|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0593130146
| 9780593130148
| 0593130146
| 3.98
| 20,671
| Oct 22, 2019
| Oct 22, 2019
|
it was ok
|
UGH! This is an insufferable book that is focusing on a very engrossing topic. If the story of Georgia Tann and the Tennessee Children's Home Society
UGH! This is an insufferable book that is focusing on a very engrossing topic. If the story of Georgia Tann and the Tennessee Children's Home Society is a three-tier cake this book runs a finger through the frosting off the top without truly going in depth. This book focuses strictly on children who were fortunate to wind up with loving parents and is CONSTANTLY flipping from the stories of the children affected by Tann's adoption schemes and the reunion that the authors are planning. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that at least some of these children wound up in happy homes and it is heartbreaking hearing about their struggles and how their parents were often swindled out of their children... when the authors deign to focus on them, but this book spends WAY too much time focusing on the planning of the reunion and the authors patting themselves on the back for planning it. There are large chunks of this book that could have been removed and would not be missed. I don't particularly care about the personal woes of the authors agonizing if the reunion would be a success (Seriously, there was never any doubt about that. They knew there was plenty of interest before they began planning) or agonizing over what to put in the gift bags. Get back to the people affected!! Again, the reunion was a good opportunity for those affected by Georgia Tann and it was good of them to plan it, but that's not what this book should have been about. If the focus would have stayed on the actual children and their families or the woman who caused so much pain and chaos, this could have been a really fascinating book. Before reading this book, I read the The Baby Thief by Barbara Bisantz Raymond and even though I had some issues with the writing style, it is a much more thorough examination of Georgia Tann and the lasting impact of her actions. Because of that, I know that there was a lot more to the Georgia Tann story that did not get a mention in this book, including: -Georgia Tann had multiple powerful politicians in her pocket which allowed her to continue her organization for years particularly Boss Crump and Judge Camille Kelley -Children in the home lived in horrific conditions and many died (this is BRIEFLY touched upon in the book). Children were also drugged frequently to keep them quiet. -Georgia Tann was run out of town in Mississippi where she first established her baby ring -Many of the children were not adopted in the sense that a loving family wanted a child. Instead they were treated like indentured servants and were adopted strictly to perform manual labor (to the point where some would have their teeth checked like a horse prior to adoption) -Georgia Tann arranged the adoption for Joan Crawford's (Mommy Dearest) twin daughters -Georgia Tann herself has been accused of sexually abusing many of the children as well as renting them out to other pedophiles. -Georgia Tann would market the children in newspapers through a Christmas Raffle Giveaway where she would sell off 20 to 30 children at a time -It is believed that Georgia Tann was a lesbian in a time and place where this was not acceptable. Because of this, she adopted her partner Ann Hollingsworth (this was actually a fairly common way to ensure that same-sex couples could transfer property and inheritances to their partner during this time period). -No one was ever prosecuted for their involvement in the adoption ring The book did not cover ANY of this, but they managed to mention the author's fictional book Before We Were Yours literally dozens of times throughout the novel, often hailed as the reason why people chose to seek out their biological families. THIS is what frustrates me most about this book. I will admit, I have never read Before We Were Yours. I'm sure sure it's a lovely historical fiction book, but I shouldn't have to read that in order to understand a non-fiction work. This book should be capable of standing on its own, but I feel like the authors are relying on Before We Were Yours to cover the historical basics. The constant promotion of the book was absolutely grating and I found it interesting that when adoptee mentioned ANOTHER fictional book that was inspired by the Georgia Tann story they did not mention the title or author of the other novel. If you knew nothing about Georgia Tann, loved Before We Were Yours and wanted to focus on some of the happier stories of children, this book is okay... just okay... but if you're actually hoping to learn more about Georgia Tann and less about book clubs this book will be disappointing. Go check out The Baby Thief instead. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 12, 2020
|
Feb 16, 2020
|
Dec 01, 2019
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1477823905
| 9781477823903
| 1477823905
| 3.29
| 326
| Jun 10, 2014
| Jun 10, 2014
|
it was ok
|
This book is secretly a super hero book. I know it doesn't seem like it by reading the description, but trust me it is a super hero book in a fantasy
This book is secretly a super hero book. I know it doesn't seem like it by reading the description, but trust me it is a super hero book in a fantasy setting. In many ways, I think this book would have been better off as a graphic novel. There are so many fantasy and super hero tropes and ideas at work that it is almost impossible to keep track of everything. The characters are pretty bland and all of the shields have an actual name and a super hero name. When you are introduced to so many characters at once and exposed to so many different species, it's hard to get invested in them. On top of that, the dialogue in this book never really sounds natural. It would be more at home in a comic book. The most interesting aspect of this book is the concept of the city which is built around the bones of a fallen giant. If the author had allowed the pace to slow down long enough to flesh out the world building, I feel like this book would have had a much stronger foundation. Also, I listened to this on audiobook. Typically, when a voice actor narrates an audiobook, they do not actually "scream" when a character scream. They alter their voice so the listener can tell that the character is yelling without having someone scream in their ear. This book had A LOT of actual yelling and it got old real quick. This book has a lot of interesting ideas, but it never comes together in a coherent way.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 25, 2019
|
May 14, 2019
|
Apr 25, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1476789630
| 9781476789637
| 1476789630
| 3.54
| 246,135
| May 12, 2015
| May 12, 2015
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** UGH! As I've stated in several other reviews, knockoff books are terrible! And by "knockoff books", I mean any book that has "for fa
**spoiler alert** UGH! As I've stated in several other reviews, knockoff books are terrible! And by "knockoff books", I mean any book that has "for fans of *insert popular book title here*" or "the next *insert popular book title here*" They never turn out very good. This book is just another example. This book is marketed as the next Gone Girl. It wants so badly to the be Gone Girl, but sadly it falls so painfully short! It's not really a "mystery" or a "thriller", but I get the idea that it's trying to be. Ani (ugh Ani but more on that later) is the author's attempt at creating a character like Amy Dunne from Gone Girl, but Ani is not. On the one hand, like several other viewers have stated, Ani is not particularly easy to empathize with. She has so few redeeming personality traits that she only comes across as mean, selfish, and elitist. Despite the numerous tragedies she goes through, Ani never seems to grow or evolve or even devolve. She starts out as a selfish, whiny person and ends the story as more or less the same selfish, whiny person (no better, no worse). Also, unlike Amy, the author doesn't go far enough with Ani's character. Even though I occasionally related with Amy, I was thoroughly convinced that she was nuts by the end of the novel. Ani never crosses into crazy territory. But again, I get the idea that we are supposed to think that she is insane. She never does anything extreme enough to warrant that. She just comes across as unlikeable. As much as I dislike the main character, my biggest frustration with this book is the way the author handles heavy and tragic issues, namely rape and mass shootings. I've also said this before on several other reviews, but I HATE that rape has become to the go-to motivator for female characters. That's not to say that literature that focuses on rape doesn't have its place, but it needs to be written well and offer some commentary or provide some insight on the topic. It shouldn't be used simply as a plot device to make a character suffer. Not only is that sending a discouraging message, at this point it's become a tired cliche. It has been used over and over again that as far as "deep dark secrets" go, Ani's was pretty predictable. This book also uses that same tragic equation that has been hammered into our heads by numerous outlets for the past twenty or so years. self-esteemed challenged girl + too much to drink + attractive, popular secretly evil boy = girl will be raped, society will blame her, life will be ruined The book briefly suggests that victim shaming is wrong, but it rapidly devolves into an "I shall overcome rape story" that doesn't give the topic the examination it needs. Along the same lines, the story also does the same thing for mass shootings. I'm not entirely sure why, but I actually got angry once the school shooting scene began (even though it is one of the only scenes where something noteworthy happens). And not because I felt for the characters, but because it felt like the author had used a very tragic part of modern history as shock value. Full disclosure, I am reading this book a couple of weeks after the largest mass shooting in American History (so far), so that is in the back of my mind as I review this book, but anyway. Again, a frustatingly familiar calculation is used: self-esteem challenged boy + bullying + access to gun = massive shooting tragedy. This message has been circulating since Columbine in the 90s. And it's not that's incorrect, it's just a massively simplified narrative. It doesn't dig very deep and sadly this narrative also become an incredibly cliched notion. The issues of mass shootings is much more complex and I wish that the author had done more to examine it than the overplayed "bullied kid" narrative. And yes, I know it's fiction. I know that they make sense and there's nothing too outlandishly illogical about how they are written in the book. So why is this such an issue for me? I think it's because books can provide a great platform for a variety of issues. Authors can use fiction to explore contemporary issues and reach people in a way that other mediums can't. Honestly, the messages about mass shootings and rape appear in the media appear so often because they provide a message most people can get behind without challenging our thinking too much. But if an author is going to use these topics in their work, then they need to be prepared to explore them and not simply use them as convenient plot devices. Okay, ranty portion of the review over. On top of everything, I mentioned so far at the end of the day the writing of this book just isn't that good. I mentioned Ani's nickname earlier. I found it really frustrating early on. Phonetically, there really isn't any "aww" sound in TiffAni. If anything, there's an "uh" sound, but "Uh-Nee" doesn't work as quirky nickname. It comes across as very forced, and I think the author kind of knows that it doesn't work because it is constantly explained throughout the book. To the point, where it is spelled TifAni, just to make sure the reader gets it. In fact, it doesn't seem like the author has a lot of faith in the reader. When the school shooting scene began, one of the characters makes the comment "It's just like Columbine" I groaned outloud. 1. every reader who was born in the last twenty years has the Columbine reference in their minds and it instantly pops up whenever a school shooting is mentioned. You really don't have to point it out in such a glib way. 2. Of course it's just like Columbine, you took the oldest and most used theory of school shootings and wrote a book around it! In addition, almost all of the characters are one-dimensional, selfish, petty people with no redeeming values. It's almost impossible to care about any of them or really be invested in any of them. The unnatural number of tragedies that continued to rain down on Ani also strained my suspensions of belief. It just doesn't seem believable that one person should be cursed with so much misfortune (multiple sexual abuse issues, eating disorder issues, drug use, oblivious parents, a school shooting, trapped in a loveless relationship). One of the final moments that drove me crazy was when Luke explained why the picture of Arthur was missing. Because they needed a surface to do cocaine on. REALLY? That is perhaps the least logical reason why a picture of the importance should go missing. Overall, this book was so ungodly frustrating I'm surprised I finished it. The parts that weren't infuriating were just boring. I can only hope that maybe this book can spark some conversation about these difficult topics. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 25, 2017
|
