Actually no. You know what? I’m done with this book. I’m not going to even go over all of the racist things this author said, other than to point out Actually no. You know what? I’m done with this book. I’m not going to even go over all of the racist things this author said, other than to point out that the author really wastes a lot of ink calling the Comanches savage and uncivilized because they had less stuff, hierarchy, law, etc.
As though you could measure civilization by the things people carry. ...more
The worst book I’ve picked up in a while. I would give this negative stars if I could, as it was actively detrimental to my happiness. I got to page 4The worst book I’ve picked up in a while. I would give this negative stars if I could, as it was actively detrimental to my happiness. I got to page 40 or so and then skipped to the middle of the book, read a few more chapters, and then my wife took the book out of my hands because I was so annoyed.
This is Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonriders of Pern but with punks and injudicious cursing. I’m not against cursing at all, but filling a fantasy book with it in a misguided attempt to sound “badass” doesn’t work. It already sounds dated.
Initially, I wanted to quit at page 10 or so, right after the main character says “for the win.” In a high fantasy novel.
There are a few things wrong with this book—the haphazard world building, lack of respect for the audience, authorial wish fulfillment, and the fact that the language of the book seems to consistently escape Yarros’ control. Also the part where the first person narration is weakly justified and the book is one big cliche. Yarros tries to cut cliches with other cliches in a wan attempt to spice things up. Oh also everyone has a dumb name.
First person narration doesn’t work in world building, because it requires the narrator to be more observant than any normal person would be. In this case, it’s just a crutch, because I doubt Yarros has any real writing skills otherwise.
There’s an agonizing sequence where the main character, with the obnoxious name of “Violet Sorrengail” walks on a balance beam of a wall. To calm herself down, she recites facts about the world, because the narrative style doesn’t provide a chance to learn about the world otherwise. While this book desperately needs a strong editor, it wouldn’t really help. If you cut out everything stupid, there’d be no text left.
Seriously, there wasn’t a world built in advance. Yarros has a created a purely wish-fulfillment narrative, and elements of the world are created to (attempt to) advance the story. None of it makes narrative sense. It’s just a collection of events, facts, and observations intended to sound cool. And we all know that anyone who tries this hard to sound cool absolutely fails at it.
And the facts themselves are useless. She recites what amounts to a Wikipedia entry about her kingdom, complete with a list of crops and the economic base.
She’s warned to stay away from one rider, and like two pages later, she sees the most handsome man in the world who of course is the same man....more
A long review ahead—I made myself read every page.
At first, I approached this book with an open mind, assuming that the thoughts I had about how the A long review ahead—I made myself read every page.
At first, I approached this book with an open mind, assuming that the thoughts I had about how the CIA acted were stereotypical and ill informed. That I didn’t know enough to pass judgment. Like, I had once had a very negative view of the FBI, and then became very well acquainted with their anti white terrorism work.
Nope. This is every bit as awful, immoral, macho, and blinkered as I suspected.
At the very beginning, it became clear Prado has no understanding or interest in the constitution when he instigated a physical attack on people burning flags with his street gang.
He views any restrictions on methods, like banning political assassination, indefensible as on page 247. He does not have the slightest idea of what a slippery slope is, because he’s completely fallen off of it. If we don’t follow our own moral and legal codes, how are we the good guys?
Prado truly seems to believe that no tool should be off-limits to the CIA. I don’t know how to argue that we are “good” if we have no morals, no laws, no boundaries, or even basic decency.
This is a life unexamined, totally without doubt or questions, and hatred for those who might harbor doubt or even ask a good question.
Example: page 71, supplying Soviet weaponry to the Contras to fight communists. Why did the CIA provide Soviet weapons? How were they procured in the first place? What does this say about the relationship about the US and the fight against communism? Prado never thinks to ask.
As a natively hierarchical fascist, he is obsessed with people being in their rightful “places,” low places, people being “slapped” into their places.
He contradicts himself regularly, when it comes to morality. On page 92 he says the contras are painted unfairly as armed killers who commit atrocities. And yet a paragraph later, he admits explicitly that the Contras committed a few “atrocities”-his word.
Another contradiction, and the most important one throughout the book—the CIA is good because it has morals and yet is hamstrung by being made to abide by them.
Informants (agents) for example: he makes a big point that the CIA is good because they recruit informants from “strengths”— p137. Informants are people who are trying to make things better. We were “the good guys,” as opposed to our communist adversaries who engage in blackmail.
And yet on page 170, the first time we hear about the recruitment of an informant in detail, he’s being blackmailed for smoking pot. More egregiously, on 228, we get staged photo blackmail, putting someone in danger of being sent to a gulag and implied death, in order to force someone to become an informant. In fact we are never given a single example of these “strength based idealistic” agents.
