Scan barcode
schneehutte's reviews
13 reviews
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
Not sure if the whole incest subplot was necessary but oh well
dark
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
After letting the book sit on my bookshelf for almost one year and a half, I've finally come to read it. And boy, I don't regret a thing!
The writing style from Donna Tartt was a surprise for good. Although it makes sense that a book about Classics students would have a particular style of writing itself - "literary" writing, so to speak - it wasn't tiring or repetitive to read. I appreciated the author's attention to detail and visuals in this book, and you can see each character's mannerisms through the writing. I am not sure if it was intentional, but I loved the parallels to Dostoevsky's work. I would describe "The Secret History" as a modern retelling - with sparkles of dark academia tropes - of "Crime and Punishment", which sounds like the exact thing I would enjoy. Therefore I am not surprised to rate this book so high on my list.
I suppose I can understand the disappointment of the people who expected a murder mystery out of this book - so I am here to tell you now: it really isn't. The murder is revealed in the prologue, and it becomes quite clear who has done it as the pages go by. Besides, I believe it was the author's intention to portray all the characters in the group as being to some extent responsible for the murder, as it is their shared guilt that haunts them and leads them to their downfall (Crime and Punishment vibes!).
The characters aren't lovable, nor they are meant to be. I kept in mind that this whole story was told from the perspective of the main character Richard, who acted for the most part almost like a bystander in many events of the book. Therefore I would assume that his vision of many characters such as Camilla, Henry, Julian, and many more, is completely romanticized and inaccurate. But I believe that only comes to show how unlikable in "real life" Richard truly is, and how he fits with the rest of the group by being just as arrogant as everyone else - despite coming from humbler origins. However, the scene where he wants to hurt - even rape - Camilla surprised me how low he was. I am not sure it fits entirely his character and I must confess, I had to read that passage a couple of times...
I thought the pacing hurt the overall progression a little. Despite liking slow-paced books, some passages were daunting to read and it was difficult to keep up with the motivation. But when it ramps up, then it ramps up - and you have no idea where the book is going, which adds more and more to the mysterious aspect that surrounds the characters around Richard (especially Henry). Almost all the characters - even not-so-important ones such as Judy - had strong personalities and I liked reading about them.
The ending was somewhat satisfying, but I don't think there is much to add to this. A story this dark and creepy couldn't have a positive ending without sounding strange - so I am glad it decided to take a "middle-ground" route, so to speak. What I would have enjoyed seeing more was the ritual that Henry, Camilla, Francis, and Charles did, which resulted in the death of the first man. I think the exploration of "losing control of yourself" could have been more interesting as just saying "yeah we kinda did that" and having just a monologue about it.
Despite referencing Greek myths and literature, it is not necessary to have much knowledge of them to understand the story, which is good. I'm on break right now, do you think I want to spend my time doing supplementary reading?
The writing style from Donna Tartt was a surprise for good. Although it makes sense that a book about Classics students would have a particular style of writing itself - "literary" writing, so to speak - it wasn't tiring or repetitive to read. I appreciated the author's attention to detail and visuals in this book, and you can see each character's mannerisms through the writing. I am not sure if it was intentional, but I loved the parallels to Dostoevsky's work. I would describe "The Secret History" as a modern retelling - with sparkles of dark academia tropes - of "Crime and Punishment", which sounds like the exact thing I would enjoy. Therefore I am not surprised to rate this book so high on my list.
I suppose I can understand the disappointment of the people who expected a murder mystery out of this book - so I am here to tell you now: it really isn't. The murder is revealed in the prologue, and it becomes quite clear who has done it as the pages go by. Besides, I believe it was the author's intention to portray all the characters in the group as being to some extent responsible for the murder, as it is their shared guilt that haunts them and leads them to their downfall (Crime and Punishment vibes!).
The characters aren't lovable, nor they are meant to be. I kept in mind that this whole story was told from the perspective of the main character Richard, who acted for the most part almost like a bystander in many events of the book. Therefore I would assume that his vision of many characters such as Camilla, Henry, Julian, and many more, is completely romanticized and inaccurate. But I believe that only comes to show how unlikable in "real life" Richard truly is, and how he fits with the rest of the group by being just as arrogant as everyone else - despite coming from humbler origins.
I thought the pacing hurt the overall progression a little. Despite liking slow-paced books, some passages were daunting to read and it was difficult to keep up with the motivation. But when it ramps up, then it ramps up - and you have no idea where the book is going, which adds more and more to the mysterious aspect that surrounds the characters around Richard (especially Henry). Almost all the characters - even not-so-important ones such as Judy - had strong personalities and I liked reading about them.
The ending was somewhat satisfying, but I don't think there is much to add to this. A story this dark and creepy couldn't have a positive ending without sounding strange - so I am glad it decided to take a "middle-ground" route, so to speak.
Despite referencing Greek myths and literature, it is not necessary to have much knowledge of them to understand the story, which is good. I'm on break right now, do you think I want to spend my time doing supplementary reading?
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Bullying, Drug abuse, Drug use, Self harm, Murder, Toxic friendship, and Alcohol
Moderate: Animal cruelty, Animal death, Incest, and Blood
O Homem de Giz by C.J. Tudor
adventurous
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
Finalmente uma review em português por aqui!
Eu preciso admitir que terror e suspense é exatamente a minha praia e o meu tipo de gênero favorito - e portanto, já ganha certa vantagem quando eu o comparo com outros livros. Talvez seja uma vantagem desleal, mas o que posso fazer? É o meu ponto fraco.
"O Homem de Giz" foi recomendado por uma amiga minha (recomendado talvez seja uma palavra forte, já que ela não gosta de terror) e eu imediatamente coloquei na minha lista quando ela mencionou ser terror psicológico. O enredo em si é extremamente similar à Stephen King - eu diria que quase beira um plágio, com vários subplots iguais à IT, até mesmo personagens com nomes e personalidades idênticas - apesar da escrita ser bem mais simples. A escrita simples, porém, não torna a história menos interessante ou assustadora: a autora consegue muito bem criar uma atmosfera de terror com poucas palavras.
O fato dos personagens não serem muito cativantes e muitas vezes com atitude questionável (incluindo o protagonista) aqui é facilmente perdoado: afinal, estamos falando de terror. Todos tem um segredo, o que contribui para a construção de um enredo todo conectado, como teias de aranha. No geral, a história sendo escrita em forma de flashbacks e flash-fowards também foi de meu agrado, ajudando os leitores a observar o impacto dos eventos do passado nos personagens nos dias de hoje, além de tornar o enredo mais dinâmico. Eu admito que fiquei assustada e tensa em várias partes da história, o que para mim mostra que a autora conseguiu o que queria.
Eu não consigo me estender muito aqui sem dar spoilers, mas acho justo mencionar algumas ressalvas. Até 80% do livro, eu estava quase certa de que iria dar cinco estrelas pra ele: eu estava entretida, e com exceção de achar a escrita talvez rápida demais, eu estava disposta a ignorar isso em prol da tensão que a autora conseguiu construir com tanta maestria. Porém... o final é bem decepcionante. Talvez porque minhas expectativas não foram concretizadas, ou talvez por tudo ter sido o produto de várias coincidências convenientes (o que eu não gosto).Ao meu ver, a autora construiu uma narrativa que me levou a pensar que Eddie seria o assassino. Ele é mentiroso, compulsivo, cleptomaníaco, além de ter uma estranha queda por garotas adolescentes (mesmo ele tendo mais de 40 anos), que muitas vezes ele tenta omitir dos leitores de maneira muito sutil. Isso tudo faria mais sentido se ele tivesse uma participação maior nos eventos trágicos da cidade. Mas no final, isso é tudo: Eddie é só perturbador sem muito motivo. Ele decide roubar coisas (inclusive a cabeça de Elisa) simplesmente para... chocar os leitores? Achei que o grand finale merecido do enredo seria a revelação que Eddie seria o grande manipulador de tudo - ou talvez ter dupla personalidade à lá Jeckyll e Hyde. E ironicamente, a explicação da autora fez menos sentido do que eu tinha imaginado (assim como muitos leitores, lendo as reviews daqui...). Eu ainda me pergunto como diabos um senhor de quase 90 anos de idade conseguiu acabar com dois marmanjos e uma jovem adulta com tanta facilidade...
