pandact's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
The only reason I subtract half a star is that it's been a while and I'm not sure how it aged! I remember Division By Zero most clearly because it's the kind of story you have to reread...
Spoiler
The coolest part, for me, was the way each parallel narrative was part of a proof that 1=2, which was so meta! I disagree with people saying that they're doomed as a couple because the man's whole problem was how he couldn't relate to math research, but her disastrous discovery is something he can understand. The mathematician's arc is looking for something else to find meaning in, so why can't they be two people together now?Moderate: Religious bigotry, Car accident, Grief, and Ableism
ryyy27's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Graphic: Ableism, Suicidal thoughts, Death, Suicide, and Suicide attempt
Minor: Violence
polychromatic_hedgehog_parable's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.75
1. Ted Chiang seems to me to be a very good writer
2. I disliked most of the stories in this collection
3. lmao why use the c-slur so often????
ableism:
Spoiler
"[...] your ability to interact with others is c****led. It'd be a kind of high-functioning autism."
fuck that lmao.
I'm still uncertain where I fall on discounting relationships in favour of world building etc, and certainly feel that I discount the former for the later more than some people I know. I feel like a problem I had with this collection is that it tended to concentrate on world building & philosophical ideas over compelling characters and I just... wasn't interested in any of the philosophy Ted Chiang seemed to be interested in? idk.
I also tended to prefer the stories that were more multi-fauceted/introduced multiple perspectives. Maybe: the presence of multiple perspectives makes the world seem more real or enriches the perspective of the main character?
Many of the stories had distinct writing styles, which I found to be neat! And I felt like Ted Chiang did a good job of switching?
I thought it was cool to have a section in the back for where you got your ideas for each story. That sounds potentially very fun to write/share! :O
(more ableism, eugenics)
Spoiler
tower of babylon: why have I read multiple science fiction stories about the shape of the world being a [cylinder, hyperbola, other 3D shape] instead of a sphere. I don't find these very interesting. Now I feel like I should write one, though. or find more and create a collection. they're a meme.
story of your life: I liked the movie a lot better lol. I didn't really like the story. I did cry a bit though.
seventy-two letters: "I've invented DNA so as to save poor people from eugenics" is a really weird plot for a short story. I liked that the short story engaged so directly with racism & classism, but then the resolution seemed to involve fully side stepping eugenics through the ingenious invention of DNA, in a way I feel parallels many popular understandings of eugenics as an idea that was most persuasive in Europe during the second industrial revolution. It's still persuasive. People are literally dying rn. I just had a conversation with someone who is directly targeted eugenics yesterday.
hell is the absence of god: ok I really liked this one and also found it too relatable LMAO. I enjoyed the frank, recognizable depictions of different types of christians/relationships with religion.
liking what you see: ok I literally just finished the book and will need to think more about this. but I enjoyed the format!
honestly I got this book for free somewhere and I was considering putting it back in a free little library when I was done with it but maybe I'll keep it just for the one story. maybe not.
Graphic: Ableism
c-slur up the wazoospw14's review against another edition
3.5
Moderate: Sexism and Ableism
bwwilhelm's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
5.0
Graphic: Drug use, Drug abuse, Grief, Mental illness, Panic attacks/disorders, Suicidal thoughts, and Suicide attempt
Moderate: Ableism, Death, and Medical content
Minor: Acephobia/Arophobia, Child death, Infertility, Misogyny, Racism, Sexism, Violence, and Xenophobia
booksthatburn's review against another edition
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Moderate: Death, Mental illness, Panic attacks/disorders, Suicidal thoughts, and Violence
Minor: Ableism, Bullying, Racism, Sexism, Suicide, and Torture
Tower of Babylon: CW for death. Understand: CW for anxiety, PTSD, panic attacks, major character death (not depicted), death (not depicted). Division by Zero: CW for mental illness, attempted suicide. Story of Your Life: CW for death (not depicted). Seventy-Two Letters: CW for sexism, racism, eugenics, violence, torture (not depicted), death (not depicted). The Evolution of Human Science: No major CWs. Hell is the Absence of God: CW for bullying (not depicted), ableism, discussion of suicide, major character death, death. “Liking What You see: A Documentary”: CW for sexism (minor), ableism (minor).