its almost all shit) is because it's very, very easy to tell who's a "bad guy" or a "good guy". In even average fiction characters have some complexity of motivation and action, there is a "grayness" to the world. In fiction for children and teenagers, often the world is neat divisions of black and white.
I have a number of specific criticisms of the book. I made it to page 300 and it just became too painful to read.
*minor spoilers*
1) I have not read anything else of Paolini but he's not yet a good writer. His craft is shallow.
2) You can tell a book is bad when characters can be summed up in a single word. One character is summed up by being stern, another by being mysterious, the protagonist is nice. By those single descriptors you effectively know everything you need to know about each character. I don't need to describe the protagonist, Kira, beyond saying she is nice. That seems to sum up everything about her personality and drive.
3) A good chunk of the plot is a McGuffin to find, I kid you not, "The Staff of Blue". I wonder if the Sword of Shanarah popped up at the end of the book?
4) This has been said show more elsewhere, but the sex scenes are awkwardly atrocious. But even the relationships are 2 dimensional. The book opens with Kira and her lover Alan who is the most perfect and admirable boyfriend. They are going to start a wonderful life together. This boring perfect is of course a lazy setup for the doom to come.
5) Paolini clearly made no effort to do any sort of scientific research on space travel (theoretical or real). So the novel ends up as fantasy in space with blatantly wrong distances, science, etc. You don't need to be a science nerd to quickly pick up on the handwaving Paolini uses.
6) The book is 3x too long. By page 300 I was bored to tears and the plot was moving at a snail's pace (sorry to all snails). I can't imagine what Paolini filled the last 500 pages with.
This is the worst kind of fiction that takes lazy tropes from the genre and adds nothing in return. It's a Young Adult novel (which is fine if you're a teenager) that the publisher decided to call an "adult' novel.
The one star? It has a beautiful cover. Which fucking tricked me into buying this book! If only there was an aphorism that might have saved me... show less
There's a reason this book has only retained prominence in the public mind. This is not nearly as original as it appears, and the scholarship has come under heavy and justified criticism. The work itself is also very dated.
I'd give Campbell a pass, but if you did want to read the book just read Part 1.
I'd give Campbell a pass, but if you did want to read the book just read Part 1.
Elysium Fire is a disappointing work. If you quite enjoyed "The Prefect" (also called "Aurora Rising") then you MAY still enjoy Elysium Fire. It's largely the same book.
The frustration with Elysium Fire is that Reynolds does not construct a narrative that has any real consequences. This was a defect in The Prefect but becomes even more pronounced in Elysium. Apparently incredibly consequential events and actions are later brushed off as if nothing happen. For example, a character is crushed with life-threatening injuries and almost-certain brain damage only to pop back up fully functional in a day-or-so. This is repeated.
Further, the villain's motivation is flat. Reynold sets up an interesting mystery with the Shell House but then follows it with a flaccid reveal and comic book hero-level motivations. Reynold's writing cannot save a 1 dimensional plot with 2 dimensional characters.
My suggestion is that if you're looking for great Sci Fi (or even much better Alastair Reynolds), find something else. Check out James SA Corey, Ian M Banks. Alastair Reynolds early stuff (like Revelation Space) was also far superior. This is just a bad novel.
***SPOILERS FROM ELYSIUM FIRE AND THE PREFECT BELOW***
One of the great flaws is that in the universe of Dreyfus, there are no consequences. Jane Aumonier is saved from the Clockmaker and has what consequences in this book? She is wholly unchanged from a traumatic experience. Dreyfus is still the same cliched Film Noir detective. Ng is show more almost killed and has serious brain damage only to brush it off in a day.
The Big Danger in the plot itself is ridiculous. At most 2000 citizens (of how many millions?) are threatened. Somehow this will bring the downfall of the Glitter Band. Why the villain even wants this downfall is because he was seriously abused as a child, wishes to punish his abusers (which makes sense) and ALSO wants to destroy the entire Glitter Band. Because... he wants to watch the world burn? The villain was setup as a complex character in the "flashbacks", but because 1D and insipid by the end. show less
The frustration with Elysium Fire is that Reynolds does not construct a narrative that has any real consequences. This was a defect in The Prefect but becomes even more pronounced in Elysium. Apparently incredibly consequential events and actions are later brushed off as if nothing happen. For example, a character is crushed with life-threatening injuries and almost-certain brain damage only to pop back up fully functional in a day-or-so. This is repeated.