A pedofilia é um tópico recorrente no livro, e nem sempre mencionada de maneira negativa. Eu não sou contra colocar tópicos pesados e discuti-los em livros (principalmente de terror, onde nossa zona de conforto é colocada em prova), mas do jeito que esse tema foi tratado aqui, foi bem estranho. De novo, acho que Eddie ser um tarado estranho teria sido melhor se ele fosse o assassino. Ele é culpado de algumas coisas, claro (já que ele desenhou os homens de giz em primeiro lugar), mas foi como se a... preferência nojenta dele fosse apenas mais um "quirk" da sua personalidade, e não uma falha. De qualquer maneira, não sei se interpretei errado isso, ou se mais pessoas se sentiram assim. Eddie claramente não foi escrito para ser um personagem agradável e foi feito para o leitor desconfiar dele, mas eu ainda acho que essa parte dele merecia uma crítica mais dura: principalmente por parte dos outros personagens que convivem com ele. Justo mencionar que abuso, estupro, e violência são também temas do livro, caso alguém precise de um alerta de gatilho.
No geral, foi esse final decepcionante que abaixou meia estrela da perfeição. Ainda mantive 4,5, porém: em nome dos primeiros 80%. Me prendeu. Cumpriu sua função, além de me motivar a ler mais: o que nos dias de hoje, não está fácil. Com certeza irei tentar outros livros da Tudor: pelo que eu entendi, outras pessoas acharam a suas outras publicações mais interessantes.
Mais uma observação (mas isso não tem nada a ver com o livro em si, e não afeta minha review): fiquei também um pouco decepcionada com a tradução.No começo, inclusive, o tradutor traduziu o "they" para o plural em português, dando a entender que um grupo de pessoas achou a cabeça da Elise. Porém, o uso correto do "they" nesse caso é para indicar o singular, porém com o gênero indefinido - como o uso de pronomes de pessoas não-binárias em inglês. Atrapalhou um pouco a compreensão e mudou completamente o sentido do prólogo. Além de alguns erros de edição, o encadernamento da editora Intrínseca (que eu gosto!) se rasgou quando eu abri o livro pela primeira vez. A escolha da capa dura não foi das melhores...
Eu preciso admitir que terror e suspense é exatamente a minha praia e o meu tipo de gênero favorito - e portanto, já ganha certa vantagem quando eu o comparo com outros livros. Talvez seja uma vantagem desleal, mas o que posso fazer? É o meu ponto fraco.
"O Homem de Giz" foi recomendado por uma amiga minha (recomendado talvez seja uma palavra forte, já que ela não gosta de terror) e eu imediatamente coloquei na minha lista quando ela mencionou ser terror psicológico. O enredo em si é extremamente similar à Stephen King - eu diria que quase beira um plágio, com vários subplots iguais à IT, até mesmo personagens com nomes e personalidades idênticas - apesar da escrita ser bem mais simples. A escrita simples, porém, não torna a história menos interessante ou assustadora: a autora consegue muito bem criar uma atmosfera de terror com poucas palavras.
O fato dos personagens não serem muito cativantes e muitas vezes com atitude questionável (incluindo o protagonista) aqui é facilmente perdoado: afinal, estamos falando de terror. Todos tem um segredo, o que contribui para a construção de um enredo todo conectado, como teias de aranha. No geral, a história sendo escrita em forma de flashbacks e flash-fowards também foi de meu agrado, ajudando os leitores a observar o impacto dos eventos do passado nos personagens nos dias de hoje, além de tornar o enredo mais dinâmico. Eu admito que fiquei assustada e tensa em várias partes da história, o que para mim mostra que a autora conseguiu o que queria.
Eu não consigo me estender muito aqui sem dar spoilers, mas acho justo mencionar algumas ressalvas. Até 80% do livro, eu estava quase certa de que iria dar cinco estrelas pra ele: eu estava entretida, e com exceção de achar a escrita talvez rápida demais, eu estava disposta a ignorar isso em prol da tensão que a autora conseguiu construir com tanta maestria. Porém... o final é bem decepcionante. Talvez porque minhas expectativas não foram concretizadas, ou talvez por tudo ter sido o produto de várias coincidências convenientes (o que eu não gosto).
A pedofilia é um tópico recorrente no livro, e nem sempre mencionada de maneira negativa. Eu não sou contra colocar tópicos pesados e discuti-los em livros (principalmente de terror, onde nossa zona de conforto é colocada em prova), mas do jeito que esse tema foi tratado aqui, foi bem estranho.
No geral, foi esse final decepcionante que abaixou meia estrela da perfeição. Ainda mantive 4,5, porém: em nome dos primeiros 80%. Me prendeu. Cumpriu sua função, além de me motivar a ler mais: o que nos dias de hoje, não está fácil. Com certeza irei tentar outros livros da Tudor: pelo que eu entendi, outras pessoas acharam a suas outras publicações mais interessantes.
Mais uma observação (mas isso não tem nada a ver com o livro em si, e não afeta minha review): fiquei também um pouco decepcionada com a tradução.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Bullying, Child abuse, Child death, Abortion, Murder, and Alcohol
Minor: Animal death
People We Meet on Vacation by Emily Henry
emotional
funny
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Ironically, I read this during my vacation. Should I read "Beach Read" when I go to the beach?
I am not the biggest fan of romance books, but sometimes I allow myself to indulge in them and enjoy the somewhat unrealistic plots. This book has, after all, my favorite tropes in romance: slow burn, and friends-to-lovers... But I got my remarks, especially about the main character, Poppy (after Blood and Ash, I already developed a dislike towards this name, and this book is not helping).
Since it is vacation and this book is supposed to meet this vibe, I will go for a very simple and "chill" bullet-pointed review for this one. I think it makes my thoughts clearer. Since I don't want to end this on a bad note, let's start with my nitpicks. Then I will move on to the things that I liked about this book.
Dislikes:
- Look, I know slow burn is supposed to be slow - but well, 12 years of dramatic and sexual tension is a very long time. Most of Alex' and Poppy's problems could have been resolved with honest, heart-to-heart conversations about their feelings, like adults. Instead of being cute, the slowness became extremely annoying (which I think justifies some users saying that the last chapters of the book were what saved the plot. Because the other chapters sure haven't).
- The fact that they are... barely purely friends. I think Poppy mentions it at one point, but since the beginning of their relationship, they already act like boyfriend and girlfriend - being touchy, banter, saying "I love you" all the time - and brush everything off as a really good friendship. This can be cute in some situations (the "oh-we-are-not-dating" trope), but in the way it was written, it made things so pathetically obvious to everyone, and even more unbelievable that they kept it like this for 12 years. And they take it to an extreme too: I don't think sharing beds, sleeping together, hugging and kissing foreheads are things that friends (even if you are at a will-it-be-more-than-friendship-one-day state) do and brush off so easily.