He complains that the US didn’t want agents with “morally questionable” backgrounds, in defense of an agent whose crimes are so bad that even Prado won’t mention them. The agent is “a man so notorious for his violent streak that it alarmed official Washington.”
He calls all restrictions for moral decency damage and problematic. He calls those who have these morals effete.
He is jingoistic. Misogynistic. Hypocritical. Racist.
He heaps abuse on journalists, academics, politicians, historians…anyone who might think critically about his work or ask questions.
He won’t use their help to examine past errors because he can’t admit any were made. On p238, for example, he acknowledges that the Afghan mujahideen were the most avid, able, and ideologically committed Islamic terrorists. But earlier throughout the book he says the CIA supported them in the Soviet-Afghan war. He encounters no internal conflict or doubt here.
At no point does Prado acknowledge that we trained and equipped these eventual terrorists. He just completely glosses over what was clearly an enormous judgment error—made on our part for apparently ideological, not strategic reasons.
He even criticizes Bush and other CIA officers (p255) as not ideologically pure enough—a situation he previously decried as evidence of the weakness and bad nature of his political opponents.
He’s full of unwarranted bile and resentment. On pages 258-9, he insults other CIA officers as “posers” and “pencil-dicks” he wants to “de-ball.” He adds in this anecdote for literally no reason. It has no narrative value, contains no characters we have heard about and offers no useful commentary other than to indicate Prado’s general sense that he is better and tougher than everyone.
Prado becomes more full of himself as the book goes along. As though in the process of writing his memoirs, he decided, “wow, I really AM the greatest gift to the CIA.”
He has a firm political center. Not a moral one.
In the end, he is vague about a capability he developed for the CIA which is so repugnant to the leaders of the CIA and even Dick Cheney that he is forced to retire.
Eventually in the postscript, he specifically decries moral boundaries. I have to say, I am glad there are some leaders in the CIA strong enough to deny such heinous motivations....more
I read this for amusement purposes. Here are the most hilarious or ironic takeaways:
1. The authors are REEEEALLY into leaflets. They believe that it’sI read this for amusement purposes. Here are the most hilarious or ironic takeaways:
1. The authors are REEEEALLY into leaflets. They believe that it’s so effective that they “conservatively” estimate that 1% of readers go vegan or vegetarian based on the reading of a pamphlet. They return to this point on many occasions throughout the book.
2. Some of their proposed tactics are highly unethical for a book which devotes chapters and appendices to ethics. This includes proselytizing to captive audiences. Sign up for a public speaking class! Learn how to talk AND take advantage of your captive audience. The workplace is also a great to do this. Repeatedly bother your coworkers and/or employees.
3. In fact, let’s take it a step further and DATE meat-eaters. This is explicitly recommended on page 63. Let me be clear—you’re not dating them out of a sense of mutual attraction or anything, but to manipulate one more person into giving up meat. That is, if you can stand to get over the “revulsion” of “kissing a meat-eater.”
Aside from encouraging general disrespect and manipulation, other wildly inappropriate suggestions are made.
Page 69: when asked why not solve human problems first: try comparing meat eating to racism. Again, this is made explicit: “what would we think of someone who said that ‘whites come first’ and therefore poverty in Africa…. [blah blah blah].” Page 71: when addressing people of faith: “…and then you can continue with something like ‘actually some of my closest friends are Jewish/Christian/Muslim’—whatever they are.” Yes, it really does tell you to claim that you have a good friend of another faith regardless of the truth. Is there anyone who even takes those claims at face value anymore? Page 74: In case this isn’t humiliating enough, you could go make your arguments on that notable luminary outlet Craigslist! Who HASN’T changed their ethics based on a hastily-produced paragraph posted on the same website used to sell stolen bikes? Also, they went back to dating and suggest that perhaps you create a profile just to spread the word of animal liberation. At least you know what you’re getting into this time. Finally, on page 77, the authors return to leafletting stating that according to un-cited “surveys and feedback,” [the authors’] “experience is that leafleters convince…three and ten people to change their diet[s] for every 300 booklets handed out”
All in all, an amusing way to spend an hour. That is, if you like getting into arguments with self-righteous vegans. ...more
The only reason I finished this book is that I feel guilty for abandoning the last book I read.
This is the third of three nonfiction books I have readThe only reason I finished this book is that I feel guilty for abandoning the last book I read.
This is the third of three nonfiction books I have read so far this year about a disaster/ous event told through the lens of a biography, the other two being about the 1900 Galveston hurricane and the IRA murder of Jean McConville in 1972.
While this book is structured in the same way, it fails to be a gripping account of well...anything. Seriously, I kept waiting for the narrative to get started, for us to have a gripping account of adventure, whether it be by the author or his subject. We don't really get much of anything.
