Scan barcode
a_zografia's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
3.75
apersonallibrary's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
chandraleereads's review against another edition
3.5
3.5/5 stars. Unsurprisingly this book is a product of its time (1919) and therefore cringy at times. That said, it was an entertaining read and it was pretty neat to see some of the roots of books like The Hunger Games and Divergent.
sjeanmurray's review
4.0
Not a bad story. It had some interesting themes but it leaned more fantasy than sci Fi. I appreciate the story being written in the time it was and some of the social commentary as a result.
cesspool_princess's review
3.0
I feel bad giving this a 3 bc I think a lot of the things I didn't like as much about it are not the book's fault. I'm just so fatigued of time travel narratives and parallel timeline narratives and the construction of the world felt very YA dystopian sci fi, but then I have to remember that this book was written in like 1916 and predates allllll of those associations and the thing is, it does have a lot going for it. The main characters are all very likeable, charming, soulful, a bit archetypal but in a fun satisfying way. The description of Ulithia was by far my favorite part, the most intriguing and exciting part, which makes me rly want to read Stevens's fantasy as opposed to the sci-fi, I'm also admittedly in a major fantasy zone and don't want sci fi right now which its my fault for reading this (its so funny how the genres are in some ways so similar but yet to me FEEL so so different, like the kind of immersion feels so different to me and I don't know why). I almost gave this 4 stars purely bc of how the explained everything in the end, I was glad it ended up not being an actual prediction of the future but rather the projection of the characters, their values and personalities. The explanation merged science and the occult in a very satisfying way instead of going the pure science route which I always dread (where is the mystery, the mystique, maybe thats why I like fantasy so much more, magic and mysticism is able to be so satisfyingly opaque, even when we know how it works, its essence is still mysterious while speculative science, futurism, while it may not explain its inner workings to you, it is always implied that those inner working are there and are based on something logical and ultimately knowable). I will also say, the way she predicted communism would be used as a scapegoat on the part of the elite to unilaterally seize insane amounts of power ended up being spot on.
bronwynmb's review
4.0
I heard of this in Monster, She Wrote and was intrigued. It was only $1 on kindle so here we are.
I think the tagline comparing this to The Hunger Games and The Man in the High Castle does it a disservice. There’re only vague similarities between this and either of those two. There is an alternate dimension or time travel; there is a sort of competition that the upper classes run, but it’s only briefly shown and is nothing like THG.
This is a really interesting earlyish fantasy/scifi. It’s a bit dated in places, but the concept is really interesting. I wanted more of Ulithia than we got, but the structure of 2118’s Philadelphia was pretty well done.
(I don’t usually picture characters as anyone specific, but I pictured Trenmore as Cleary from The Knick.)
I’m glad I read this. It is definitely worth the dollar.
I think the tagline comparing this to The Hunger Games and The Man in the High Castle does it a disservice. There’re only vague similarities between this and either of those two. There is an alternate dimension or time travel; there is a sort of competition that the upper classes run, but it’s only briefly shown and is nothing like THG.
This is a really interesting earlyish fantasy/scifi. It’s a bit dated in places, but the concept is really interesting. I wanted more of Ulithia than we got, but the structure of 2118’s Philadelphia was pretty well done.
(I don’t usually picture characters as anyone specific, but I pictured Trenmore as Cleary from The Knick.)
I’m glad I read this. It is definitely worth the dollar.
mschlat's review against another edition
4.0
This is a reprint of a tale originally serialized in a pulp magazine back in 1919 and published now as part of the Modern Library's Torchbearers imprint (honoring "women who wrote on their own terms, with boldness, creativity, and a spirit of resistance"). Not only is it a very early science fiction/fantasy novel written by a female author, but it's apparently one of the first works to explore parallel worlds (in this case, with a dystopian twist).
A note on reading early genre works: like many other stories of the time, there is a huge emphasis on exposition. It's not enough to just have the outré element, but you need to justify its origin and workings fully. (Not like these days where - poof! - we have a time machine.) Sometimes, that perceived necessity became a virtue (see most of the Sherlock Holmes canon, where the exposition is much of the story); other times, the need to explicate weighs down the narrative.
Stevens here walks a fine line between too much and too little. The engine that gets everything going is an artifact called (ta-dah!) the Head of Cerberus, which is filled with a fine grey dust. When the dust makes contact with a human being, they are transported to a strange fantasy realm which then transports them to an alternate world. (It's much like the setup in C.S. Lewis's [b:The Magician's Nephew|65605|The Magician's Nephew (Chronicles of Narnia, #6)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814770l/65605._SY75_.jpg|1031537].) Stevens spends a bunch of writing on the dust, its origins, and its power (not so interesting) and leaves the fantasy realm almost completely unexplained (ooh! mystery!).
We follow a trio: an older brother (big, strong, and Irish), his little sister (attractive - of course - and spirited), and the brother's best friend (smart, but down on his luck, and - of course - falling for the sister). Nobody is terribly nuanced, but they're all likeable enough and all have parts in moving the plot forward. After making contact with the dust, they are captured in a Philadelphia of 2118, which strongly resembles their Philadelphia of 1918, except that the social and political hierarchy has become horribly authoritarian. (Most people have no name, just a number, and nothing more than a basic practical education.) Our trio does what you might expect in such circumstances, but the epilogue takes a strange philosophical twist.
Overall, it was a fun read. Stevens relied too much on coincidence (several people get involved in the tale through botched burglaries!), but I really liked her description of the ruling class, where Superlatives (people called Strongest, Cleverest, Loveliest, etc... rule). I was thinking at the end that she was setting up a series about the dust and our trio, but from what I can tell, she never followed up on it. Recommended if you like early science fiction and fantasy writing.
A note on reading early genre works: like many other stories of the time, there is a huge emphasis on exposition. It's not enough to just have the outré element, but you need to justify its origin and workings fully. (Not like these days where - poof! - we have a time machine.) Sometimes, that perceived necessity became a virtue (see most of the Sherlock Holmes canon, where the exposition is much of the story); other times, the need to explicate weighs down the narrative.
Stevens here walks a fine line between too much and too little. The engine that gets everything going is an artifact called (ta-dah!) the Head of Cerberus, which is filled with a fine grey dust. When the dust makes contact with a human being, they are transported to a strange fantasy realm which then transports them to an alternate world. (It's much like the setup in C.S. Lewis's [b:The Magician's Nephew|65605|The Magician's Nephew (Chronicles of Narnia, #6)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814770l/65605._SY75_.jpg|1031537].) Stevens spends a bunch of writing on the dust, its origins, and its power (not so interesting) and leaves the fantasy realm almost completely unexplained (ooh! mystery!).
We follow a trio: an older brother (big, strong, and Irish), his little sister (attractive - of course - and spirited), and the brother's best friend (smart, but down on his luck, and - of course - falling for the sister). Nobody is terribly nuanced, but they're all likeable enough and all have parts in moving the plot forward. After making contact with the dust, they are captured in a Philadelphia of 2118, which strongly resembles their Philadelphia of 1918, except that the social and political hierarchy has become horribly authoritarian. (Most people have no name, just a number, and nothing more than a basic practical education.) Our trio does what you might expect in such circumstances, but the epilogue takes a strange philosophical twist.
Overall, it was a fun read. Stevens relied too much on coincidence (several people get involved in the tale through botched burglaries!), but I really liked her description of the ruling class, where Superlatives (people called Strongest, Cleverest, Loveliest, etc... rule). I was thinking at the end that she was setting up a series about the dust and our trio, but from what I can tell, she never followed up on it. Recommended if you like early science fiction and fantasy writing.
mariw's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
oysterman's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5