Oct 15, 2017
|
Sep 25, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0812550706
| 9780812550702
| 0812550706
| 4.31
| 1,409,026
| Jan 15, 1985
| Sep 30, 2004
|
did not like it
|
This is a weird book! I realize that this is a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I honestly don’t understand why this book is so popular and even why it This is a weird book! I realize that this is a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I honestly don’t understand why this book is so popular and even why it has so much critical acclaim. I always try to remain open-minded when I’m reading a book for the first time, but I have to admit there are a few factors that predisposed me to dislike this book: 1. Somehow I never had to read this book for school and never had the desire to pick it up until now. Because of this, I don’t have any nostalgic feeling built up around this novel and I didn’t read it during the decade when it was released (1985). Social mores have evolved quite a bit in the 32 years and certain aspects of this book were probably a bit more acceptable then than they are now 2. I went into this book with the belief that Orson Scott Card is a despicable human being. Since this book has been published, he has made a variety of homophobic, racist, and sexist statements. Normally, I’m able to separate the author from the work, but as I read this it seemed like his personal opinions were leaking into the book. I’ll be honest, I’m not sure if I would have picked up on these things if I didn’t go into the book knowing about the author. It’s hard to say if I’m noticing Card’s true colors or if I’m unconsciously looking for information that would support his weird beliefs. Either way, I’m kinda glad that I got my copy of the book from the library knowing that Card will not get any of my money through a book purchase. If you’re a big fan of this book, I would advise you to stop reading. Weird Undertones I think one of the biggest problems that I had with this book is the weird (for lack of a better word) tone of the novel. This book has a variety of what appear to be unintentionally uncomfortable scenes that I’m not sure what to make of. This includes the following: -Constant reminders that the boys (and Peta) are naked in the barracks (at age ten and under) -Punishment that involves boys walking naked in public (issued by Ender) -Two boys fighting in a shower while soapy, wet, and naked (complete with excessive groin-kicking). Honestly, the amount of time Card spent describing this scene freaked me out a bit. -Numerous references to pubic hair -Rose’s saved pictures of genitalia on his computer -Most insults involve the word ‘fart’ -Shen making comments about Ender’s butt and how it wiggles when he moves. Fans of this book have made the argument to me that these scenes have been included for the most part to show the Spartan military conditions or to create a “locker room” sort of atmosphere. For me, that doesn’t quite justify the scenes. If it really WAS to create a hardened, sparse military atmosphere, wouldn't the boys (and Peta) be expected to adhere to a higher level of maturity and be a bit above fart and butt references? Also, many of these instances, especially the details on the human anatomy could be removed without affecting the tone of the story. Also, knowing that Card has bleak view on gay relationships, it’s a little odd to see a passage like this in his story: “A boy stood there, tall and slender, with beautiful black eyes and slender hips that hinted at refinement. I would follow such beauty anywhere, said something inside Ender.” Not technically an admission of love, but given Card's stance on the subject of homosexuality it seems really unusual that he would include anything that could provide even the barest impression of gay attraction. In fact, this book and other works by the author leads me to wonder if maybe Card is a closeted gay man and has a bit of self-hate? But I digress... Enforcement of traditional gender roles: Personally, I really disliked the unspoken message that Card sends about women. It seems pretty clear that Card believes that women are not capable of military service. Card begins the novel by suggesting that evolution has somehow rendered most women incapable of participating in Battle School. He also suggests that the women who do participate wind up “not like Valentine”. Valentine is presented as a beacon of compassion and maternal love, and this seems to suggest that the women who are part of the battle school are aggressive and hardened. Traits that are okay in men, but are bad for women. The only female character who has an real role in this novel, Valentine is also portrayed as being limited. At one point, she seems to acknowledge that helping Peter is a bad idea but darn it her compassionate nature just makes her want to help him anyway. It feels like the age-old argument that women are too gentle-hearted to engage in serious business because their loving nature makes them incapable of making objective decisions. Valentine also seems to have limited autonomy, always serving as a “help mate” to both Peter and Ender and remaining rather dependent on them despite her own intelligence. On the other hand, I don’t like the unspoken message sent about men in this book either. Throughout this novel, the recurring message seems to be that men are not allowed to express pain or accept comfort. Ender is constantly suffering in silence (first at the hands of his brother and then with others) implying that it is not “manly” to show that you are in pain. At one point, Alai gives Ender a kiss (an innocent nonsexual kiss, but AGAIN seems really odd that the bigot author included it) and Ender states that this is "forbidden". The message I received is that women are supposed to be gentle, kind maternal creatures and men are supposed to rugged invincible protectors and any deviation from these roles is wrong. Racist Undertones This book has been somewhat cleaned up in recent years, but there are still some sections of this book that just sound ignorant and prejudiced now. The copy I read was an older one so these sections might not be present in more recent publications: -Characters casually use racist slurs like "Kike" (a derogatory term for a Jewish person) and "Nigger" -Ender describes an Asian character as "slant-eyed" -Bonzo's unhealthy obsession with his perception being described as "Spanish honor" -Insensitive generalizations about Jewish and Arab people throughout the book -Vaguely ebonic slang that is really uncomfortable and kind of insulting The racist language was not tactfully done. It does not make any real points about racism or is ever called out as being bad or hurtful. It seems like Card just tossed them to help create the locker room atmosphere, but reading it now it just feels like lazy writing at best and a jerk move at worst. I realize that the discussion on racism and what is socially acceptable is constantly evolving and that as time marches on some materials do not age particularly well, but this book was published in 1985 and I can't help but feel like even then this sort of language would be viewed as racist. Reading it now, just makes me frustrated. The Characters None of the characters have much for personality. All of them are "geniuses" and speak the same way. The only people who really have any serious personality quirks are Peter and Valentine (and that's mainly to set up one as "good" and the other as "evil") and perhaps Groff who has something of a sardonic sense of humor. Ender himself is quite tedious as a character. As someone who was bullied as a kid, I empathized with him as a fellow victim, but I never really "rooted" for him as a character. At one point in the novel, I couldn't help but feel that the world could blow up and I wouldn't feel particularly bad for any of the characters. Ender is too perfect and doesn't seem to evolve very much. Six-year old Ender acts more or less the same as ten-year old Ender despite going through rigorous training during his formative years. In the same way that many people prefer Batman to Superman because of his flaws, Ender goes through the novel without having any real failures apart from the "trick ending". Ender also seems to get a free pass for all of the terrible things he does during the novel because he was a victim first. Plus, the characters do not act their age throughout the novel. Their childlike tendencies appear when it is convenient, but otherwise they act like perfect mature adults. An advanced IQ might give a child an advanced level of maturity, but it doesn't account for the lack human emotions that a child would experience at that age. There are only a few instances when characters exhibit childlike emotions (Valentine getting emotional, Peter experiencing petty jealousy). The Language It's really difficult to take this story seriously when the worst insult you hear is "fart-eater" and the most-dreaded threat to humanity is an alien race referred to as "buggers". I would be more forgiving if only the children used these insults, but adults use them too. The slang used by the soldiers doesn't seem to make much lingual sense. Then, out of nowhere, Ender refers to Alai as an "uncircumcised dog". WTF? The Plot All subtext aside, my biggest issue with this story is that I just didn't find it all that interesting. Apart from the battle scenes, where the characters float all over, much of this story focuses on the world making an "innocent" (arguably) boy's life miserable. It is exhausting and I pity Ender, but I don't really like him or any of the characters enough to get invested in their lives. It's never explained well why Ender and his siblings are so intelligent or why children play such a crucial role in the war that will determine everyone's fate. I know that this is viewed as a crucial staple in science fiction literature, but I don't think Card really added anything particularly novel to the genre that Asimov or Orwell hadn't already covered. The science fiction elements and the world of the novel are interesting enough, but I do not plan on finishing out this series. I guess I'll never completely understand the appeal. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 04, 2017
|
Aug 04, 2017
|
Aug 04, 2017
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1250095204
| 9781250095206
| 1250095204
| 2.85
| 14,368
| Jun 06, 2017
| Jun 06, 2017
|
did not like it
|
This book gets the dubious honor of being my first Why Did I Bother? book of 2018. I really hated this book. It's rare that I hate every single major
This book gets the dubious honor of being my first Why Did I Bother? book of 2018. I really hated this book. It's rare that I hate every single major character in a novel, but I can honestly say I hated EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER. in this book. I can only assume that the title is referring to ALL the characters. Just in general, I found all the characters to be petty, selfish, petulant and above all WHINY! I swear so much of this novel consists of the characters whining about the other characters. I understand that not all characters are meant to be liked, but this was a bit excessive. Paul: Painfully insecure, bitter, and really kind of dumb (especially when it's abundantly clear that his ass of a boyfriend is obviously manipulating him. Eloise: Oblivious, belittling, elitist Bridezilla Rachel: Passive aggressive, immature, and inconsiderate (especially when she's sleeping with another woman's husband) Mark: Selfish, pretentious, pompous, arrogant, condescending prick! (he was the worst character in this thing. I could write an entire paragraph about him) Donna: Oblivious, two-faced and self-pitying (though to be fair, she was the only character that I did feel a twinge of pity for). Henrique: Cheating, lying jerk!! I understand that you're not supposed to like every character, and it works for characters who are clearly meant to be the villains of the book like Henrique and Mark, but there is no one that I feel for or want to succeed. I don't usually even mind reading about terrible people as long as they are INTERESTING terrible people. These guys didn't have much personality apart from their whiny-ness. In addition to the characters, this book in general has a really bitter tone to it. It makes it sound like any attempt at marriage or monogamy is futile. I really hate it when people trying to present an intellectual argument against traditional monogamy (and by that I mean only 2 people in a relationship without inviting any others in, not that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I completely support gay marriage). There are plenty of happy relationships out there where the couple stays together and no one cheats! There were a few rare moments where I was actually able to relate to the characters, particularly some of Paul's more neurotic moments, but generally I found the characters insufferable and the situations really outlandish and impossible to relate to. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 2018
|
Feb 02, 2018
|
Jun 19, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0375814701
| 9780375814709
| 0375814701
| 4.27
| 29,407
| Oct 25, 2011
| Oct 25, 2011