Annoyingly, the last 15-20 pages become quite interesting, as the author (as is demanded by the conventions of this genre) attempts to solve the mystery. Not the mystery of what happened to Fawcett, because honestly, who cares? He died of one misadventure or another, and it doesn't really matter which. No, Grann attempts to solve the mystery of the eponymous city of Z itself.
There's very interesting information about this lost civilization, which in some sense has been scientifically validated. It's not a golden El Dorado, but something even more exciting to modern anthropologists and archaeologists. Unforunately by the time we get to this, the author has spent all of his credibility. There's so little information given that this civilization seems mythical too.
I wish the narrative of the Kuhikugu culture had been a central part of the narrative. Sigh....more
I'm abandoning this. It was fun for a while but then just became tedious. I can see why this made a good videogame. It's certainly an interesting worlI'm abandoning this. It was fun for a while but then just became tedious. I can see why this made a good videogame. It's certainly an interesting world but the narrative is just not very strong--it's monotonous and feels mostly pointless.
Sort of like Vandermeer's Annihilation. Seemed like an interesting world; narrative is garbage (although in that case, the book was overwritten. Metro 2033 is somehow lengthy but desperately underwritten). It clearly had movie potential, but was worthless as a book....more
This book is not good. I abandoned it at page 100.
The author displays a profound lack of control over the narrative, the language, and the issues sheThis book is not good. I abandoned it at page 100.
The author displays a profound lack of control over the narrative, the language, and the issues she's dealing with. Good science fiction starts with extrapolation--taking something and bringing it to somewhere near its logical conclusion. I don't think the author has any particular grasp on the social issues she's grappling with or even what her own stance is. Take the language about gender--its so prevalent throughout the book, but doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever.
Regarding the narrative, it seems like the author created a world and then tried to create a narrative which would touch on everything. This leaves the plot rather formless and meandering. It feels like it only serves to connect concepts about the world.
And let's talk about language. I am comfortable with grammatical errors when they are deliberate and within the author's control. This book is riddled with errors, making the whole thing seem even more amateur-ish.
I feel bad. Had it been a friend who wrote this, I would tell them they did a great job. But, I would expect a great deal more work editing and narrative-building before publication....more
“The Inheritance of Tools” and “Death Games” are worth reading. Not so much the rest of it.
The essays have no point and are pretty self-congratulator“The Inheritance of Tools” and “Death Games” are worth reading. Not so much the rest of it.
The essays have no point and are pretty self-congratulatory. He has a whole essay describing his sense of false humility at being a bumpkin. Essentially "sorry, I don't know how to BUY all of these things--I only know how to make or fix them! Unlike those cultured cityfolk, amiright?"
Maybe it's not fair to read this right after Flannery O'Connor, but the imagery is as pointless as the narratives. Unimportant things are described in great detail, and I get the impression this is just because the author thought he had a cool series of words.
Sometimes the imagery adds less than nothing, as in a description of a sign pinned to a tree: "Here is a human sign for certain, with its labels imposed on the wordless landscape.” It’s literally a sign. This is its actual function. You cannot make it more evident than that. It might as well say “The sign pinned to the tree hung there like a sign indicating information.”
Dead trunks “gleam a ghostly white”
Old logs are like “dinosaur bones”
“Patches of velvety green” are pastures.
How much more obvious can you get? These are literally the first comparisons that anyone might scribble down.
All-in-all, it’s not offensive. But it is pretty lackluster. In a world of good books, why waste your time on this? ...more
Essentially a vanity project. The first couple of chapters are interesting, and then it turns into descriptions of all of the (actually really boring Essentially a vanity project. The first couple of chapters are interesting, and then it turns into descriptions of all of the (actually really boring sounding) games she's created. Also, the amount of times she referenced her Ph.D. was a little weird. And the fact that every single argument was based on our genetic capacity for various emotions.
If I have to hear "We're hardwired to" one more time, I might throw up.
In retrospect, I'm revising this further downward. This book is a waste of time. ...more
Well, at least it's a quick read. I literally read the whole thing standing up. It's sad, but this has to go on the junk shelf. I completely agree witWell, at least it's a quick read. I literally read the whole thing standing up. It's sad, but this has to go on the junk shelf. I completely agree with the author's conclusions, but her argument and reasoning is weak, illogical, and frequently, self-contradictory.
I mean, one one page, she rails against nuclear power and modern hospitals, but about five pages later, she blasts modern curricula for lacking a scientific basis. So, it seems like she only supports science when it supports her agenda. Otherwise it is inauthentic knowledge dribbled from the mouth of worthless "experts." Then, another five pages later, she mentions that she is less able to judge the history of education than an historian.
So which one is it? Is a scientific grounding important or not? Are experts useful or not? Don't ask Prieznitz; she concludes one way or the other depending on which is most convenient at the moment.