- Poppy. I know the last chapters touch on this (so I am tempted to forgive some parts), but GODDAMN is this girl childish. I am sorry, I know we are supposed to feel sympathy for her after what happened in her childhood, but this woman is supposed to be 28. She dates any other guy just not to say her feelings for Alex for... no reason? She is exactly like the "girl-best friend" who doesn't allow her male friends to see anyone because she needs to be the center of attention while giving them false hope and picturing the girlfriend as a monster, because "how dare she take him away from me". . In this entire thing, I just felt bad for Sarah.
- This might come off as a personal nitpick, but I don't like the "opposites attract" trope. Having different interests is one thing, but being the complete opposite of each other is another. I know that Poppy and Alex have several interests in common, but in real life, their lifestyles aren't compatible. I am glad they made it work believably at the end - so that's forgiven - but at the beginning, I was quite skeptical.
- I honestly think this book would be so much better without their break-up stories. Let's be honest: Poppy and Alex were cheating on their partners. Cheating doesn't need to be physical, in my opinion. They essentially played with other people (especially Poppy) while expecting to be with someone else and expecting their partners to be okay with that. Again, I feel bad for Sarah. Sarah breaking up with Alex by saying an awful thing was a way for the author to make us not sympathize with her and picture Poppy as the hero. Felt fake and like a plot device.
Now let's go for likes!
- The writing positively surprised me. I liked Emily Henry's style: it is simple, clear, and sometimes gives thoughtful insights - which very much fits the summer vacation vibe. Some millennials cringe here and there, sure, but amidst the good writing parts, I will overlook it. I think the plot structure with the flashbacks could be annoying for some, but I liked it. I felt it guided the story pretty well and made me invested.
- The background stories. An important part, at least in my opinion, about the "opposites attract" trope is how their personalities came to be - and why. This is mostly overlooked in books, but not on this one. I loved hearing about Alex's backstory and his brothers, and Poppy and how she feels protective of her family. It justifies some parts of their behavior and does a good job of making me feel connected to their characters. I wish we could get more of this.
- The end. By reading the book cover, you can already predict how 90% of the book is gonna go, so I would suppose the big difference is what happens in the end. I must say, it was somehow a satisfying conclusion. I liked Alex's final words and telling Poppy his mind, I liked her searching for therapy to solve her problems, and I liked the fact that they finally (FINALLY!) were able to talk like adults just for once. I liked the conversation with Jason Stanley and Poppy facing her fears, and overcoming academic burnout. That (as opposed to the 12-year slow burn) was very, very real. I think just the final paragraphs were enough to bump a solid 0,5 star to my original 3-star review of this.
- Alex. My time to be cheesy, but I fall hard for gentlemen. I won't elaborate more.
- If I said that the slow burn dragged and annoyed me at the beginning of the book, what happens at around 75% overruns it. Once the slow burn, well, burns, I got a very cute couple with very cute dialogue.
I think I will be trying more of Emily Henry. As long as there are no more third-party break-ups, I think I found another author on my list!
I am not the biggest fan of romance books, but sometimes I allow myself to indulge in them and enjoy the somewhat unrealistic plots. This book has, after all, my favorite tropes in romance: slow burn, and friends-to-lovers... But I got my remarks, especially about the main character, Poppy (after Blood and Ash, I already developed a dislike towards this name, and this book is not helping).
Since it is vacation and this book is supposed to meet this vibe, I will go for a very simple and "chill" bullet-pointed review for this one. I think it makes my thoughts clearer. Since I don't want to end this on a bad note, let's start with my nitpicks. Then I will move on to the things that I liked about this book.
Dislikes:
- Look, I know slow burn is supposed to be slow - but well, 12 years of dramatic and sexual tension is a very long time. Most of Alex' and Poppy's problems could have been resolved with honest, heart-to-heart conversations about their feelings, like adults. Instead of being cute, the slowness became extremely annoying (which I think justifies some users saying that the last chapters of the book were what saved the plot. Because the other chapters sure haven't).
- The fact that they are... barely purely friends. I think Poppy mentions it at one point, but since the beginning of their relationship, they already act like boyfriend and girlfriend - being touchy, banter, saying "I love you" all the time - and brush everything off as a really good friendship. This can be cute in some situations (the "oh-we-are-not-dating" trope), but in the way it was written, it made things so pathetically obvious to everyone, and even more unbelievable that they kept it like this for 12 years. And they take it to an extreme too: I don't think sharing beds, sleeping together, hugging and kissing foreheads are things that friends (even if you are at a will-it-be-more-than-friendship-one-day state) do and brush off so easily.
- Poppy.
- This might come off as a personal nitpick, but I don't like the "opposites attract" trope. Having different interests is one thing, but being the complete opposite of each other is another. I know that Poppy and Alex have several interests in common, but in real life, their lifestyles aren't compatible. I am glad they made it work believably at the end - so that's forgiven - but at the beginning, I was quite skeptical.
- I honestly think this book would be so much better without their break-up stories. Let's be honest: Poppy and Alex were cheating on their partners. Cheating doesn't need to be physical, in my opinion. They essentially played with other people (especially Poppy) while expecting to be with someone else and expecting their partners to be okay with that. Again, I feel bad for Sarah.
Now let's go for likes!
- The writing positively surprised me. I liked Emily Henry's style: it is simple, clear, and sometimes gives thoughtful insights - which very much fits the summer vacation vibe. Some millennials cringe here and there, sure, but amidst the good writing parts, I will overlook it. I think the plot structure with the flashbacks could be annoying for some, but I liked it. I felt it guided the story pretty well and made me invested.
- The background stories. An important part, at least in my opinion, about the "opposites attract" trope is how their personalities came to be - and why. This is mostly overlooked in books, but not on this one. I loved hearing about Alex's backstory and his brothers, and Poppy and how she feels protective of her family. It justifies some parts of their behavior and does a good job of making me feel connected to their characters. I wish we could get more of this.
- The end.
- Alex. My time to be cheesy, but I fall hard for gentlemen. I won't elaborate more.
- If I said that the slow burn dragged and annoyed me at the beginning of the book, what happens at around 75% overruns it. Once the slow burn, well, burns, I got a very cute couple with very cute dialogue.
I think I will be trying more of Emily Henry. As long as there are no more third-party break-ups, I think I found another author on my list!
From Blood and Ash by Jennifer L. Armentrout
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.0
How about this one? I call it: "From Blood and Ash".
More like... it belongs in the trash!
So let's move on to the review, shall we? I will be honest: for most of the book, I was thinking about giving it a solid 2 stars. The plot isn't good, the characters are awful, it is overall poorly written, and the editing is questionable at best. But somewhere in the back of my head, I was thinking: "This had so much potential". Some things caught my eye, and some pieces of the story were interesting... but man, even those mere 2 starts were ruined by certain Hawke lines at the end of the book. Because let me tell you, the plot was unbearable - until it got so much worse.
And after so many "I sucked in a sharp breath"s, thousands of "I am the Maiden, the Chosen"s, and infinite "Oh my gods", I couldn't help but give this book one star.
Now, let's break this down into parts. I am honestly glad to be writing this because this is my first rant review. Ironically this book saved my reading slump during this summer break because sometimes I do love a trashy, poorly-written trainwreck. I swear, I don't think a single chapter went by without me stopping and rolling my eyes or just wanting to throw the book at the wall.
First point: the plot.
I went to read this book completely blind, I had no idea it was famous on TikTok until a friend saw me reading it and commented on it. And let me say, even after 300 pages, I still had no idea what was going on - because I refuse to believe that, unless you read the book before, you understood the plot. Info-dump after info-dump and bam! we still get nothing.