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** UGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! *flops head onto desk* This is going to be a rant. If you enjoy this book or have an above-normal loyalty to **spoiler alert** UGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! *flops head onto desk* This is going to be a rant. If you enjoy this book or have an above-normal loyalty to Tamora Pierce, I suggest you sit this one out. Spoilers, naughty words and general attitude lie ahead. You have been warned. One of my goals for the last couple years has been to finish reading the series of my childhood that for whatever reason, I abandoned. Rereading some of these series has been fun and nostalgic, others not so much. The Tortall series in particular has been really tough for me to get into. Despite the fact that I like her Circle of Magic series alot, I have never developed the same fondness for the Tortall books. Her earlier books in the Tortall series were enjoyable in a short finish-this-in a day sorta way, but the latter books in her series (with the notable exception of Protector of the Small) have been really slow-moving clunky books with messages that are a bit confused. For me, this trilogy is easily the weakest series Pierce has ever written (most annoying character still goes to Daine though). This book should have taken me a few days to finish up, but it took almost a month just because it was so tedious! I've complained about several things before when reviewing the previous two books, but they have gotten noticeably worse in this book. 1. The Titles: I HATE the titles of these series. Yes, I'm aware this is quite nitpicky, but it's a really bad to start to the books. I get the idea that Tamora Pierce came up with these titles before she wrote the books. She probably wants to work them in with the "dog" theme, but they are SO forced. Beka gets each nickname towards the end of the book. They are all different types of dogs and they get bigger as the series goes on (because that's how you show character growth). Beka gets called these nicknames maybe once or twice in a book, and it never seems like something you would naturally call someone. Also, no one ever calls her by the nickname in the next book. For example, did anyone call her 'bloodhound' in this novel? Not really. This one is the most ridiculous. I don't think many people even know what type of dog a Mastiff is. This nickname is thrown in at the end because apparently all the dogs need to start chanting it. Do they start chanting one of her previous nicknames (which would at least make sense in terms of the story)? No, they all randomly start chanting (in unison) the name of a somewhat obscure type of dog that has no connection to the story whatsoever. 2. Tone: One of my biggest issues with this series is that the tone is really inconsistent. Pierce is trying to write a gritty, more adult story, but the sad fact is she is really not good at it. I liked her books so much better when she stuck to lighthearted adventure stories. If I want something ferocious and intense, I will pick up Game of Thrones because at least it is done well. I feel like Pierce is trying to have it both ways and it really doesn't work. I can't take a book seriously that has the character using juvenile words like peaches, gems, and, most recently, coin (a term for the vagina which I can only imagine is a reference to a coin purse?) to describe various parts of the anatomy in one scene and then jump to naked dead children on piles of garbage in the next. The way that Pierce writes is just not believeable, and it feels very much like she's throwing in graphic details to make her book more "adult" while the overall themes of the book are still pretty simple and juvenile. The best example for this, and the scene that almost made me say "Fuck it! I don't need to know how this book ends", is when Farmer and Beka are imprisoned and he pulls emergency magical supplies out of his ass... literally! No, seriously. That is exactly what he does. And he does this while casually discussing the foolishness of the guards for not conducting full cavity searches. This is so ridiculous and uncomfortable to read! Yes, this is done in modern prisons, but that doesn't mean you have to force it into a fantasy novel that is marketed to young adults. Not to mention the fact, that doing what Farmer did with an object of that size and leaving it in there for an extended period of time is incredibly medically dangerous, and the odds of him getting it out are not good. In case this wasn't bad enough, after he "passes" his supplies, Pounce kindly volunteers to magically wash it. UGH!! I don't know why I found his offer so disgusting (magically washing it is certainly better than the alternative), but the fact that Pierce had to include this moment in order to make this moment easier to bear shows that it never should have been in this book in the first place. I've never claimed to be an avid fan of Pierce, but at this point I was practically screaming at her "You're better than this!!" The Diary Format: Another decision that truly doesn't work with the story. I don't believe that Beka's memory is good enough to retain the amount of detail and conversations that she records. This could have easily been a first person narrative without the diary set up. Also, it clashes against the framing device of George and his mother. Pierce could have easily removed the prequel from the first book and just added an epilogue that mentioned George paying homage to his ancestress and working Pounce into the mix to foreshadow his future relationship with Alanna. In addition to my usual gripes, I had more complaints about this particular story than I usually do. Holborn: This was a stupid, pointless character. I feel like he was only added to give Beka something to angst about. It was never "productive" angst either. His relationship with Beka never seemed to have a significant impact on Beka's views on relationships or life. If anything, it made Beka look dumb. Because Holborn is never presented as anything other than emotionally abusive jerk, it looks like Beka deliberately sought out an abuser for no reason and with no context to explain her actions. Pierce could have used this as an opportunity to show that sometimes even strong, confident women can find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. But in order to do that she would have to present Holborn as a fully fleshed out character and show that he was at least charming or friendly enough to get Beka to like him enough to become engaged. At this point the only real purpose he serves is to make the reader say "oh poor Beka!" and make the blunt statement that emotional abuse is bad without offering any further commentary on the subject. Tunstall and Goodwin: If you've read more than three reviews for this book, you'll know that the "big twist" pissed off most of the fans of this series. I'm not a fan of this series, but I'm right there with them. Admittedly, I'm annoyed for different reasons. I didn't see this coming, but I think that's mostly because it was a stupid twist designed for shock not a good one. Tunstall's motivation for betraying them is so flimsy and goes against his established character so much that it is not remotely believable. If this was actually well done and there had been a bit more groundwork laid in the previous novels to make the reader believe that this was within Tunstall's character, this could have been a really shocking moment. But it just seems like Tunstall lost his damn mind and did something that he would never do. This felt like it was done purely to shock the reader and didn't have a good enough story built up to that moment to make something like this believable. Also, where the hell was Goodwin for all this?! Beka goes through a lot in this novel (losing a fiance, losing a partner, gaining a new fiance). I realize that Goodwin has taken a desk job, but it seems remarkably odd that even though she is one of the main role models in Beka's life she never shows up to lend support when these things happen. Also, Tunstall was her partner for years and we never see how she reacts to the aftermath of his death. It almost seems like she was replaced with Sabine. Rosto: I won't pretend to care much about who Beka wound up with, but I will admit. I thought that he was going to play a much bigger role in this series. I felt like the author was teasing their romance a lot in the first book and even a bit in the second book too. It seemed like a bit of a let down after all that. Pacing: God this book was slow! I was not invested in the plot at all (as you can see by how long it took me to finish the book). The same actions seemed to take place over and over again. Achoo smells something (usually disgusting soiled undergarments). Achoo finds the scent. Beka follows her. Something bad happens. Achoo finds the scent again. They follow her again. Another bad thing happens. Occasionally, a confused message about relationships or magic or police work is thrown in, but that's about it for large chunks of time. I caught myself zoning out quite a bit while I read this book. I just kept waiting for something to happen.... and then the Tunstall betrayal happened and I changed my mind. Despite ALL that, there were a few things that I actually liked about this book. I liked Farmer. I really liked that he had what are typically considered feminine interests while still being presented as a masculine character. You don't see that too often in books period, let alone the young adult genre. I liked Sabine. I still find her to be a strong, admirable character. I especially liked the way that she was able to use charm (and to a certain extent clever manipulation) to get what she needed. I also liked the fact that there was no possible way for Daine to have a cameo in this book (given the fact that I still hate her and she's managed to pop into every other series after she appears, this was refreshing). I am so glad this is the last Tamora Pierce that I had left to read. It's painful to admit, especially after spending so much time reading her books, but I like the Tortall series better in theory than in practice. I support her messages about feminism and I admire the fact that she does include a lot of feminist messages that other authors tend to avoid (it's okay for girls to want a sex life, it's okay for girls to choose to have sex before marriage, the importance of birth control etc.). Despite this, it feels like she reuses the same heroine over and over again and talks at the reader through other characters instead of showing through example. Unfortunately, my initial response to Pierce's Tortall books has not really changed. Her early books are enjoyable enough in small doses, but they get more convoluted and dull as you go on. Personally, I will stick to her Circle of Magic books. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 20, 2017
|
May 02, 2017
|
Apr 20, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 037581468X
| 9780375814686
| 037581468X
| 4.16
| 69,100
| Oct 24, 2006
| Oct 24, 2006
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** I'm not sure if it's because I've been reading a lot of Tamora Pierce books lately and I'm not a huge fan to begin with, but this is
**spoiler alert** I'm not sure if it's because I've been reading a lot of Tamora Pierce books lately and I'm not a huge fan to begin with, but this is my least favorite Tortall book to date. This is somewhat impressive given my feelings on Daine (who is mercifully absent from this book). It seems like Pierce is writing longer books with darker material. I'm guessing that this is an attempt to evolve her stories to appeal to her original audience as they get older. While this makes sense, I think Tamora Pierce is better at writing lighter, shorter novels. It seems like her more recent novels have more problems than her original works. The last series, Trickster's Choice, has some REALLY uncomfortable plot devices while this book was just really boring. In addition to a slow moving plot, this book also had a lot of plot and writing issues for me. 1. The Diary Format: This is the first Tortall book to be told through a series of diary entries. Honestly, I think it was just used as a gimmick to somehow make this different from the previous books. I don't really think this format adds anything to the story. The book reads pretty similar to Pierce's usual storytelling methods. In fact, the diary set up also seems to conflict with the framing device of Eleni telling George a story. It begins with an entry from Eleni's diary where she tells the story to George. If she is telling the story to George, why does it jump to another person's diary? Yes, it's possible that if Eleni possesses Beka's diary, she could have told the entire story by reading it outloud, but the amount of diary focus doesn't come across as natural. Plus, Beka's diary only reads like a diary when it is convenient. There are numerous heavily detailed passages that read like a book vs. a diary. It's hard to believe that Beka was able to remember so much detail especially in the heat of these charged, adventure-filled moments. 2. Beka: I admit it, I have a lot of issues with Pierce's heroines and generally for the same reasons. They all seem too perfect and are universally loved by most of the characters for characters that you are not supposed to like. They also typically have one big flaw that is referenced heavily throughout the novel, but rarely hinders the heroine too badly. In this case, she is shy. Apart from her shyness, Beka is never really criticized by any of the other characters and is, of course, a natural fighter. Everyone loves her and praises her and naturally she downplays all of their praise and "can't see what all the fuss is about". Maybe it's because I've read so many Tortall novels lately, but she seems a bit recycled from Pierce's other works. 