(By the way, let me be clear that the safety of both nuclear energy and modern hospitals are beyond dispute.)...more
You know, I'm only like 10 pages in, but I already think I won't like it. The author is lazy. Like once per page he writes something like "No one everYou know, I'm only like 10 pages in, but I already think I won't like it. The author is lazy. Like once per page he writes something like "No one ever explained why X is so," which really sounds more like the author doesn't have a clear idea of what he's writing. He doesn't include character names because "we were meant to be focused on our purpose and 'anything personal should be left behind.'" This may be the weakest reasoning I have ever read for not naming characters.
Also, the language is unoriginal and boring. He shoehorns in undergraduate philosophy truisms like "nothing that lived and breathed was truly objective."
I feel like this is an almost insulting way to treat readers.
Edit: Okay, I'm done. The author is trying too hard to create an aura of mystery, basically by stating "my reasons for this are MYSTERIOUS." I mean, at one point the narrator states that the reason for Area X's (original name, right!?!) existence would be "too complicated to explain." YOU HAVE AS MANY PAGES AS YOU WANT. This is lazy.
They get really freaked out by some words written in fungus on the wall and talk about how no one has EVER communicated like this in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD. No, really. That is basically a direct quote.
Sadly, this is one of those few books that would probably be better as a movie--I feel pretty confident that even a hacky scriptwriter could do a better job....more
**spoiler alert** It's been a while since I've been able to mark something as total crap. I read this for school once when I was young and vaguely rec**spoiler alert** It's been a while since I've been able to mark something as total crap. I read this for school once when I was young and vaguely recalled some of it. I saw it for like 40 cents and decided to re-read it.
It's junk. The author really doesn't have a strong grasp of narration. The POV is unsteady and there is really only the barest attempt at characterization. Minorities and women are uniformly two-dimensional and pretty nearly expendable. Their motivations are obscure and inconstant. Look at Rita, for example. She has a past history with the main character, but it really doesn't seem to affect their interactions in the least. The first time she shows up, she's painted as foolish and greedy. The second time she appears, it's in order to give up one of her most valuable possessions on a thin pretext and then to disappear from the story forever.
In terms of the plot, there really doesn't seem to be much of a struggle. They need salt and then, conveniently, someone has read in an old book about a pond nearby with an infinite supply of salt. They need razors and, conveniently, a little girl exploring the house finds a secret room in the attic filled with useful things--how wonderful.
Somehow this book manages to be less complex than that pretty-bad post-apocalyptic TV show starring Skeet Ulrich of Scream fame. (Jericho?)...more
Look, the language was, unsurprisingly, strong. But was this a story which needed to be told? Is this something that should have withstood the test ofLook, the language was, unsurprisingly, strong. But was this a story which needed to be told? Is this something that should have withstood the test of time? No. the first two thirds is slow and formulaic. The last third is nauseating, and I am a pretty jaded person.
Recommended for: people who appreciate the movie Saw. ...more
Valuable only to understand a bit of what Melville was talking about. This formulaic book contains in general, the most shallow research, used to pad Valuable only to understand a bit of what Melville was talking about. This formulaic book contains in general, the most shallow research, used to pad the narrative. Generally every page or so, the author interrupts the tale with an aside, which can range from the useful to the laughably irrelevant. Philbrick feels a need, for example, to bring up other famous, but fundamentally unrelated incidents of cannibalism for no other reason than that they were other famous incidents of cannibalism. He also spends time, for example, comparing the first mate's style of leadership to Shackleton's, which really adds almost nothing to the narrative. Later, he pointlessly explains what the captain's last name means, as if it has any relevance to a non-fictional story. Other asides do, of course, successfully provide insight, but even these are formulaic and clumsily inserted. The last few chapters are similarly irrelevant, discussing the destruction of Nantucket and the fate of a dying sperm whale washed ashore in the 90s. Philbrick is clearly attempting to provide some meaningful coda, but does a poor enough job that it can be entirely skipped with no harm.
Recommend as general light reading for those with an extreme interest in the whaling industry or the macabre, but do not expect to come away feeling like you've learned anything more than you could get from a summary....more
If I'd read this book as a snotty, nihilistic 14-year-old, I probably would have thought this book was "deep" and "meaningful," instead of "melodramatIf I'd read this book as a snotty, nihilistic 14-year-old, I probably would have thought this book was "deep" and "meaningful," instead of "melodramatic" and "painful to read." I mean, seriously. Sometimes I think Gardner changes his style just because. His use of epithets aren't very inspired. There are some uncomfortable anachronisms. I liked the idea; I just wish I could have shaken Gardner and told him to try again, but with less self-consciousness.
Although the angry 14-year-old in me is pretty pissed at adult me right now for slandering this book. ...more
Ridiculously Euro centric. Fun read though. Little bit less scholarly than I might have liked, but I totally should have judged this book by its coverRidiculously Euro centric. Fun read though. Little bit less scholarly than I might have liked, but I totally should have judged this book by its cover....more
Loading...