Were you trying to figure out what the Ascension is? Well too bad, because there are weird monsters now. Trying to understand what the monsters do? Too late, there is now a mist that brings destruction to the town. Sorry, were you trying to see how the mist is relevant to the plot? Oh oops, it is time for vampires, werewolves, new magic powers, an unclear societal structure, and a world-building with so little detail that makes you too busy filling the holes the author didn't bother to. You think the plot is going somewhere with a murder mystery when it suddenly becomes about the main character getting wet over the hot guy she met five minutes ago - and hear her complaining about other characters that do the same.
And while I do understand why things were left unclear with a purpose, let me write this here. At least for me, plot twists and cliffhangers are most effective when they turn the world that we knew (or thought we knew) upside down. But in this book, there is nothing to be turned upside down because guess what: we don't know this world at all! Somehow they have electricity, but live in a medieval city? They speak like 21th century people, and live in castles? How does the magic work? How many creatures are there? How does the Royal family work, and the politics? It feels like the author picked whatever concept seemed cool and decided "Let's put this here because why not". The "Rise"? Really? Please just call it the Wall and name all guards Jon Snow. The Mist? Wolven? Vampry? Tell me you read Twilight without telling me you did.
The massacre at the Rite? Please just say Red Wedding, it is easier. "The War of Two Kings????" Are you serious?? JLA, I think you meant The War of Five Kings, because that's how it is in Game of Thrones.
And still, I could enjoy some parts of the book. Because even among all this nonsense, some ideas and moments were cool - which made me think this plot had so! much! potential! A kingdom of vampires that control the population through religion and make the people sacrifice their children in the name of God? This is such a cool, interesting, and dark prompt, that could render so many possibilities and good plot twists. That is where my humble 1-star comes from.
The second point: is the characters. Yes, please, let's talk about them.
Poppy: the main character. Does she read books? Check. Is she good at fighting (but of course, not as well as the romantic interest, so he can still beat her and remain "masculine")? Check. Is she not-like-the-other-girls because she doesn't think about boys? Half-check, because she does judge women who swoon over Hawke (even though she does the same). Is she very pretty and every man likes her, even though she doesn't notice it? Check. As far as we can tell, she is just a sheltered, naive girl who falls in love with the first guy she meets and is (somewhat) decent to her. There is nothing wrong with a character like this - as long as the author knows what they are doing. But the book presents Poppy as being extremely smart and "badass", and she isn't. She is quite non-observant, misses clues easily, and acts very childish (and again, this could lead to great character development, but... nope, that doesn't happen). And what is up with the characters' names in this book? Wasn't "Penelope" a good name? Naaahh, let's name her "Penellaphe" - isn't that wonderful and quirky?
Hawke: ooooh man. I will now describe this character: he is hot. He has thick lashes (believe me, the book doesn't let you forget that) and golden eyes (that neither). Hobbies? None that I know of. What does he like? I don't know. What is he good at? Fighting, killing, murdering, and please feel free to insert whatever emo and dark thing that pops into your mind. Hawke probably listens to My Chemical Romance and has a PlayStation profile named "The Dark One" or "Lord of Darkness" - and probably abuses and rapes young girls for a sport - but hey, it is all good and forgiven, because... he is hot. Besides being his only personality trait, his hotness saves him from crimes (at least from Poppy's perspective).
Hawke is the reason why I couldn't stand this book - the way his actions are presented as sexy and charming made me wanna puke. He kisses goodbye to consent in a heartbeat, is patronizing towards Poppy, and is unbearable towards pretty much anyone. His relationship with Poppy was one of the funniest things I have ever read. Her character is about choice and having her own life and freedom, and she chooses the guy who forces her to do anything he wants.
I swear, there is a scene where she has to drink his blood (don't ask), and he says something along those lines: "Now choose to drink my blood, or I will make that choice for you." And then Poppy goes on and on about how he is such a good guy to her because he gave her a choice. Uhh, sir? This is the same thing as pointing a gun toward someone and saying: "You give your wallet now or I will shoot you, but you can choose to give me your wallet". I am sorry, but that isn't a choice, and I am baffled by how Poppy fell for this.
But that even isn't the main problem with this book. The pacing is all off - especially with the smut scenes. It is difficult to describe this without spoiling the plot, but the author insists on putting the porn in the most awful moments in the story. Sure, it is sexy when the characters share a moment after a romantic night, or after an emotional encounter - not when other characters are dying next to them! It is a huuuuge letdown, and just odd how people seem to think that this is somehow hot.
Have I mentioned the scene where Poppy remembers her wet dream with Hawke as her friend is being burned at the pyre?
Or how she stabs Hawke and five minutes later (literally) they are fucking each other? Or how Hawke makes sexual remarks after revealing he killed all the people she cared about? Or hmm... how her cloak "rips at her tight" mid-battle? Yeah. As I said, the pacing is off.
And even though I hated this book to pieces, who knows... I might read the next one. Writing this rant brought me peace of mind - and as I said, I do love a literary trainwreck.
And I am never looking at honeydew the same way again.
More like... it belongs in the trash!
So let's move on to the review, shall we? I will be honest: for most of the book, I was thinking about giving it a solid 2 stars. The plot isn't good, the characters are awful, it is overall poorly written, and the editing is questionable at best. But somewhere in the back of my head, I was thinking: "This had so much potential". Some things caught my eye, and some pieces of the story were interesting... but man, even those mere 2 starts were ruined by certain Hawke lines at the end of the book. Because let me tell you, the plot was unbearable - until it got so much worse.
And after so many "I sucked in a sharp breath"s, thousands of "I am the Maiden, the Chosen"s, and infinite "Oh my gods", I couldn't help but give this book one star.
Now, let's break this down into parts. I am honestly glad to be writing this because this is my first rant review. Ironically this book saved my reading slump during this summer break because sometimes I do love a trashy, poorly-written trainwreck. I swear, I don't think a single chapter went by without me stopping and rolling my eyes or just wanting to throw the book at the wall.
First point: the plot.
I went to read this book completely blind, I had no idea it was famous on TikTok until a friend saw me reading it and commented on it. And let me say, even after 300 pages, I still had no idea what was going on - because I refuse to believe that, unless you read the book before, you understood the plot. Info-dump after info-dump and bam! we still get nothing.
Were you trying to figure out what the Ascension is? Well too bad, because there are weird monsters now. Trying to understand what the monsters do? Too late, there is now a mist that brings destruction to the town. Sorry, were you trying to see how the mist is relevant to the plot? Oh oops, it is time for vampires, werewolves, new magic powers, an unclear societal structure, and a world-building with so little detail that makes you too busy filling the holes the author didn't bother to. You think the plot is going somewhere with a murder mystery when it suddenly becomes about the main character getting wet over the hot guy she met five minutes ago - and hear her complaining about other characters that do the same.
And while I do understand why things were left unclear with a purpose, let me write this here. At least for me, plot twists and cliffhangers are most effective when they turn the world that we knew (or thought we knew) upside down. But in this book, there is nothing to be turned upside down because guess what: we don't know this world at all! Somehow they have electricity, but live in a medieval city? They speak like 21th century people, and live in castles? How does the magic work? How many creatures are there? How does the Royal family work, and the politics? It feels like the author picked whatever concept seemed cool and decided "Let's put this here because why not". The "Rise"? Really? Please just call it the Wall and name all guards Jon Snow. The Mist? Wolven? Vampry? Tell me you read Twilight without telling me you did.
The massacre at the Rite? Please just say Red Wedding, it is easier. "The War of Two Kings????" Are you serious?? JLA, I think you meant The War of Five Kings, because that's how it is in Game of Thrones.
And still, I could enjoy some parts of the book. Because even among all this nonsense, some ideas and moments were cool - which made me think this plot had so! much! potential! A kingdom of vampires that control the population through religion and make the people sacrifice their children in the name of God? This is such a cool, interesting, and dark prompt, that could render so many possibilities and good plot twists. That is where my humble 1-star comes from.