3. The Dogs: I get the impression that Pierce was going for a gritty police procedural in a fantasy world. Unfortunately, I don't think she's especially good at writing "gritty" fiction. The mystery itself is not great. I actually had it figured out about halfway through the story. The red herrings were pretty easy to see through. There is way too much emphasis on the day to day duties of dogs and puppies (the two words get thrown around A LOT). 4. Street Talk: To further elaborate on why I don't think Pierce is good at telling a "gritty" story, the dialect used in this book is pretty sad. It never sounds natural to me. It sounds like a normal person speaking (regardless of age or education all sound more or less the same) with words like "motts", "coves", and "some at" sprinkled throughout. It all still sounds too proper for hardened poor people living on the street. The moment that made me think "Are you kidding me?" was when Beka referred to her breasts as "peaches". UGH!! It just sounds so infantile and gentle for someone of her station. This book has some pretty dramatic tone issues. Pierce seems to be struggling to figure out what type of story she wants to tell. 5. Too Many Characters: another common complaint that I have for Tamora Pierce's novels is that there are too many characters that are incredibly similar in personality. To the point that when one of those characters actually died, I didn't really feel much. I get the impression that it was supposed to be this big sad moment, but there was nothing that distinguished this character from the others. There were a few heartfelt moments, mainly when Tansy is able to speak to her son's spirit and encourage him to move on. I will problem finish the last two books because they are the last two in the series. But I think I will be a bit relieved once I wrap this series up. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 15, 2017
|
Mar 29, 2017
|
Mar 15, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1338099132
| 9781338099133
| 1338099132
| 3.48
| 1,061,852
| Jul 31, 2016
| Jul 31, 2016
|
it was ok
|
**spoiler alert** JK Rowling, we need to talk... I LOVED the Harry Potter series. Like every other kid who grew up during the 90s, this book was corner **spoiler alert** JK Rowling, we need to talk... I LOVED the Harry Potter series. Like every other kid who grew up during the 90s, this book was cornerstone of my childhood. It made me want to become a writer. I STILL love the series and feel oddly compelled to go back and read them again. The characters were strong. The world was unique and full of adventure and there was a very powerful messages about courage, love, and determination. Which is why it really pains me to say this, but I think you need let this series go. *Dodges tomato from angry mob* Hear me out! I thought that Harry Potter told a complete story. Yes, I wanted to know a few things out of curiosity like what characters would wind up together and what professions they would pursue, but these are things that could be summed up pretty quickly in an epilogue. I don't want any more books. I don't want to read about a North American magic school, especially when muggles are referred to as No-Majs. I don't even really want to go see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them. I just want to reread Harry Potter over and over again. Which brings me to this play. It really doesn't seem to gel with the other books. The characters that I grew up with don't seem to be the same characters that are in this play. For starters, Hermione is kind of a shrew. I admit she wasn't always the most loveable character and a stickler for the rules, but she was kind and intelligent. Ron also seems to be majorly dumbed down. Granted he wasn't the most intelligent character to begin with, he's still more intelligent than this play gives him credit for. He also seems too focused on the joke shop. Yes, he did take part in that, but that was Fred and George's baby (neither twin gets much more than a mention and the rest of the Weasley siblings apart from Ginny aren't mentioned much at all). Draco's character also suffers a bit and seems to lose any character development that he had worked up by the end of the last Harry Potter book. But don't worry, the Trolley Witch gets attention. Seriously? WHY? This play seems to break the "rules" of the Harry Potter world as well. The biggest frustration for me was the conversations that Harry had with the portrait of Dumbledore. According to the books and Pottermore, portraits are NOT the actual person. They are a drawing that just happens to look and act a lot like their subject. They don't have the same memories and relationships as their human counterparts. The pacing was also very awkward and seemed to cut out some of the more interesting parts of the Hogwarts experience. A lot of the more interesting characters don't even get to appear very much (Hagrid, Luna, Neville, Teddy, James and Lilly). Also the "big twist" at the end seemed very fanfiction-y and not in a good way. There were a few things that I liked. I liked that Albus was put in Slytherin, showing that they are not simply "the evil house". I also liked Scorpio and the fact that he became good friends with Albus showing that there is still hope for both families working together. I'm sure that this play is pretty visually incredible with plenty of magical elements (steam, spells, stuff flying everywhere). But GAH! This whole play just made me feel sad. I think the story was done and in a very good way and this just left me very frustrated. The fact that THIS beat out Bands of Mourning and Age of Myth, left me REALLY disappointed in the Fantasy category of the Goodreads awards. Personally, I'm going to go listen to the Harry Potter audiobooks over and over again and pretend that I never read this. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 10, 2016
|
Dec 10, 2016
|
Dec 10, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 141690817X
| 9781416908173
| 141690817X
| 4.32
| 56,926
| Nov 01, 1996
| Jan 01, 2006
|
did not like it
|
WTF? Tamora Pierce what the heck were you thinking with this one?! I think this is my least favorite book Pierce has every written and raises a few co
WTF? Tamora Pierce what the heck were you thinking with this one?! I think this is my least favorite book Pierce has every written and raises a few concerns. The most obvious issue that I (and many others here have) is the whole Numair and Daine relationship. This was downright uncomfortable to read at times. He is practically TWICE HER AGE and they engage in a very physical, sensuous relationship. And furthermore it is presented as a romantic star-crossed relationship instead of a vastly inappropriate abuse of trust. If this had been handled a bit differently, I might not be so weirded out by this, but it seems to acknowledge that the age gap is inappropriate even in a fantasy setting. Numair himself actually lists off reasons why and then promptly ignores them! It's not like Game of Thrones, which features young relationships as socially acceptable, but still damaging to the people involved. It is presented as a romantic happy ending.. and in a book that is intended for a middle school audience. WTF?! In addition to that especially cringeworthy revelation, the rest of the book is paced terribly. So much time is spent in the immortal realms and it is a bit dull. She spends too much time talking to new gods about relatively inconsequential things while there is apparently a war going on. Said war is wrapped up in a hurried ending that just seems rushed. Another issue I have is Daine's relationship with her parents. It's never really explained HOW they met and fell in love and Daine is kind of expected to simply embrace her father just like that despite never knowing anything about him beforehand. Also, I've griped about this before, Daine's self-righteous condemnation of her father hunting creatures that can be reborn is just obnoxious when she still doesn't embrace a vegetarian lifestyle and spends plenty of time eating animals who can't. Honestly, I'm glad that this quartet is over. I hated Daine as a character and I found this series worse than the initial Alanna series. I might have disliked Alanna initally, but at least she wasn't as whiny as Daine and had a spirit I could admire. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 21, 2016
|
Oct 23, 2016
|
Oct 21, 2016
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385740344
| 9780385740340
| 0385740344
| 3.74
| 8,183
| Dec 14, 2010
| Dec 14, 2010
|
it was ok
|
**spoiler alert** UGH!! I've said this before, but there are some books that give off bad vibes before you read the book, but you are so obviously the
**spoiler alert** UGH!! I've said this before, but there are some books that give off bad vibes before you read the book, but you are so obviously the target audience that you have to give it a shot anyway (typically these are found in the young adult category). Unfortunately for me, this is one of those books. This is a CW pilot hidden in a historical fiction wrapper. I knew I was in trouble when the first paragraph had so much focus on what the heroine was wearing. I think my biggest issue with this book is that I really don't think this a very good representation of what it meant to be a "flapper". Flapper girls were young women who grew up in the 1920s. Yes, they bobbed their hair and drank, but there was a lot more to it than that. They fought against the restrictive Victorian social norms of the time. Instead of serving as the "angel of the home", they tried to look and act more like men. Many of them bobbed their hair and bound their breasts to appear less feminine, dance easier, and make them less "marriageable". They also had the audacity to go out, dance, flirt, drink, and have sex. These women wanted to go out, live life and pursue their interests instead of waiting around for Mr. Right to show up. But it wasn't all about partying, many of these girls were free thinking women who were politically aware and intelligent. However, this book doesn't scratch the surface much further than the pearls, cloched hats, and bobbed hair. It is really disappointing how little the author does with the concept of flappers and the 1920s backdrop. The 1920s was a fascinating time period. Speakeasies, the effects of WW I, the politics of prohibition, gangsters, flappers, political corruption, all of this would have been going on at the time, but they are really only used as window dressings in the background of the story. The characters aren't even really 'flappers' so much as society girls who want to be flappers (the only possible exception being Clara). The characters are another issue for me. All of them are very flat and one-dimensional, and I none of their motivations make a lot of sense to me. It's hard to believe that Gloria would even want to be a flapper. She doesn't drink, she isn't promiscuous and in the beginning of the story she is completely happy with her bland fiancee. Why would she even want to go to a speakeasy? She also very suddenly falls in love with Jerome. His personality is so minimal there is no chance for chemistry. The book only focuses on the fact that he is black and likes music. She suddenly sees him and bam she's in love. What? They do work in a partly developed love of music, but it really doesn't seem like she's THAT passionate about singing or music. Her hatred of Clara also makes very little sense to me. She doesn't want to get married, but she is pissed and instantly trying to ruin Clara's life because she might ruin that wedding? WHAT? The character of Lorraine is another hot mess. She could have been an interesting complicated character if the author had taken a bit more time to develop her and maybe focused on a few of the positive moments with Gloria. Then, I might find her feeling of abandonment a bit more believable and relatable. Frankly it's hard to believe that she was ever friends with Gloria. She does completely stupid things and seems to be more like Gloria's worst enemy than best friend. The plot of the novel is for me pretty predictable (as soon as I read that Clara had a secret I knew it had to be either an abortion or a miscarriage). Historically, I think it's a bit iffy, choosing to use the history when it is convenient. Also, it's not whitewashing persae, but there's something a bit odd about a white, rich, girl being automatically placed on a pedestal for singing a Bessie Smith song. Overall, this was interesting if you like Gossip Girl-esque plots, but if you're seeking an engrossing historical fiction experience, look elsewhere. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 05, 2016
|
Oct 06, 2016
|
Oct 05, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1101905603
| 9781101905609
| 1101905603
| 3.67
| 5,144
| Jan 24, 2017
| Jan 24, 2017
|
it was ok
|
I don't think I'm the right reader for this book. Originally, I saw this book and wanted to read it because it sounded like a unique mystery only to d
