ferris_mx's review
3.0
An interesting but ultimately failed experiment. The text has a high degree of symmetry, with the same story told twice, once along the top of the page, and once along the bottom, backwards. The stories are quite similar but not identical because they are different perceptions. Each page's top and bottom contains a symmetrical reference. The text of both stories starts big but shrinks. In the margins there are historical facts from a time period that is centered on the Kennedy assassination, and covering a period from the civil war until the date of publication. A lot of care was taken to create this symmetrical experimental "story".
But the story is half gibberish. And the half that is not gibberish does not make much of a story. That's the big chink in this story's armor.
Some reviews have said that readers take away very different perspectives from this book. So here's mine. The two stories are bifurcations of the U.S., geographical across the Mississippi (referred to as Mishishishi), north/south, and possibly others. Much of the story takes place in St. Louis, pretty near the geographic center of the U.S., and on the Mississippi.
But the story is half gibberish. And the half that is not gibberish does not make much of a story. That's the big chink in this story's armor.
Some reviews have said that readers take away very different perspectives from this book. So here's mine. The two stories are bifurcations of the U.S., geographical across the Mississippi (referred to as Mishishishi), north/south, and possibly others. Much of the story takes place in St. Louis, pretty near the geographic center of the U.S., and on the Mississippi.
argorden's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting idea, and fun use of language, but I couldn't stay interested long enough to finish.
checkman15's review
4.0
I picked this book up because I had read "House of Leaves" and thought it would be fun to try and read another Danielewski book, since I view them as kind of a challenge read. It took me a long while for the concept of this book to really click (by a long while, I mean nearly 300 pages in on both sides). Once I figured out that the entire story is basically being told via whatever Sam and Hailey remember and how they remember it, everything suddenly made WAY more sense. The story is very captivating, and I was very touched by the extreme bond these two characters build, all the way to the end of the book. This book is definitely not for the easily frustrated or faint of heart, but is definitely worth a try if you're up for a challenge.
ricoocri's review
4.0
I've been trying to read this book since I bought it in 2008, something about the dual narratives and the shifting and the (lack of) perception of what actually happened made it slip out of my mind as soon as I read it. A few days ago MZD said the audiobook is on spotify so I gave that a chance, something about having concrete voices to Sam and Hailey really helped me! I definitely would recommend the audiobook to this one, it was really special, I'm gonna have to revisit it eventually to see if I can glean more.
fernfuentes's review
4.0
I think Mark is far ahead of his time. He does with words things nobody is doing these days, and Only Revolutions may be the greatest example of just how out there his mind is, but not enough people are talking about this man’s work! At its core, OR is a love story, a modern work of Greek Mythology, set in America. Hailey and Sam are without the bounds of time. There is no beginning, only revolutions. The layout can seem daunting at first, but that’s the point: to break conventions. If you happen to pick up this book, don’t overthink it, just dive in.
nashjulia89's review
3.0
I admire trying something experimental, I think it just wasn’t for me. Could’ve trimmed about 200 pages of this, but the overall story between Sam and Haley was sweet. Also, a lot of the time I had no clue what was going on.
aidengershwhatsit's review
adventurous
challenging
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
potophannah's review against another edition
1.0
Danielewski just dominates literary style. There is no doubt about it. No writer I know plays with that more than he does. I first read HOL and loved it, then read Fifty Year Sword....and really wanted to love it. That's where I was first introduced to his murky-water story telling. I ended up giving it three stars I believe just for the artwork and how quirky it was.
This one was like wading through that same murky water trying to catch fish with your bare hands....forever. Every once in a while you kind of feel something brush up against you and think you might understand where the "story" is going and then it just slips away again. Over and over and over. I can appreciate the style, again, just because it is SO different but...I stopped appreciating that maybe two weeks into the book and embraced the dread I started feeling whenever it was time to pick it up again. I don't like catfish and I didn't like this. I wanted to. Sometimes reading aloud I could appreciate the slam poetry feel it gave...but I just didn't like it. You shouldn't have to dread continuing the piece of literature you have stuck yourself with. I gave it one star and I'm not sorry.
Maybe a little.
This one was like wading through that same murky water trying to catch fish with your bare hands....forever. Every once in a while you kind of feel something brush up against you and think you might understand where the "story" is going and then it just slips away again. Over and over and over. I can appreciate the style, again, just because it is SO different but...I stopped appreciating that maybe two weeks into the book and embraced the dread I started feeling whenever it was time to pick it up again. I don't like catfish and I didn't like this. I wanted to. Sometimes reading aloud I could appreciate the slam poetry feel it gave...but I just didn't like it. You shouldn't have to dread continuing the piece of literature you have stuck yourself with. I gave it one star and I'm not sorry.
Maybe a little.
thisbookbelongstosk's review
2.0
I picked up this book after reading House of Leaves. I know Danielewski's writing style can obviously be disjointed, vague and at times frustrating, but part of the fun or beauty of reading his books is the experience (the aesthetic, the raw feelings it derives, the sheer fun of twisting the book in your hand to read something within the margin). So, going into this book I was willing to forgive or overlook the fragmented delivery of this story, but ultimately I think it fell short for me. Reading this book felt as though I was following this story in a drunken haze. I try to look at it as though it's poetry, which I think gives it a little more freedom to forgo sentence structure or language rules, but I just didn't enjoy the experience of reading this book the way I did with House of Leaves. It's hard to comment on the story itself, which as I mentioned is very fragmented. It was as if the author was giving a handful of vignettes featuring these characters with little deep insight into who they truly were as individuals or a couple. I think I like the premise more than the execution. Probably 2 stars, but I'll bump it to 2.5 because I always appreciate the art design of a Danielewski novel.