The second point: is the characters. Yes, please, let's talk about them.
Poppy: the main character. Does she read books? Check. Is she good at fighting (but of course, not as well as the romantic interest, so he can still beat her and remain "masculine")? Check. Is she not-like-the-other-girls because she doesn't think about boys? Half-check, because she does judge women who swoon over Hawke (even though she does the same). Is she very pretty and every man likes her, even though she doesn't notice it? Check. As far as we can tell, she is just a sheltered, naive girl who falls in love with the first guy she meets and is (somewhat) decent to her. There is nothing wrong with a character like this - as long as the author knows what they are doing. But the book presents Poppy as being extremely smart and "badass", and she isn't. She is quite non-observant, misses clues easily, and acts very childish (and again, this could lead to great character development, but... nope, that doesn't happen). And what is up with the characters' names in this book? Wasn't "Penelope" a good name? Naaahh, let's name her "Penellaphe" - isn't that wonderful and quirky?
Hawke: ooooh man. I will now describe this character: he is hot. He has thick lashes (believe me, the book doesn't let you forget that) and golden eyes (that neither). Hobbies? None that I know of. What does he like? I don't know. What is he good at? Fighting, killing, murdering, and please feel free to insert whatever emo and dark thing that pops into your mind. Hawke probably listens to My Chemical Romance and has a PlayStation profile named "The Dark One" or "Lord of Darkness" - and probably abuses and rapes young girls for a sport - but hey, it is all good and forgiven, because... he is hot. Besides being his only personality trait, his hotness saves him from crimes (at least from Poppy's perspective).
Hawke is the reason why I couldn't stand this book - the way his actions are presented as sexy and charming made me wanna puke. He kisses goodbye to consent in a heartbeat, is patronizing towards Poppy, and is unbearable towards pretty much anyone. His relationship with Poppy was one of the funniest things I have ever read. Her character is about choice and having her own life and freedom, and she chooses the guy who forces her to do anything he wants.
I swear, there is a scene where she has to drink his blood (don't ask), and he says something along those lines: "Now choose to drink my blood, or I will make that choice for you." And then Poppy goes on and on about how he is such a good guy to her because he gave her a choice. Uhh, sir? This is the same thing as pointing a gun toward someone and saying: "You give your wallet now or I will shoot you, but you can choose to give me your wallet". I am sorry, but that isn't a choice, and I am baffled by how Poppy fell for this.
But that even isn't the main problem with this book. The pacing is all off - especially with the smut scenes. It is difficult to describe this without spoiling the plot, but the author insists on putting the porn in the most awful moments in the story. Sure, it is sexy when the characters share a moment after a romantic night, or after an emotional encounter - not when other characters are dying next to them! It is a huuuuge letdown, and just odd how people seem to think that this is somehow hot.
Have I mentioned the scene where Poppy remembers her wet dream with Hawke as her friend is being burned at the pyre?
Or how she stabs Hawke and five minutes later (literally) they are fucking each other? Or how Hawke makes sexual remarks after revealing he killed all the people she cared about? Or hmm... how her cloak "rips at her tight" mid-battle? Yeah. As I said, the pacing is off.
And even though I hated this book to pieces, who knows... I might read the next one. Writing this rant brought me peace of mind - and as I said, I do love a literary trainwreck.
And I am never looking at honeydew the same way again.
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
challenging
dark
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Well well well... after starting this book almost 6 months ago, I can only say that I am happy that I finished this before my birthday. I remember being excited about this book after seeing it in an episode of "Pretty Little Liars", and when I finally got it during Christmas, I thought this "thin book" was what was going to save me from a really long reading slump. A good literary kick, so to say. But boy, was I wrong!
Now, let me start by saying that this review of 3 stars is not because, as I am sure many people say, this book is disgusting, with a disgusting main character and theme. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely adore the controversial and taboo exploration. And of course, Lolita has all that: it is famous for that. For those who don't know: the main character, Humbert Humbert, is a pedophile that, after the loss of his childhood lover, seeks in young girls the characteristics of his past lover (girls aged 7 to 12, which he calls "nymphets") - until he meets Lolita, a 12-year-old American girl. And he decides that he would do anything to keep his control over her, and does atrocious things to this child and her mother, to keep Lolita in his cycle of abuse.
Now, after finishing the book, I have seen many critiques and analyses that claim that this book is a perfect example of an unreliable narrator. This is of course true. Humbert claims that Lolita, at one point, seduced him - that is of course not true. Lolita had no way of "seducing" him, as she doesn't truly know what "seduction" really is. But Humbert Humbert never "grew" on me the way that many readers describe he does: he is supposed to be this charming, handsome, intelligent man - but looking at the horrible crimes he commits page by page, it is really hard to look beyond the monster he is. I think Nabokov intended for the audience to (and I emphasize!) GUILTY sympathize with the main character as he shows part of his personality. I didn't feel this way at all and was honestly disturbed by everything he did, even if it is for Lolita's sake (in his vision, at least).
Now, why did I give this book 3 stars? After all, it is a complex book with complex themes, an interesting character, and a reflective piece of literary work - my style. So why?
Well, ironically, it is because of the writing - which I know is people's favorite part of this book. Nabokov can write beautifully. Too beautifully.
I had, every 2 pages, to search for a new word or straight up read a summary of what had just happened because the language was so difficult. The wording is poetic but confusing, the narrative was well-written but slow, and some chapters felt like torture. I will admit, English is not my first language (and neither is Nabokov's!), but one thing this book showed me is that I don't know English at all. The pacing being so slow didn't help either. The story dragged on and on, with descriptive paragraphs occupying pages and pages. It was so hard to concentrate while reading this story, that every time I picked up the book I just felt very unmotivated to finish - and with the pacing the way it was, I knew it might take a while for something impactful to happen in the story. And, as much as I know that it is a part of Humbert's character to write so "prose-ish" and "literary-ish", I just couldn't take it for very long. If anything, it made me even more annoyed at him, as I felt he was stalling the story to hide his atrocious crimes.
I guess the only way of knowing the true amount of stars I would give this book is to read it in Portuguese, my mother tongue. Because otherwise, I don't think I am re-reading this anytime soon, and it left my reading slump worse than ever. Sorry Nabokov, I think you are too good for me!
Now, let me start by saying that this review of 3 stars is not because, as I am sure many people say, this book is disgusting, with a disgusting main character and theme. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely adore the controversial and taboo exploration. And of course, Lolita has all that: it is famous for that. For those who don't know: the main character, Humbert Humbert, is a pedophile that, after the loss of his childhood lover, seeks in young girls the characteristics of his past lover (girls aged 7 to 12, which he calls "nymphets") - until he meets Lolita, a 12-year-old American girl. And he decides that he would do anything to keep his control over her, and does atrocious things to this child and her mother, to keep Lolita in his cycle of abuse.
Now, after finishing the book, I have seen many critiques and analyses that claim that this book is a perfect example of an unreliable narrator. This is of course true. Humbert claims that Lolita, at one point, seduced him - that is of course not true. Lolita had no way of "seducing" him, as she doesn't truly know what "seduction" really is. But Humbert Humbert never "grew" on me the way that many readers describe he does: he is supposed to be this charming, handsome, intelligent man - but looking at the horrible crimes he commits page by page, it is really hard to look beyond the monster he is. I think Nabokov intended for the audience to (and I emphasize!) GUILTY sympathize with the main character as he shows part of his personality. I didn't feel this way at all and was honestly disturbed by everything he did, even if it is for Lolita's sake (in his vision, at least).
Now, why did I give this book 3 stars? After all, it is a complex book with complex themes, an interesting character, and a reflective piece of literary work - my style. So why?