I don't think I'm the right reader for this book. Originally, I saw this book and wanted to read it because it sounded like a unique mystery only to discover it was a sequel (-ish) to The Lace Reader. I didn't love the Lace Reader just because it wasn't really a mystery story, but I still wanted to read this one. I wound up pretty underwhelmed by the mystery of this story. There's enough suspense to want to finish it up, but the plot meanders and dwells on random subplots and philosophies for far too long. Also, I don't have a particularly open mind when it comes to alternative medicine. I would have been okay if they cut out most of the scenes surrounding the singing bowls. In addition to the weird plot, I didn't like the two main characters. I found Callie pretty whiny and unlikable and Paul kind of morphed into a spoiled jerk by the end of the novel. Still, it was interesting to see what happened to Towner and Rafferty.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 28, 2017
|
Jul 31, 2017
|
Sep 26, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0375856110
| 9780375856112
| 0375856110
| 4.15
| 289,006
| Nov 08, 2011
| Nov 08, 2011
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** Oh Inheritance... Ugh... I don't have the energy for this review. But since I did this for every other book in the series... Oh Inher **spoiler alert** Oh Inheritance... Ugh... I don't have the energy for this review. But since I did this for every other book in the series... Oh Inheritance! Where do I start? And yes I'm referring to both this book and the series in general. "The movie didn't do the book justice" they said. "It gets so much better in the second half," they said. To every one of my friends who insisted that I needed to give this series a second shot, I respectfully but STRONGLY disagree!! As you can see by reading my previous reviews, the other novels in this series were able to narrowly avoid being placed on my "Why did I bother?!" shelf. Why? Because my biggest complaints have always been this: 1. Underdeveloped characters 2. Ripped off major elements from other more talented writers 3. I found them incredibly boring. While personally I didn't like the books, I found the plot relatively sound and I could see how others (with minimal exposure to other fantasy authors probably) could enjoy the series. While I found them boring and unoriginal and the writing tedious, there was a bit of a story there and nothing that seemed too over-the-top ridiculous. There was even a tiny glimmer of hope during certain parts of Brisingr that character development could happen. And then I read Inheritance... UGH!!!!! This is by far the worst book in this series and it is a bit worrisome that Paolini seems to think that his "adult" writing style is an improvement. This is a tedious, never-ending story that made the past week or so an absolute misery. So here is the list of the usual issues with this series. They apply here as well: 1. I don't like many of the characters. I find Eragon pretentious, Saphira vain, Roran borderline crazy and controlling, and Arya boring. 2. So. Much. Exposition!! 3. Paolini borrows elements from pretty much every single fantasy book I've ever liked. The eldunari are a lot like the horcruxes of Harry Potter, the wercats are just liked the prism cats featured in Terry Brooks novels, the true name concept is similar to the true names used in The Naming (The Gift) by Alison Croggan, and I don't have enough time to list the MANY similarities from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. If it was just these usual issues, I could have probably given this book a 2 star rating. However, this book had a ton of additional issues that drove me nuts. 1. Graphic gorey scenes: Seriously?! What is up with this? Half of this book is mind-numbingly borrow, but the other half is like a torture porn movie. The amount of time this book spends dwelling on Nasuada's torture is ridiculous! There is also a sickening scene where Arya needs to break free from bonds. I was listening to this book at work on audiobooks and I made a mad dash to the bathroom during this scene (on a related note, my coworkers now think I have the stomach flu). I seriously considered giving up after that. 2. Damsels in Distress: One of my biggest criticisms of this series is that Paolini sucks at writing female characters. Nearly every girl character who is not a dragon plays the damsel in distress role at least once. It was especially annoying to see Nasuada (one of the few strong-ish characters in this series) reduced to being rescued to Murtagh. Which leads me to my next point... 3. Murtagh and Thorn: They are barely in this series and they could have been one of the most interesting characters. Thorn is a plot device more than a character and even though Murtagh is the only character who really shows any dramatic character development you barely get to seee him! Also the pretty green dragon on the cover doesn't even show up until Gabatorix is dead. 4. Eragon vs. Elva. Eragon is a prick! There, I said it. But when you royally screw up an infant's life and cause her massive amounts of suffering, you can't expect her to want to help you let alone risk her life. So what does he do when she says no to an asinine request? Yell at her. Blame her for a death that she had no responsibility for and guilt her into helping you against her will. WTF? 5. Galbatorix: Such a disappointing villain. He talks too much! It's like "monoluging" from The Incredibles movie. He's not menacing. He's not even all that interesting. "Having a dragon" is not a personality trait. 6. The earth is round: Why the hell is this SUCH a revelation? After making this discovery, Eragon repeats this statement over and over and over. Why does it even make a difference?! There is a ton of philosophical statements around this scene. I wanted to slap Paolini's editor, but more on that later. 7. Unnecessary detail: I listen to this on audiobook so I'm referring to much of this in terms of time instead of pages, but Paolini includes a ridiculous amount of detail about the stupidest things. Another moment when I nearly gave up was when he spent a solid fifteen minutes going on about Nasuada's jailers fingernails. There were SOOOO many similes in this thing! 8. Orrin: Paolini Destroys his character! I don't know when Paolini decides that he didn't like this character, but he turned him into a bitter drunk. He was something of a foolish but likeable character at the beginning of the story. If anything, she turned him into a poor man's version of Denethor from Lord of the Rings. 9. Roran vs. Birgit: this plotline is just ridiculous. The woman is crazy and nothing about this has made much sense to me. 10. It. Never. Ends!!!: This book FOREVER to finish. If you follow the basic story arc, there is a climax, a brief amount of falling action and the story is ended. After Galbatorix was defeated (Saphira makes some comment about "well we did it"), there was still THREE HOURS AND FORTY-FIVE MINUTES LEFT TO THE BOOK! Just to put it in perspective. The movie The Return of the King is three hours and thirty five minutes long. Someone could have finished watching the entire movie before I would be done listening to everyone getting their happily ever afters. Speaking of Return of the King, this book pretty much copied its ending with the Gray Havens. After making it through ALL that, there was an insufferable, self-congratulating interview between Paolini and his editor. Honestly, this was just infuriating and I didn't last long. I wanted to scream at the editor. Explain yourself! You should have cut out 75% of this story. Initially, I didn't get the hate directed at this series, but I can see why people are so worked up over this series. This book didn't get published because Paolini was a uniquely talented writer or because he was tenacious enough to get it published. This book exists purely because his parents had money and influence. Paolini comes across as that kid who copied everyone else's answers to get an A on a test, but thinks he's a genius. He is even discussing the possibility of sequels. I sincerely hope that does not happen. If it does, I will not torture myself any further. Unlike the other series I'm attempting to finish from my youth, I have very few good things to say about this frustrating series. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 22, 2016
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
Sep 22, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0618663029
| 9780618663026
| 0618663029
| 3.43
| 11,992
| Feb 02, 2016
| Feb 02, 2016
|
it was ok
|
This book was thoroughly disappointing. This book takes itself way too seriously and is written in an extremely dry way with way too much tell, not en
This book was thoroughly disappointing. This book takes itself way too seriously and is written in an extremely dry way with way too much tell, not enough show, a heroine has no real agency, and no sense of fun or scandal at all. I don't say this often, but this was one of the few books where I could kind of tell that a guy wrote it. Usually, I don't mean that as a criticism, but this book uses a few gender-related tropes that I can't stand (as you can see by my status updates that are written in all caps). I am really tired of authors using rape and sexual abuse for no other reason than to make a female character suffer. It happens and it is never brought up again, just another somewhat lazy way to make it clear that women cannot get ahead in this world. I'm also a bit tired of this unofficial historical fiction rule that sexual empowerment and having control over their sex life is the only way that women were historically able to get any power. It's not entirely historically accurate and is quickly becoming cliched. There is a unique and well-researched story in here somewhere, but it's packed with so much nonessential information and the driest writing style ever that this book was really boring the whole way through.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Mar 27, 2018
not set
|
Mar 31, 2018
not set
|
Aug 15, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1595549633
| 9781595549631
| 1595549633
| 3.88
| 40,329
| 2012
| Apr 06, 2012
|
did not like it
|
While this may not take the prize of worst book I've read this year (A Whole New World by Liz Braswell still narrowly holds that position), this one i
While this may not take the prize of worst book I've read this year (A Whole New World by Liz Braswell still narrowly holds that position), this one is a STRONG second place. Get comfortable folks this could be a doozy. I had a feeling that I wasn't going to like this book once I realized that it was a Christian fiction book (somehow I didn't pick up on that when I read the back of the book). I really hate that so many books in this genre come wrapped in a historical fiction package. A few notes for the record: 1.) Yes, I am a practicing Christian and I have been for my entire life 2.) My aversion to Christian fiction is NOT because it promotes Christianity 3.) No, not all Christian fiction is bad (I enjoyed the Light of Eidon and select BJ Hoff books). But I will say that most Christian books that I consider "bad" are "bad" for the same reasons. It mostly boils down to the fact that generally aspects of the actual story (characters, plot and dialogue) play second fiddle to the author's Christian message. This book is par for the course. Dialogue: It's hard to find dialogue believable in this book because ALL the characters seem to be in agreement that God is wonderful and very interesting to talk about. Maybe it's just my unique experience, but I never talk THAT much about God in my daily life. With my family or close friends or in church, yes. But these characters seem to discuss it constantly and in a way that seems more like a sermon that one character interacting with another. I think the biggest criticism of Christian fiction in general is that it tends to come across as "preachy". When the dialogue and all the characters' inner thoughts are peppered with religious overtones, it feels more like it is coming from the author than one of the characters. Even though I tend to agree from a religious standpoint, I find these moments incredibly tedious. Show not tell is part of Creative Writing 101. Stories tend to be more powerful when God's influence is shown through the action of the characters and not because a character says something. There are plenty of examples of Christian-themed novels not considered Christian fiction that are powerful and moving because the characters are able to show these ideals. My go-to example for this the Lord of the Rings which never mentions Jesus or God once, but it clearly inspired by Christian beliefs. Other examples include To Kill a Mockingbird, Atonement and A Wrinkle in Time. Characters: The characters lack depth! They are all squeaky clean with no real character flaws. All of them are pious, good, kind-hearted characters who attend church every sunday, pray through all problems, read the Bible in times of crisis and don't have sex before marriage (my initial cynical response to this was "yeah right"). And while these types of people can be lovely, kind-hearted people in real life, they're pretty boring when it comes to novels. Real people are complicated and even with good intentions have pretty messed up lives with a multitude of sins, vices and flaws. It's what makes us human. It's hard to relate and sympathize with perfect characters who never do anything wrong (apart from the pre-designated "villains") As Tolstoy famously said. "Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." These are the issues that I expect to run into when