Further, the villain's motivation is flat. Reynold sets up an interesting mystery with the Shell House but then follows it with a flaccid reveal and comic book hero-level motivations. Reynold's writing cannot save a 1 dimensional plot with 2 dimensional characters.
My suggestion is that if you're looking for great Sci Fi (or even much better Alastair Reynolds), find something else. Check out James SA Corey, Ian M Banks. Alastair Reynolds early stuff (like Revelation Space) was also far superior. This is just a bad novel.
***SPOILERS FROM ELYSIUM FIRE AND THE PREFECT BELOW***
One of the great flaws is that in the universe of Dreyfus, there are no consequences. Jane Aumonier is saved from the Clockmaker and has what consequences in this book? She is wholly unchanged from a traumatic experience. Dreyfus is still the same cliched Film Noir detective. Ng is show more almost killed and has serious brain damage only to brush it off in a day.
The Big Danger in the plot itself is ridiculous. At most 2000 citizens (of how many millions?) are threatened. Somehow this will bring the downfall of the Glitter Band. Why the villain even wants this downfall is because he was seriously abused as a child, wishes to punish his abusers (which makes sense) and ALSO wants to destroy the entire Glitter Band. Because... he wants to watch the world burn? The villain was setup as a complex character in the "flashbacks", but because 1D and insipid by the end. show less
Unfortunately, you'll better spend your time listening to a couple interviews on the book with Ryan Holiday than reading the book itself. There just isn't enough interesting content to support a 300 page book. If you know the ending and the major beats of this story, there isn't enough added in this book to make it worth reading.
Ryan, like with his other books, sprinkles it many interesting quotes and historical anecdotes. But they don't work as well here and often are shoehorned in. There were a couple times the jump from the historical anecdote to the point about Gawker it was illustrating was so discordant I had to re-read that section. The book's overall point - that conspiracies can be good and we may need MORE conspiracies - isn't well-developed. Perhaps because Ryan is trying to tell both an intriguing story and make a broader point about conspiracies, and both end up half-finished.
As well, Ryan has claimed in both the book and interviews that he doesn't take a side on what happened. That is not the case as he clearly takes the side of Peter Thiel/Hogan. That's also where the vast majority of his sources came from (other than the court documents themselves). That's not a criticism in itself, you have to tell the story you believe, but the claim of objectivity seemed untrue and unnecessary.
By the end I wondered what was the point of the book that couldn't be captured in a longform article?
I'm a big fan of Ryan Holiday's and that hasn't changed a bit. He clearly show more stretched himself with this book and while it didn't work, I look forward to his future work. show less
Ryan, like with his other books, sprinkles it many interesting quotes and historical anecdotes. But they don't work as well here and often are shoehorned in. There were a couple times the jump from the historical anecdote to the point about Gawker it was illustrating was so discordant I had to re-read that section. The book's overall point - that conspiracies can be good and we may need MORE conspiracies - isn't well-developed. Perhaps because Ryan is trying to tell both an intriguing story and make a broader point about conspiracies, and both end up half-finished.
As well, Ryan has claimed in both the book and interviews that he doesn't take a side on what happened. That is not the case as he clearly takes the side of Peter Thiel/Hogan. That's also where the vast majority of his sources came from (other than the court documents themselves). That's not a criticism in itself, you have to tell the story you believe, but the claim of objectivity seemed untrue and unnecessary.
By the end I wondered what was the point of the book that couldn't be captured in a longform article?
I'm a big fan of Ryan Holiday's and that hasn't changed a bit. He clearly show more stretched himself with this book and while it didn't work, I look forward to his future work. show less
Looking at all the positive reviews I can't help but wonder if Benjamin Hardy fans have invaded all the early reviews.
This is a blog post masquerading as a bad book. The entire message can be summed up into: "Your environment influences the person you are, so structure an environment that helps you be a person you want to be." There, I just saved you from reading a mind-numbing 200 pages in which the author repeats this idea ad-nauseum, never aware that this is not the least bit controversial.
Mr. Hardy wrote another cliched self-help book that uses misapplied science (jumping fleas!) and poor analogies to hammer a simplistic message. Its as if he did all his research watching TED talks, wrote a blog post, leveraged that into a book and filled it with hot air.
This is a blog post masquerading as a bad book. The entire message can be summed up into: "Your environment influences the person you are, so structure an environment that helps you be a person you want to be." There, I just saved you from reading a mind-numbing 200 pages in which the author repeats this idea ad-nauseum, never aware that this is not the least bit controversial.