Well, ironically, it is because of the writing - which I know is people's favorite part of this book. Nabokov can write beautifully. Too beautifully.
I had, every 2 pages, to search for a new word or straight up read a summary of what had just happened because the language was so difficult. The wording is poetic but confusing, the narrative was well-written but slow, and some chapters felt like torture. I will admit, English is not my first language (and neither is Nabokov's!), but one thing this book showed me is that I don't know English at all. The pacing being so slow didn't help either. The story dragged on and on, with descriptive paragraphs occupying pages and pages. It was so hard to concentrate while reading this story, that every time I picked up the book I just felt very unmotivated to finish - and with the pacing the way it was, I knew it might take a while for something impactful to happen in the story. And, as much as I know that it is a part of Humbert's character to write so "prose-ish" and "literary-ish", I just couldn't take it for very long. If anything, it made me even more annoyed at him, as I felt he was stalling the story to hide his atrocious crimes.
I guess the only way of knowing the true amount of stars I would give this book is to read it in Portuguese, my mother tongue. Because otherwise, I don't think I am re-reading this anytime soon, and it left my reading slump worse than ever. Sorry Nabokov, I think you are too good for me!
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Domestic abuse, Emotional abuse, Pedophilia, and Rape
Moderate: Misogyny and Death of parent
Beartown by Fredrik Backman
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
It has been quite a long time since my friend first recommended me this book. She is quite a fan of ice hockey, and overall sport-themed stories. So it was no surprise to me that, when I asked her what the book was about, she said: "It's about hockey". I was a bit skeptical at first. I know little to nothing about hockey, the most I've seen were memes and funny compilations of plays on Youtube (and some guys hitting each other, apparently you can do that in hockey). My friend added: "It's not JUST about hockey, though".
That was true. It isn't just about hockey. One might even say it is not about hockey at all, you could take any other sport and use it as a substitution, and the message would have been just the same. However, the game interplay is described perfectly, you can tell the author did some research and has a good grasp of how the sport works. I have seen and heard of many books that just pick a background theme for the sake of the plot, but hockey here is well integrated into the narrative, and it feels like part of its core. It wouldn't surprise me if hockey fans actually referenced this book as a way of inspiring people to see how interesting the sport is.
And even then, this book isn't just about hockey. It is about rape, and how it affects all the people involved - victim, perpetrator, family and friends, and supporters. It has to do with culture and sexism, victim-blaming, politics, and parenting. And all themes are handled very delicately and realistically, which is something I really enjoyed about this book. It is not overly dramatic or graphic - very much not romanticized: it is exactly what it needs to be with such mature themes. It is direct, with no euphemisms, and at the same time, nuanced and well-explored. Delicate. The impact of such a heinous crime is seen from many different perspectives and can be felt by many different people in different spheres. It just so happens that the rapist plays a key role in the town, and now the town's progress and the citizens' livelihoods and in jeopardy because of what he has done.
Wow, the population makes such a good job of portraying the "victim going to the police" as being the catalyst of the tragedy, that you tend to forget that the catalyst was, well... the rape.
The topic of 'sport' fits very well into the theme, as it is a perfect portrayal of the so-called "bro culture" that is very much present in sports. Human beings are capable of doing horrible things when they are in a group, and it is extremely difficult to step up against your friends and the people you love when they do something you disagree with. Sports are all about groups - you are supposed to trust your teammate and defend them, but sometimes, you can't.
This "bro culture" (I don't have a better name) is instigated in young boys today, with ideals of what is the perfect "man" and with very wrong ideas of how girls behave (or should behave). In such a small town as Beartown, dominated by a boy's hockey team and a male workforce, this culture is permitted and encouraged. And what happens when rape occurs in this town? You have to read the book to find out, but the results aren't pretty - just like in real life. Victim-shaming and doubting are very, very real, and also very, very common. It is always how the girl's skirt was too short, how much she drank, and how she interpreted things wrong. Lack of evidence. As if the word of a girl isn't enough, but the word of a boy (that says he didn't do it) is.
Communities are powerful. We usually interpret the word as something good - we protect our community, we respect it, and we want to see it grow (even when we don't know what exactly this "it" is. It means something different for everyone after all). In this case, if it is good or bad is debatable. As it is well put by a certain character, the town doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, but it knows what is good and what is evil. I had to think about this quote a bit, but my interpretation is that the town knows what it wants: a community's success. But how they are going to get there and what are they willing to sacrifice, no one knows.
A topic that few people talked about in this book, but I found it to be extremely well-written was parenting. How would you react if your child is the victim of rape - and more interestingly, how would you react if your child was the perpetrator? What does that say about you as a person? What kind of parent are you? Ironically, the answer the book provides is the same for all the questions above: no matter what, you can't protect your children. They grow mercilessly fast, and you don't realize what kind of person they have become.
Kira is one of my favorite characters exactly because of this. Her struggle in being a mother was so well done, and so understandable. As a great lawyer, she is the main provider of the household (despite the town looking down on her for not being a stay-at-home mom), but refuses a promotion - a potential to become more financially stable - at work to spend more time with her children. But because of work, she spends the entire day out and doesn't take care of her children the way she wants to. It is by searching for that delicate compromise between work and children that she feels she has failed both.
The ending is a cliffhanger, and at the same time... it isn't. It has room to continue with the story, but with a good amount of imagination, we can guess what happened. It ends realistically. I know there are two more books in this trilogy, and I have no idea what happens in them - I will just suppose they are about Benji since he also has a certain secret to share that goes against this "bro culture" of Beartown. I personally can't wait to see that develop!
Any nitpicks for this book? None, actually! I have seen many people complaining the beginning was slow and it takes time for the plot to ramp up - I disagree. The background being laid down was necessary for the further development of the story, and I actually found interesting the way the author set the town as if it were a puzzle - you get the pieces for each character and set the full picture little by little. Much more interesting this way than just exposing everything and going straight for the action.
A very recommendable and emotional book. Can't wait to see the series also! Shame I don't have HBO...
That was true. It isn't just about hockey. One might even say it is not about hockey at all, you could take any other sport and use it as a substitution, and the message would have been just the same. However, the game interplay is described perfectly, you can tell the author did some research and has a good grasp of how the sport works. I have seen and heard of many books that just pick a background theme for the sake of the plot, but hockey here is well integrated into the narrative, and it feels like part of its core. It wouldn't surprise me if hockey fans actually referenced this book as a way of inspiring people to see how interesting the sport is.
And even then, this book isn't just about hockey. It is about rape, and how it affects all the people involved - victim, perpetrator, family and friends, and supporters. It has to do with culture and sexism, victim-blaming, politics, and parenting. And all themes are handled very delicately and realistically, which is something I really enjoyed about this book. It is not overly dramatic or graphic - very much not romanticized: it is exactly what it needs to be with such mature themes. It is direct, with no euphemisms, and at the same time, nuanced and well-explored. Delicate. The impact of such a heinous crime is seen from many different perspectives and can be felt by many different people in different spheres. It just so happens that the rapist plays a key role in the town, and now the town's progress and the citizens' livelihoods and in jeopardy because of what he has done.
Wow, the population makes such a good job of portraying the "victim going to the police" as being the catalyst of the tragedy, that you tend to forget that the catalyst was, well... the rape.
The topic of 'sport' fits very well into the theme, as it is a perfect portrayal of the so-called "bro culture" that is very much present in sports. Human beings are capable of doing horrible things when they are in a group, and it is extremely difficult to step up against your friends and the people you love when they do something you disagree with. Sports are all about groups - you are supposed to trust your teammate and defend them, but sometimes, you can't.