I read any Christian fiction novel. I also have a bunch of issues with the writing of this novel. Word Choice: This author needs to vary her word choice. She uses the words 'chum', 'hooked' and 'gorgeous' MANY times. Emily Canton: This character is an idiot! I'm sorry, but I wanted to slap this girl by the end of the story. The woman catches her fiance cheating or engaging in inappropriate behavior with Emmeline with her own eyes TWICE, but spends the remainder of the novel trying to find proof that he's cheating (and then trying to disprove this proof) and convincing herself that he's not actual cheating. She is SO fickle, constantly switching her positions on whether he is faithful or not every time a guy hugs her. Motor Cross Racing is the Devil!: This one of the most confusing aspects of this novel. It somehow presents the notion that Tim's motorcross racing hobby as the thing that breaks up their relationship. It even goes so far as to suggest that God wants Tim to give up this hobby. What? Throughout the story Tim is described as a responsible, mature adult with a solid job and a devoted family who just happens to like motorcross. The implication that this hobby is somehow what makes him an unfit husband because it distracts him from Charlotte is just weird. Yes Which brings me to the next subject Tim: Once again, Tim is not portrayed in the best light. But I don't think it's quite fair. A man is not a commitment-phobe because he has second thoughts about proposing to a girl he has only known for two months. I would call that coming to his senses. Also to revisit the previous point, he is not irresponsible because he likes motorcross. Even though he was injured, that was a freak accident not a result of recklessness or stupidity on his part. Kathryn: This shrew of a character really serves no purpose than to make Charlotte feel bad. Agnostic: I can tolerate books with a religious message, but I really don't like it when it tears down one set of beliefs while promoting another. This book describes an agnostic character as "Believing in nothing". This is not entirely accurate and a bit insulting to agnostics. Agnosticism is the belief that humans can't determine whether or not God exists. They do not claim to believe in God, but they don't actively disbelieve in God either. Agnostics don't believe in "nothing" either, many of them believing in their own set of values and morals and the power of the spirit of humanity. Taffy: There is a rather insulting cliche in books where an African American character serves a stock character whose main purpose in the story is to dispense wisdom to a white character, usually with some form of mystical power. In this case, it's Taffy. Which brings up... Historical Inaccuracies: There is no way in hell that a white girl from a prominent family would be thrown into jail for associating with a black person during the Jim Crow era, while the the black person got off without any real punishment. If this were historically accurate, the laws would be on Emily's side. Not Taffy's. Also, the concept that Emily would be the first person to wear a gown made by a black seamstress is completely inaccurate. Mary Todd Lincoln (Abe Lincoln's wife) had a black seamstress working in the White House on her gowns as far back as 1862, a full 50 years before this story. Cliches: They are used throughout the story including such gems as "This is the first day of the rest of my life." Riding a horse inside a church: UGH!!!! Really? This is not a Disney movie! There are some real problems with this scene. Here's the short list: 1. How did he physically get the horse inside? 2. How did no one notice that the horse was inside a church?! 3. The horse would more than likely spook while entering 4. How did she manage to ride a horse in a freaking wedding dress?! Despite ALL of this, I did enjoy the overall concept of the wedding dress being passed throughout the years. This alone keeps it from being the worst book I've read all year, but this book was deeply disappointing and I'm glad that the next audiobook I had available was by one of my favorite authors. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 2016
|
Aug 02, 2016
|
Apr 20, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1781685835
| 9781781685839
| 1781685835
| 3.84
| 1,946
| Oct 07, 2014
| Nov 04, 2014
|
did not like it
|
This book was first published in 2014. A mere four years ago. In her book Coleman describes The hacker organization Anonymous as one of "the most poli
This book was first published in 2014. A mere four years ago. In her book Coleman describes The hacker organization Anonymous as one of "the most politically active, morally fascinating, and salient activist groups today". I'm reading this book in 2018. Whether they've dissolved altogether or simply faded from the public to do more hacker-related work without the spotlight, Anonymous as it described in this book is no more. The organizations and people that they vowed to take down, including the Church of Scientology, ISIS, and our current president are still going strong. Coleman you got it wrong. For better or worse, anonymous proved to be more of a flash in a pan than the major evolution of activism that Coleman tries to portray it to be. But I'm getting ahead of myself, like I said since this book has published a lot of events have happened to shape my opinions of Anonymous. Hindsight is 20/20 and the world of politics and technology moves fast. However, even if I read this book the year it came out, I would still have some major issues with this book. Most of them revolve around the author, Gabriella "Biella" Coleman. Coleman is an Anonymous fangirl and her lack of objectivity makes it very difficult to get a fully nuanced picture of Anonymous as an organization. Even supporters of Anonymous have to admit that they have a somewhat troubling history, particularly in their early years. Some of the things they have done are morally questionable at best and illegal at worst. If Coleman presented a balanced view of Anonymous, I would have been okay with it, but she constantly justifies ALL of Anonymous's actions. She often does this with academic language and downplaying the Lulz of the organization as relatively inane mischief usually with pointless comparisons to trickster gods of lore. In fact, I think on some level she knows that this is an ineffectual argument because she feels the need to come back and explain why she felt necessary to make those points. The fact that she continually hails Anonymous as leading the conversation on race relations and rape culture while dismissing what many could consider sexist and racist hate speech within the ranks of Anonymous as simply "trolling" weakens her arguments. It seems to be that somewhere during her exploits amongst anonymous she went native. She clearly enjoys the role as Anonymous champion, but she doesn't seem to understand that she is NOT considered a full-fledged member. The fact that she was shocked and betrayed by Sabu working as an informant and revels in the friendships and compliments she received from Anonymous members seems to indicate to me that she got too close to her subject material. Also, her methods lead me to question the validity of her research. The members of Anonymous were aware that she was researching them. Wouldn't this lead to some sort of observer bias? It also makes me wonder if they were only showing her the parts of anonymous that they wanted her to see to serve as an effective mouthpiece for the organization. In addition to all of this, Coleman herself comes across as rather pretentious. Whether she is belittling such pedestrian interests as football or Settlers of Catan, describing the lavish spread of TED talk conferences, name dropping, or hurtling academic or tech language at the reader with minimal explanation, it feels like Coleman is constantly talking down to the reader. It has nothing to do with the topic, but it certainly makes the book drag. Despite the fact that this book has ridiculously long rambling passages on trickster lore, Nietzsche, and massive tech logs, there are significant topics about Anonymous that are never addressed in the book. The biggest being the nature of vigilante justice and their tendency to victim blame. Is it right for them to hack into a system and violate a company, organization, or person's privacy. Regardless of what someone might have done, everyone has the right to privacy and when you violate these rules you are doing something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect a neat answer for this question. But when looking at organization that spends so much time outside the legal realm, this is one of the primary questions you need to explore. It seems like an obvious topic of discussion for a book on Anonymous, but Coleman doesn't really discuss it in depth and because she is so pro-Anonymous in the book the reader isn't given enough info to ponder that on their own and draw their own conclusions. The closest she comes is admitting that there is often debate amongst members of Anonymous about whether an op is "ethical" based on the details of the op. The question of whether any of the ops are ethical because they violate someone's fundamental rights is never addressed in detail. It also makes me question why I should feel bad for the Anonymous members like Sabu who had their rights infringed on them when they were arrested when they have so little regard for the people that they had hacked. Again, I don't expect a simple answer, but some discussion on it would have been helpful. Another topic that does not get nearly enough attention in this book is the unintended consequences of the ops. Coleman hails their scientology campaign as a success, but neglects to mention that the Church of Scientology was able to use this campaign to their advantage. According to Lawrence Wright, author of Going Clear (A book that I had read before reading this one), Scientology was able to use the Anonymous attacks to present themselves as victims of religious persecution. Coleman briefly touches on the rape cases that Anonymous was involved in and at least briefly admits that perhaps making the cases public wasn't necessarily in the best interests of the rape victims (especially once they received more negative attention as a result). Since this book has been published, Anonymous has also released information that proved to be inaccurate, releasing the wrong name of the officer involved in the Ferguson shooting. This falsely accused officer needed to enter witness protection after his name was released because of the threats he received. A man's life was threatened because of their actions. Even in situations when they are correct, the fact that people don't live in a vacuum and that attacking one person can unintentionally harm their innocent family members is never addressed. Coleman also tends to oversell some of the accomplishments that Anonymous was involved in. The Scientology campaigns might have brought the focus over to Scientology, but like I said earlier they were able to use the campaign to their advantage. Also, in the case of Slickpubes (*throws up in mouth*) you kinda have to wonder what their end game was. Generally, Scientology is more harmful to its members than to the general public. It seems like the average Scientology practitioner is more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of the horrible crimes that the upper members inflict. One has to ask, how does committing a lude act (and getting arrested) hurt the church? It seems like you just made it a little tougher for the members of the church. Coleman also mentions the WI Recall Elections of 2012 and how Anonymous "helped" by attacking the Koch brothers' website. I live in Wisconsin. I was heavily involved in the recall effort and (at least in this instance) was politically on the same side as Anonymous. I can honestly say that their efforts largely went unnoticed. ANOTHER seemingly obvious topic that isn't delved into nearly deep enough is the very nature of Anonymous, no one knows who anyone else is. This is perhaps Anonymous's greatest strength, but it also their biggest weakness. Anyone can do anything under the Anonymous umbrella. There is no leadership, no guiding principles, and no limits. In a way this fosters discussion and free thought, but this also means that there is no accountability or aim. In fact, there is speculation that this could be the reason why one of their most recent ops, Trump op, failed. Because there was dissension amongst the ranks about Donald Trump. When people are not on the same page, it can be incredibly difficult to rally. Also, when anyone from the professional hacker to the high school computer nerd can claim actions on behalf of Anonymous, your success rate is going to take a bit of a hit which can affect how seriously the general public takes your activism. It also makes Anonymous seem like a trend instead of a cause. This book could have been really fascinating. It could have been a great discussion on politics, justice, activism, technology, democracy, and media. Unfortunately, Coleman doesn't do enough with the topic. It seems like this book solely exists to sing Anonymous's praises. In 2018, even prominent former members of Anonymous like Sabu have dismissed the organization as no longer relevant. This was the most frustrating book I've read this year (so far) and its mainly because the other spent too much time trying to promote Anonymous and not enough time researching it. Despite it all, I remain undecided on hacktivism and Anonymous mainly because I feel like I have not been presented with a clear picture of the organization. Maybe I will find a better source of information, but it's not here. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 06, 2018