Mr. Hardy wrote another cliched self-help book that uses misapplied science (jumping fleas!) and poor analogies to hammer a simplistic message. Its as if he did all his research watching TED talks, wrote a blog post, leveraged that into a book and filled it with hot air.
I was really disappointed with Leckie's latest book. Her Ancillary series was excellent, filled with dynamic, interesting characters in a complex universe. I would highly recommend them. Unfortunately, this book falls far from that high bar.
If I were to sum it up, I'd say it reads like a "young adult" novel. The plot is entirely predictable, and any tension created is very contrived and formulaic (and sometimes straight silly: see the vestiges crisis at the end of the book). All the characters are NICE, everyone is just trying to do the right thing. They're very 2 dimensional, with little color or dynamism. Almost all the secondary characters exist purely as nice people to help the protagonist Ingray solve all her problems. Whether aliens, criminals, or just strangers they're all there to to help a supposedly helpless Ingray achieve her goals.
The protagonist is a rich, powerful woman who just doesn't realise how powerful and able she is. She lurches from crisis to crisis, ably solving them all while (sometimes) holding back tears. She's clueless, yet through a combination of luck and 2D friends solves complex crises while not understanding what's going on.
The books lack of complex plot (and characters) cause the novel to drag on far too long. I found by the last quarter I didn't care a whit what happened because it was obvious by page 50 how the entire plot would unfurl.
What a good book? Go pick up Leckie's Ancillary series. And stay away from Provenance. Even as a fan show more of her universe (and I still am) I wouldn't waste my time on this book. show less
If I were to sum it up, I'd say it reads like a "young adult" novel. The plot is entirely predictable, and any tension created is very contrived and formulaic (and sometimes straight silly: see the vestiges crisis at the end of the book). All the characters are NICE, everyone is just trying to do the right thing. They're very 2 dimensional, with little color or dynamism. Almost all the secondary characters exist purely as nice people to help the protagonist Ingray solve all her problems. Whether aliens, criminals, or just strangers they're all there to to help a supposedly helpless Ingray achieve her goals.
The protagonist is a rich, powerful woman who just doesn't realise how powerful and able she is. She lurches from crisis to crisis, ably solving them all while (sometimes) holding back tears. She's clueless, yet through a combination of luck and 2D friends solves complex crises while not understanding what's going on.
The books lack of complex plot (and characters) cause the novel to drag on far too long. I found by the last quarter I didn't care a whit what happened because it was obvious by page 50 how the entire plot would unfurl.
What a good book? Go pick up Leckie's Ancillary series. And stay away from Provenance. Even as a fan show more of her universe (and I still am) I wouldn't waste my time on this book. show less
Unfortunately an interesting hard sci-fi concept (a massive bowl driven by a sun) sputters under poor writing and a lack of plot development.
First the writing. Both Gregory Benford and Larry Niven are accomplished writers, so I was very surprised to see such stilted, convoluted writing. At many points in the book I found myself confused by events purely because the writing was unclear and convoluted. It almost seemed that both authors contributed to a section and then never properly synced their writing. This happened too regularly and made the book frustrating to read.
Second, this book would work much better if it was condensed. The book just drags, exploring the bowl but without being interesting.
Ultimately, while I really wanted to like the book I just ended up bored.
First the writing. Both Gregory Benford and Larry Niven are accomplished writers, so I was very surprised to see such stilted, convoluted writing. At many points in the book I found myself confused by events purely because the writing was unclear and convoluted. It almost seemed that both authors contributed to a section and then never properly synced their writing. This happened too regularly and made the book frustrating to read.
Second, this book would work much better if it was condensed. The book just drags, exploring the bowl but without being interesting.
Ultimately, while I really wanted to like the book I just ended up bored.
A look at the development of high school and college QBs by the quarterback "gurus" who have arisen.
The content of the book is interesting, but it suffers mightily from it's organization and structure. You'll learn more names of "gurus", prospects, and their parents than you can possibly remember. It further bounces between all the people and places seemingly at random.
I finished the book feeling like I'd eaten a high calorie-low nutrition breakfast.
The content of the book is interesting, but it suffers mightily from it's organization and structure. You'll learn more names of "gurus", prospects, and their parents than you can possibly remember. It further bounces between all the people and places seemingly at random.
I finished the book feeling like I'd eaten a high calorie-low nutrition breakfast.