This "bro culture" (I don't have a better name) is instigated in young boys today, with ideals of what is the perfect "man" and with very wrong ideas of how girls behave (or should behave). In such a small town as Beartown, dominated by a boy's hockey team and a male workforce, this culture is permitted and encouraged. And what happens when rape occurs in this town? You have to read the book to find out, but the results aren't pretty - just like in real life. Victim-shaming and doubting are very, very real, and also very, very common. It is always how the girl's skirt was too short, how much she drank, and how she interpreted things wrong. Lack of evidence. As if the word of a girl isn't enough, but the word of a boy (that says he didn't do it) is.
Communities are powerful. We usually interpret the word as something good - we protect our community, we respect it, and we want to see it grow (even when we don't know what exactly this "it" is. It means something different for everyone after all). In this case, if it is good or bad is debatable. As it is well put by a certain character, the town doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, but it knows what is good and what is evil. I had to think about this quote a bit, but my interpretation is that the town knows what it wants: a community's success. But how they are going to get there and what are they willing to sacrifice, no one knows.
A topic that few people talked about in this book, but I found it to be extremely well-written was parenting. How would you react if your child is the victim of rape - and more interestingly, how would you react if your child was the perpetrator? What does that say about you as a person? What kind of parent are you? Ironically, the answer the book provides is the same for all the questions above: no matter what, you can't protect your children. They grow mercilessly fast, and you don't realize what kind of person they have become.
Kira is one of my favorite characters exactly because of this. Her struggle in being a mother was so well done, and so understandable. As a great lawyer, she is the main provider of the household (despite the town looking down on her for not being a stay-at-home mom), but refuses a promotion - a potential to become more financially stable - at work to spend more time with her children. But because of work, she spends the entire day out and doesn't take care of her children the way she wants to. It is by searching for that delicate compromise between work and children that she feels she has failed both.
The ending is a cliffhanger, and at the same time... it isn't. It has room to continue with the story, but with a good amount of imagination, we can guess what happened. It ends realistically. I know there are two more books in this trilogy, and I have no idea what happens in them - I will just suppose they are about Benji since he also has a certain secret to share that goes against this "bro culture" of Beartown. I personally can't wait to see that develop!
Any nitpicks for this book? None, actually! I have seen many people complaining the beginning was slow and it takes time for the plot to ramp up - I disagree. The background being laid down was necessary for the further development of the story, and I actually found interesting the way the author set the town as if it were a puzzle - you get the pieces for each character and set the full picture little by little. Much more interesting this way than just exposing everything and going straight for the action.
A very recommendable and emotional book. Can't wait to see the series also! Shame I don't have HBO...
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Rape, Sexual assault, and Sexual harassment
Minor: Homophobia, Suicide, and Alcohol
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
And now we come to the “The Handmaid’s Tale” - a book that has been sitting on my shelf for an unforgivable amount of time. “A dystopian novel (inspired by George Orwell’s works) from a female perspective” sounded like an interesting premise, and now I can say that it was worth giving it a read. This book made me smile, laugh in irony, made me really angry and ready to punch a wall. But most importantly, it is a reflective experience on the role of women in society, gender differences, and human cruelty. It touches on heavy themes such as rape, execution, violence, power, and how that reflected on the women of aforementioned dystopia.
One of the things I enjoyed most about this book is how observant the narrator is, how metaphorical and detailed she makes things to be. Flower analogies (which can be quite relevant, considering women’s main function in this society is to breed), expressions such as “we make her salivate morally”, or a comment on how democratic toilets are: this is how the narrator shows her strengths, thoughts, and weaknesses. That makes the narrative really interesting, as it possible to gain context on the protagonist’s personality based on what and how she interprets people and the environment around her. This post-modern society and its many facets are described by the protagonist, and (for a change!) have women at the spotlight - which, in my opinion, is very much needed in literature today. But, of course: women are not the “good ones” and men the “bad ones” - although, in such a primitive social structure, it becomes really difficult not to relate to the women and feel betrayed by all men that let it happen. Above everything, this is a story about power and control (and why not say politics). How it is difficult to resist to power, even though that will result in the suffering of more people - even people you love. Or how easy it is to omit yourself when you are not the minority that suffers.
I wouldn’t say this book is a total 5 star for me for many reasons, but here are some ‘non-spoiler’ ones that I can list. The pacing was a bit off - it starts quite slow, and ramps up during the few last chapters, and at the end, the whole “what is going to happen” feeling only shows at the end of the novel. Dialogue is also a bit sparse (which is justifiable, but it doesn’t make this novel an easy read).
I can’t exactly call it “disappointing”, but the whole Nick love story was a bit… confusing, to say the least. It made me sad that the end of the novel was the protagonist almost giving up her freedom for a man that she barely knows - the classic “women would do anything for love” plot. After her contact with Moira and Ofglen, her new connections to Mayday, spending the last chapters listening to how she just wanted to make love to Nick instead of planning an escape route was a bit painful. It just gave me too much of an impression of the “irrational woman” trope. This, of course, could be what the author intended - how Gilead broke the narrator, how she became sex-driven after not being loved and being raped for such a long time. Could also be a commentary on how some men would still try to help and do the morally correct thing, if Nick wasn’t an Eye and the protagonist successfully smuggled over the border (if I were a man, perhaps I would find the ending actually hopeful). The whole Nick plot point wasn’t bad, nor unrealistic, but it wasn’t what I expected nor wanted. Again, this is nitpicking. But nonetheless, something I would like to keep in mind.
Overall, it is scary how much of a possible future this book is, and how it depicts some societies that exist today. Definitely a good and worthwhile read. A scary one, but necessary.
One of the things I enjoyed most about this book is how observant the narrator is, how metaphorical and detailed she makes things to be. Flower analogies (which can be quite relevant, considering women’s main function in this society is to breed), expressions such as “we make her salivate morally”, or a comment on how democratic toilets are: this is how the narrator shows her strengths, thoughts, and weaknesses. That makes the narrative really interesting, as it possible to gain context on the protagonist’s personality based on what and how she interprets people and the environment around her. This post-modern society and its many facets are described by the protagonist, and (for a change!) have women at the spotlight - which, in my opinion, is very much needed in literature today. But, of course: women are not the “good ones” and men the “bad ones” - although, in such a primitive social structure, it becomes really difficult not to relate to the women and feel betrayed by all men that let it happen. Above everything, this is a story about power and control (and why not say politics). How it is difficult to resist to power, even though that will result in the suffering of more people - even people you love. Or how easy it is to omit yourself when you are not the minority that suffers.
I wouldn’t say this book is a total 5 star for me for many reasons, but here are some ‘non-spoiler’ ones that I can list. The pacing was a bit off - it starts quite slow, and ramps up during the few last chapters, and at the end, the whole “what is going to happen” feeling only shows at the end of the novel. Dialogue is also a bit sparse (which is justifiable, but it doesn’t make this novel an easy read).
I can’t exactly call it “disappointing”, but the whole Nick love story was a bit… confusing, to say the least. It made me sad that the end of the novel was the protagonist almost giving up her freedom for a man that she barely knows - the classic “women would do anything for love” plot. After her contact with Moira and Ofglen, her new connections to Mayday, spending the last chapters listening to how she just wanted to make love to Nick instead of planning an escape route was a bit painful. It just gave me too much of an impression of the “irrational woman” trope. This, of course, could be what the author intended - how Gilead broke the narrator, how she became sex-driven after not being loved and being raped for such a long time. Could also be a commentary on how some men would still try to help and do the morally correct thing, if Nick wasn’t an Eye and the protagonist successfully smuggled over the border (if I were a man, perhaps I would find the ending actually hopeful). The whole Nick plot point wasn’t bad, nor unrealistic, but it wasn’t what I expected nor wanted. Again, this is nitpicking. But nonetheless, something I would like to keep in mind.