|
Jun 11, 2018
|
Mar 23, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062303538
| 9780062303530
| 0062303538
| 3.29
| 4,414
| Feb 24, 2015
| Feb 24, 2015
|
did not like it
|
Cinder has given me unrealistic expectations for YA fairy tale adaptations. This book was one of the stupidest, slowest books that I've read. In fact,
Cinder has given me unrealistic expectations for YA fairy tale adaptations. This book was one of the stupidest, slowest books that I've read. In fact, it currently holds the title for worst book that I've read in 2018. As you can tell by my increasingly cranky status updates, I REALLY hated this book. It had a boring nonsensical plot, useless characters, and didn't do anything with the original source material. This going to be a bit of a rant. 1. Bad writing: At the heart of this story, it's just not written very well. The dialogue is flat and clunky, exposition is dropped by the ton, there are plot holes that you can drive a truck through (more on that later), and just in general the world is bland and undeveloped. There is also a ton of tell not show. It feels like the characters are just talking at the reader instead of telling a story. I think the worst thing about the writing is the pacing and the way that it endlessly rambles on and on and on. It dwells on certain topics way more than necessary and constantly repeats itself. It feels like no characters actually DO anything, except talk. And they don't even say anything noteworthy that will advance the plot they just ramble and banter about nothing! 2. 100 years: This is part of the world building that really drove me crazy. The concept was actually pretty good in theory, but it was awful in execution. Aurora wakes up after 100 years. To state the obviousl, a century is a LONG period of time. A lot should have happened in that time. This could have been an awesome world-building opportunity. Culturally a ton of things can happen in a hundred years, but apparently in this world so little changes that Aurora is able to wake up and go along with things as per usual. Just for perspective, imagine if that sort of thing had happened in modern time. If someone was asleep in the United States for one hundred years and woke up in 2018, they would have fallen asleep in 1918. When they woke up they would discover so many new things. Computers, the internet, space travel, and cell phones would be new. WWII, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam war, the Cold War, September 11th, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq war all would have come and gone. Socially, prohibition, the Great Depression, the civil rights era, and legalizing gay marriage would have all occurred and left their mark. Even the simple things like fashion and they way that people speak would have changed dramatically. The idea of advancing a world 100 years could have been a really fascinating concept in a fantasy novel. Now it just seems like a major oversight. 3. Aurora: I hate all of the characters in this novel. But Aurora is particularly awful. In the original story, Aurora had very little agency and spends most of the novel asleep. I was hoping that the author would rectify this by telling Aurora's story after she wakes up. If this novel had started out with Aurora waking up, yelling "Get off me! What the heck happened? Where's my kingdom?" I would have loved it. Instead, she meekly goes along with everything, dwelling on her terrible misfortune and constantly moping about how unfair everything is. It made me so frustrated because she is a princess and the lack of any real change in government seems to suggest that she should have some power by virtue of her royal lineage. When one of the characters, suggested that Aurora is merely acting meek, my first thought was "no, she's really just that much of a drip." Aurora is otherwise too perfect and spends too much telling Isabelle that she can do anything despite the fact that Aurora lets everyone else abuse and control her without much fight. She spends large portions of this book feeling sorry for herself, but she spends shockingly little time mourning her own family or the fact that she will never see any of the people she knew before she fell asleep again. It's always suggested that Aurora has this "inner fire" and is associated with dragons and honestly it just pissed me off because it felt like they were trying to make Aurora into the next Danerys Stormborn from Game of Thrones. Except, the mother of dragons would show up, burn the jerks to a crisp, and move on with her life. 4. Other Characters: As much as I dislike Aurora, I have to say that the other characters are just as bad. Most of them were boring at best and downright dumb at worst. Iris in particular was extremely frustrating. Her hatred for Aurora seems oddly intense and for no real reason. She keeps insisting that Aurora is this impudent rebellious character which is giving Aurora WAY too much credit. She doesn't have enough personality or nerve to be rebellious. There's also a pretty lackluster love triangle (love square?) involving a variety of really lousy suitors. It also seems like every character sits around and mopes about how unfair their life is. The pity parties never end. The characters are also pretty cliched. I'm really tired of dead parents being the motivation for so many modern characters. We can't all be Batman! 5. Shoddy world building: This universe is hazy at best. The concept of magic is really vague and never explained particularly well. Same goes for the aims of the "rebellion", beyond removing the generic tyrant in charge they never really outline their goals or explain why simply putting Aurora on the throne wouldn't simply fix the problem. This book only took me two days to finish, but honestly I'm irritated that it took me that long to finish it and I would like those hours back! Right now this is the frontrunner for worst book I've read this year. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 20, 2018
|
Mar 21, 2018
|
Mar 01, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0739303406
| 9780739303405
| 0739303406
| 4.00
| 707,850
| Feb 11, 2003
| Feb 11, 2003
|
it was ok
|
I was REALLY disappointed with this one! I know that this book has gotten a lot of really positive reviews, but I was pretty underwhelmed. This book c
I was REALLY disappointed with this one! I know that this book has gotten a lot of really positive reviews, but I was pretty underwhelmed. This book covers two events that occurred in Chicago around the same time, the World Fair and the murders of Dr. Holmes. For some reason, I found both these stories very difficult to follow (I imagine the audiobook format didn't help). It was a bit dry and my mind was constantly wandering. I originally read this for the murder portion of the book, but I actually found the world fair sections more interesting. I'm not sure if it's the writing itself or the fact that it is constantly jumping between the two storylines, but this one was a bit of a downer for me.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 15, 2016
|
Apr 19, 2016
|
Feb 18, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 006222543X
| 9780062225436
| 006222543X
| 3.83
| 134,064
| Apr 02, 2013
| Apr 02, 2013
|
it was ok
|
**spoiler alert** UGH! This is one of those books where I can't help but wonder WHY do so many people like this book?! If you were, like me, recommend
**spoiler alert** UGH! This is one of those books where I can't help but wonder WHY do so many people like this book?! If you were, like me, recommended this book because of a Gone Girl comparison that you were sadly misinformed. It feels like this book is trying to be dark and edgy without ever doing anything that is especially dark or edgy. I had MANY issues with this book, including the following: 1. The Clubs: Is this really a thing? No, seriously am I just an out-of-touch Midwestener public school kid? I have never heard of 'clubs' of this nature at the high school level (apart from the academic-themed ones Spanish Club, Math Club, 4-H etc.). They sound more like 'cliques'. The closest thing that I could compare these to would be the Plastics from the movie Mean Girls. The 'clubs' remind me of stuff that I did in middle school or elementary school (i.e. the 'power rangers' club or the 'princess club' (I grew up during the 90s. don't judge me), while the hazing sounds more like sororities at the collegiate level. They just seem really out of place. Which brings me to the next point... 2. The Magpies: I don't get why anyone would want to join this club. And that's not my nonconformist I-hate-cliques attitude talking. I don't understand what the benefit would be to joining this club. Where is the payoff for the hazing? It is implied that the school population knows that the Magpies exist, but they don't know who is in it. So why would you want to be a part of it? Again, the only thing that I can compare this to is The Plastics, but that made sense. People knew if you were a member of that clique and you were viewed as cool and popular. There was a certain level of prestige that came with being a part of the clique. But they don't seem to have that with the Magpies. You get tortured and hazed, but what for? Is it just for the high school parties? Is it so you get to torture and haze other people. Also, what the hell happened to other prospective 'magpies'? Like the 'bad-ass ballerina'? They seem to just disappear into thin air. 3. The Dialogue: No one in the free-world talks like some of these characters. It sounds like an adult trying to talk like a teenager, but it doesn't come across as natural. It reminds me of my dad in high school when he would tell me to "have a super-fly, dope day at school fo' schizzle" (it was a dark time. Uncomfortable for the whole family really). 4. Police Procedure: There is a lot of moments here that would probably not fly as far as police procedure goes. For example: no self-respecting cop would ever bring the mother of a victim along to question suspects. There are a few problems with this. A.) the most practical reason, the mother could freak out and try to attack the suspect or vice versa. The risk to a civilian's safety is just too great. B.) Having a relative of the suspect there, could have an impact on how they would answer the questions. They might be more willing to lie. 5. Teacher Procedure: I might not be 100% sure on the police procedures, but I know for a fact that no schools would handle these situations the way they did at Grace Hall. My parents are both teachers and I pretty much grew up within the school system. For example: Woodhouse 'blackmailing' Amelia with her writing award would not fly. Why would you 'blackmail' a wealthy student with a lawyer mother? Especially when it has been established that Woodhouse is trying to actively avoid a law suit. 6. Dylan's mysterious 'social condition': this could be any number of things. Asberger's syndrome, social anxiety, depression, some form of autism. The fact that the author didn't even say what it was, but the other characters readily accepted this without question irked me. 7. Dylan's relationship with Amelia: I get the impression that the author didn't really know how to write a lesbian relationship. There is a lot of tell vs. show in this book in general, but especially when it comes to Amelia and Dylan. They apparently have sex, but they never go into great detail about any of the romantic details of their relationship. I'm not sure if this is because the author didn't understand the 'mechanics' of lesbian love-making or just didn't think it was all that important, but I thought that was a bit lacking. 8. Kate's relationship with Amelia: Kate is constantly accused of being the workaholic mom who doesn't pay attention to her daughter, but that goes against most of the scenes of the book. Kate clearly makes an effort to be there for her daughter. She's willing to hang up on work calls and miss meetings to see her daughter. She is a bit frazzled clearly, but she is certainly trying and Amelia seems to grasp that. Overall, this book just seems a bit out of touch to me. I understand that you have to suspend belief to a certain degree, but there were so many moments that just seemed incredibly unrealistic and non sequitur to me. I can see why people like this book, the suspense is good and the mystery does keep you reading, but the characters are so one-dimensional and the situations are so unbelievable that I really couldn't get into this story. This book had potential and if the characters were more rounded and the plot tweaked just a bit it could have been so much better. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 10, 2016
|
Mar 12, 2016
|
Jan 31, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1492615382
| 9781492615385
| 1492615382
| 3.65
| 1,325
| May 01, 2015
| May 05, 2015
|
it was ok
|
I don't know how to review this book without sounding like an insensitive jerk, but darn it I'm going to try. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of symp