Overall, it is scary how much of a possible future this book is, and how it depicts some societies that exist today. Definitely a good and worthwhile read. A scary one, but necessary.
Dune by Frank Herbert
adventurous
challenging
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- 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
5.0
I must say, I did not expect to like this book as much as I did. And even more, I also did not expect to call this book a "masterpiece" when I started reading it, but here I am, calling it a masterpiece.
"Dune" is not only a fantasy story, it is also a piece of criticism - bringing together several topics that are as relevant today as they were when the book was published. It touches on corruption, the rise to power, politics and the balance of power, colonialism, tribalism, and many many more. Despite this, the book does not feel like a boring lecture - because you see all of those topics embedded into a detailed, well-built world (literally, the planet of Arrakis). The characters are interesting and well-developed. Furthermore, the book has an interesting approach toward the protagonist and the so-called "the chosen one" trope. Paul is not the protagonist coincidentally - and his self-consciousness of protagonism shapes many of his actions.
Another topic that was particularly interesting to me was tying up scientific principles within the story - terraform, ecology, sustainability, etc. Living in Arrakis means living without water abundance - which is quite a fundamental resource to humans. Warning: the book has nothing to do with climate change, but it was nice to see a story where people have to battle for the most miserable quantities of water (and I hope that will not be Earth in a few years), and how the planet's culture is so connected to those resources.
A few nitpicks every now and then are unavoidable, of course: the book might be (at least in my opinion) medium-paced, but it is quite a long read - and losing interest at some parts was almost unavoidable to me. In the beginning, the author will throw names and terms at the reader and the first pages will be quite confusing - but I do believe that is intentional. Instead of checking the glossary, just keep the word in your brain and keep going. After the first chapters, things will start to make more sense - even though the huge amount of vocabulary in the world of Dune can be quite daunting. And lastly, sometimes you can see clearly that this book was written by a man in the 60s - regarding "marriage" rules, the role of women, concubines, etc (which is a bit strange when you are reading it, because the story is supposed to be set many centuries in the future). But other than that, Lady Jessica and Chani are formidable characters and put up great fights against their male counterparts.
It is worth it. 5/5.
"Dune" is not only a fantasy story, it is also a piece of criticism - bringing together several topics that are as relevant today as they were when the book was published. It touches on corruption, the rise to power, politics and the balance of power, colonialism, tribalism, and many many more. Despite this, the book does not feel like a boring lecture - because you see all of those topics embedded into a detailed, well-built world (literally, the planet of Arrakis). The characters are interesting and well-developed. Furthermore, the book has an interesting approach toward the protagonist and the so-called "the chosen one" trope. Paul is not the protagonist coincidentally - and his self-consciousness of protagonism shapes many of his actions.
Another topic that was particularly interesting to me was tying up scientific principles within the story - terraform, ecology, sustainability, etc. Living in Arrakis means living without water abundance - which is quite a fundamental resource to humans. Warning: the book has nothing to do with climate change, but it was nice to see a story where people have to battle for the most miserable quantities of water (and I hope that will not be Earth in a few years), and how the planet's culture is so connected to those resources.
A few nitpicks every now and then are unavoidable, of course: the book might be (at least in my opinion) medium-paced, but it is quite a long read - and losing interest at some parts was almost unavoidable to me. In the beginning, the author will throw names and terms at the reader and the first pages will be quite confusing - but I do believe that is intentional. Instead of checking the glossary, just keep the word in your brain and keep going. After the first chapters, things will start to make more sense - even though the huge amount of vocabulary in the world of Dune can be quite daunting. And lastly, sometimes you can see clearly that this book was written by a man in the 60s - regarding "marriage" rules, the role of women, concubines, etc (which is a bit strange when you are reading it, because the story is supposed to be set many centuries in the future). But other than that, Lady Jessica and Chani are formidable characters and put up great fights against their male counterparts.
It is worth it. 5/5.
The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller
adventurous
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I might start by saying that it will be somewhat difficult to review this without 'spoiling' - because, for this book, I don't know what can be considered a spoiler. This book is a re-telling of a famous Greek poem "The Illiad", which is certainly a very well-known text. "Spoiling" would be the same as spoiling Romeo and Juliet. But I will try to reveal the least I can.
First of all, I must say that this book is 4.0 stars for me, mostly because of nitpicking reasons. Romance books are not exactly my style, so I am quite biased here - but if they were, I don't doubt it would be a 5 star. So what makes this book so great? Well, the writing is quite impressive, and although very descriptive, it is not boring and it definitely does not drag the plot. The imagery that the author presents during battle scenes, for instance, is really engaging. More so if you think that this story already exists, and it is set during Ancient Greece - which makes the imagery much more convincing as the author builds it around elements of that period.
Secondly, the characters are complex, and not at all "tropy" as other romance books. The author is able to give the reader some insight into characters' minds (from the point of view of Patroclus, but still), and makes them reflect on different aspects of life and morality. It makes it even more interesting if you know The Illiad, as some parts put characters into a new light - often a more relatable one. The major theme surrounding the story is, in my opinion, being remembered across generations - and until what point you would go to make yourself famous in the future. It ties to the book's genre even (a re-telling), as the audience knows exactly how the characters will be remembered - which generates some ironic and sad moments. We know who is more famous than who. And we start to wonder if we somehow will be remembered by future generations.
However, what made this book a 4 star out of 5 was also Patroclus' character. It was difficult to imagine his character from the Illiad (a warrior, one of the best generals that fought side by side with Achilles) being turned into such a dependent-on-Achilles character. Main characters of course don't need to be strong nor perfect, but it is hard to follow a character that has so little sense of self-worth (and so different from the original character!). That isn't so detrimental to the story if you consider his personality and the fact that his companion is a demi-god, which makes this still a 4 star. But I missed some character development on Patroclus' side regarding this particular point.
Now please, go read this book. Even if you don't like romance. It is worth it!
First of all, I must say that this book is 4.0 stars for me, mostly because of nitpicking reasons. Romance books are not exactly my style, so I am quite biased here - but if they were, I don't doubt it would be a 5 star. So what makes this book so great? Well, the writing is quite impressive, and although very descriptive, it is not boring and it definitely does not drag the plot. The imagery that the author presents during battle scenes, for instance, is really engaging. More so if you think that this story already exists, and it is set during Ancient Greece - which makes the imagery much more convincing as the author builds it around elements of that period.
Secondly, the characters are complex, and not at all "tropy" as other romance books. The author is able to give the reader some insight into characters' minds (from the point of view of Patroclus, but still), and makes them reflect on different aspects of life and morality. It makes it even more interesting if you know The Illiad, as some parts put characters into a new light - often a more relatable one. The major theme surrounding the story is, in my opinion, being remembered across generations - and until what point you would go to make yourself famous in the future. It ties to the book's genre even (a re-telling), as the audience knows exactly how the characters will be remembered - which generates some ironic and sad moments. We know who is more famous than who. And we start to wonder if we somehow will be remembered by future generations.
However, what made this book a 4 star out of 5 was also Patroclus' character. It was difficult to imagine his character from the Illiad (a warrior, one of the best generals that fought side by side with Achilles) being turned into such a dependent-on-Achilles character. Main characters of course don't need to be strong nor perfect, but it is hard to follow a character that has so little sense of self-worth (and so different from the original character!). That isn't so detrimental to the story if you consider his personality and the fact that his companion is a demi-god, which makes this still a 4 star. But I missed some character development on Patroclus' side regarding this particular point.
Now please, go read this book. Even if you don't like romance. It is worth it!
Red, White & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
0.5