I don't know how to review this book without sounding like an insensitive jerk, but darn it I'm going to try. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy for the author and her family. They clearly had a difficult childhood with both parents going through some pretty heavy issues and one parent drifting and in and out of their lives. It is completely understandable that the author and her siblings emerged with some issues about addiction, depression and anxiety. BUT... The writing itself comes across as very melodramatic with an overwhelming tone of "Oh woe is me!". And again, a little oh woe is me is to expected. I'd be more concerned if she somehow came through all this with no issues at all. But the problem is that the way story is written doesn't engage me. I feel bad for her in a disconnected way, but I was hoping for something a bit more than her inner monologue and clumsy metaphors. I keep thinking of something my English professor told my class. Don't tell the reader how to feel or what you're thinking. Just present the facts and let them process their own emotions. The other thing that bothers me is that she seems to blame every emotional hardship on her mother's abandonment including things like her rebellious teenage years and even her minor parenting frustrations. Plus, she doesn't seem to give her dad, who had his own problems but clearly made a real effort, enough credit. She ends the book with this magnaminous declaration that "she wouldn't trade her mother for anyone in the world." This statement seems a bit hollow after an entire book about the emotional damage her mother apparently caused. I was expecting more of a "I still love my mom, but I still carry a lot of hurt, but I'm trying to make peace with it" sort of ending. While I'm not unsympathetic to the author's situation, this seems to be a memoir filled with self-pity. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 25, 2016
|
May 25, 2016
|
Jan 31, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1891620428
| 9781891620423
| 1891620428
| 3.70
| 3,498
| Oct 1999
| Sep 09, 1999
|
it was ok
|
I have read numerous memoirs of cult survivors, but I have never had such a negative reaction to an author. By the time I finshed this novel, I wanted
I have read numerous memoirs of cult survivors, but I have never had such a negative reaction to an author. By the time I finshed this novel, I wanted to slap Thibodeau... repeatedly. I had to constantly remind myself that he is a cult victim and has gone through extensive conditioning and was probably never properly deprogrammed. Even though to a certain extent it is probably the lingering effects of his time in Waco, in his book Thibodeau comes across as shockingly ignorant at best and complicit and enabling at worst. I might be able to muster up sympathy for him at the end of the day because he has been through a horrific ideal, but this book is incredibly misguided. My biggest frustration with this book, and by extension the author, is Thibodeau's continued admiration of David Koresh. Despite admitting the fact that Koresh committed statuatory rape, Thibodeau continues to praise Koresh as a great spiritual leader. To me, going to a child molestor to explain spiritual enlightenment is not unlike going to a murderer and asking them to explain the value of human life. Thibodeau consistently insists that Mount Carmel was a religious community and not a cult but his ignorant defense of Koresh only convinces me that yes, he was in fact a member of a cult. One of the most infuriating aspects of this book is Thibodeau's incredibly narrow definition of child abuse. Judging by what he wrote in this book, Thibodeau only views physical hitting or striking as child abuse. He readily admits that Koresh had sex with underage children all while rather stupidly insisting that all of the abuse allegations were unfounded. Statutory rape IS child abuse, a particularly cruel and heinous form of child abuse. Minors are not capable of consent. Therefore, any sexual contact with a minor is considered rape even if they were "married" or appeared to consent. To be fair, he does mention that Koresh's child brides made him uncomfortable, but he never outright condemns Koresh for the abuse. In fact, he seems more upset over the fact that Koresh's abuse caught the attention of law enforcement than the fact that Koresh severely harmed the cult's most vulnerable victims, the children he claims to care so much about. He continues to insist that the governments child abuse claims were "unfounded" but this is clearly inaccurate by his own admission! In addition to heaping an unreasonable amount of praise on a clearly questionable leader, Thibodeau consistently dismisses the accusations of numerous women and children, including a fourteen year old girl who testifies against Koresh. His rather feeble response is always along the lines of "I never saw him do that. I know him he wouldn't do that." This does not hold water. I'm not sure if he was aware of it, but numerous children, including Koresh's own biological children have since come forward and claimed that physical and sexual abuse was common place and the adults of Mount Carmel were aware of it if not willing participants. In interviews since, Kiri Jewell claimed that her own mother took her to a motel to have sex with Koresh. Sky Okimoto, Koresh's son, claimed that his mother hit him with the Helper paddle until he bled. The same paddle that Thibodeau insists was only used for "light spankings to discipline the children". According to these same children, they were also subject to emotional abuse in the form of intense marathon Bible sessions that included terrifying descriptions of armageddon, being trained from a young age to fight and be prepared to die for or have sex with Koresh, a constant paranoia of the outside world, no real education, and being forced to live in horrific living conditions. I first suspected that I was not going to like this book, when Thibodeau described an underground bus as a tornado shelter without any sort awareness that this not a safe place to take shelter. At first I thought that maybe, his statements were the results of the book originally being published so quickly after the initial events of the siege (it was originally published in 1996, a mere six years after the events at Waco). However, the version that I read was re-released before the Waco mini series based on the events was released. The series was based on this book (and incidentally critically panned largely because it was found to be sympathetic to Koresh) and Thibodeau provided an additional epilogue that was painfully tone deaf. Thibodeau assures the surviving children of Waco that he will always be there for them and that they were loved. These are the same children that he discredited in the previous chapter. The same children who were abused by his beloved spiritual mentor. The fact that he doesn't seem to grasp this disconnect just proves to me that he was completely conditioned and needs to seek help. In addition to his problematic views on child abuse, Thibodeau offers a pretty weak explanation for other highly suspicious activities that took place on the compound. He insists that the majority of the firearms on the compound were sold to provide funds for the community. My initial reaction to that was to groan outloud and exclaim "COME ON!" Of all the ways to fund a community, why on earth would you choose such an unpredictable method of earning money? Not to mention the monumental risk of having that many firearms around children? Like other claims Thibodeau makes in the book, this claim has been more or less disproved. In 2018, a former UPS delivery man revealed that he went to the Waco sheriff after accidentally discovering that a package that he was going to deliver to the compound was filled with hand grenades (In the US, it has been illegal for civilians to own hand grenades since 1968). He also discovered that he unknowingly delivered grenade launchers, AK-47s, AR-15s, and magazines. If this is true, the ATF would have been within their jurisdiction to inspect the compound, despite the fact that Thibodeau insists that they overstepped their authority. Besides the weak explanation of the guns, Thibodeau does not seem to find Koresh's "no has sex but me and I can pick whoever I want regardless of their age or marital status" rule unreasonable or suspicious. He spends a significant amount of time complaining about his lack of a sex life (more time than he spends worrying about the child brides and without any real concern about who might be harmed by this practice I might add), but seems to suggest that this was spiritually good for all of them. His involvement with Thibodeau also dramatically altered his physical appearance (he claimed to like his emaciated frame) and led to him abandoning his love of music. Thibodeau insists that he has strong instincts, but the fact that he seems unaware of how deeply he was controlled by Koresh. Despite the fact that Thibodeau and Clive Doyle (I have read his memoirs as well) have praised Koresh's spirual guidance, both are mum on the specifics of their belief system. Whether this is because it has some questionable morals that they do not want the public to know or if there just wasn't much of an established system, I honestly don't know. From what I read, Koresh more or less infiltrated the Branch Davidians group that was settled in the area and combined it with elements from both Christianity (Biblical preaching) and Judaism (celebrating passover). Thibodeau consistently claims that the group was persecuted for their religious beliefs, but never outlies what those beliefs are. It seems very non sequitar. Apart from the acceptance of child brides there was very little objection to any religious beliefs or their communal living situation. The only reason that this book gets two stars instead of one is because despite the infurating justification throughout the book, Thibodeau does present a few valid points about the siege. The government did a horrific job of addressing the situation. Koresh was a monster, but the majority of the victims were innocent and the ATF did not conduct the negotiation with the delicacy needed to help cult victims. The excessive violence and cruel siege tactics that of the ATF was out of line, especially with so many children on the premise. The media was also a bit hasty to condemn the entire compound without really acknowledging that they too were victims of cruelty. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever get a conclusive account of what actually occurred for a very tragic reason. The people most affected by Koresh's abuse probably died in the fire and were victims of both Koresh AND the mishandled siege. Nine adults survived the blast and the two written accounts that I know of were written by Koresh's Mighty Men (members of Koresh's inner circle). Both accounts seem particularly biased and unwilling to address certain topics and present a very skewed perspective. The most charitable I can be for Thibodeau is to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is (despite my intense frustration at him) a victim as well. Even as I reread my review and realized how much of my frustration leaked out, I can at least acknowledge that he might have been unaware of some of the abuse or is still so conditioned to defend Koresh that he can't help himself. Waco was a terrible tragedy thanks to some horrific mishandling of both parties. It's important to remember this horrific event and its victims and learn from it so that it can never happen again. I just wish that the victims had a more reliable speaker. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 25, 2018
|
Jun 27, 2018
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.98
|
it was ok
|
Feb 16, 2020
|
Dec 01, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.29
|
it was ok
|
May 14, 2019
|
Apr 25, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.54
|
did not like it
|
Oct 15, 2017
|
Sep 25, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.31
|
did not like it
|
Aug 04, 2017
|
Aug 04, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 2.85
|
did not like it
|
Feb 02, 2018
|
Jun 19, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.27
|
did not like it
|
May 02, 2017
|
Apr 20, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.16
|
did not like it
|
Mar 29, 2017
|
Mar 15, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 3.48
|
it was ok
|
Dec 10, 2016
|
Dec 10, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.32
|
did not like it
|
Oct 23, 2016
|
Oct 21, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.74
|
it was ok
|
Oct 06, 2016
|
Oct 05, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.67
|
it was ok
|
Jul 31, 2017
|
Sep 26, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.15
|
did not like it
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
Sep 22, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.43
|
it was ok
|
Mar 31, 2018
not set
|
Aug 15, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.88
|
did not like it
|
Aug 02, 2016
|
Apr 20, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.84
|
did not like it
|
Jun 11, 2018
|
Mar 23, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.29
|
did not like it
|
Mar 21, 2018
|
Mar 01, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.00
|
it was ok
|
Apr 19, 2016
|
Feb 18, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.83
|
it was ok
|
Mar 12, 2016
|
Jan 31, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.65
|
it was ok
|
May 25, 2016
|
Jan 31, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.70
|
it was ok
|
Jun 27, 2018
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
Loading...
