Justin
Wang Lung may go down as one of the most interesting characters I've read thus far in fiction. He goes from a despicable anti-hero, to a caring patriarch with some progressive values, to just a downright villain. He is flawed, but whether that is within him or molded by Chinese society is debatable.
Every single character is given so much depth and goes through so much change throughout this decade-spanning story, how much they change is quite remarkable.
The prose is so elegant and the scope of the story is so vast - detailing a man's life as he rises from poverty to raise a family in an unfair society. Even in the most mundane moments of his life are treated with such care. It felt like a predecessor to East of Eden - a generation spanning familial epic, but with more nuance and less allegory.
Amazing work
All these short stories are so full of imagination and questions for humanity. When the weak link is the titular story (a story that is beloved by nearly everyone, so I may be the odd man out here) - and even then that is great, the collection is quality.
Anyways here are my reviews on each story:
Babylon - HOLY COW. That was an awesome story. Even though it was a familiar Biblical story, the way it was told was so fascinating and tense. Brought life to a familiar tale. 10/10
Understanding - Like Flowers for Algernon, but on crack with supervillains. It was good - just a bit too long and loses the novelty of a normal man becoming smarter and gets too absurd. I don't know if it was supposed to be funny or not, and I also don't know what the message was. But it was fun. 8/10
Division by 0 - yeah... probably the worst story so far. Lovecraftian Math that drives someone insane? It had some interesting moments of empathy for someone losing their sanity, but overall, this was just not that interesting. Good ending though. 5/10
Story of Your Life: the movie adaptation is ever so slightly better. So much of this story was just bogged down with describing the logistics and the sequences of the child were a bit too long. It's just good. Don't know why this is the story that got the most attention, but I still enjoy the concept. 7/10”
72 Letters - This was a good story, it is just dense enough that the concept is intriguing but it works well as a thriller too. Awesome ending. 8/10 (Evolution of Human Science - makes for good flavor text for an entire world, but it's a 5 minute short story elaborating on a concept from the previous story. Basically an epilogue)
Hell is the Absence of God - 10/10. Scientifically accurate religious miracles and still maintaining the mysteries of religion? Amazing stuff. This is personally my favorite story thus far and probably one of my favorite stories of all time. Just all around really interesting in how miracles would have implications in the real world and how complex it would be to deal with them
Liking What You See - really interesting concept and it's mostly just a giant “What If?” if people developed a way to remove the brain's ability to see attractiveness. And while it's light on story, it's up to you to think if this is a dystopia or a utopian technology that will dramatically improve society. 9/10
Not going to lie that there is some value in taking the perspective of those who are not mentioned often in the history textbooks and I'm not going to discredit the fact that this book plainly states that it has a thesis that will bias the book as a whole.
But the fault lies in the fact that the book is propaganda - obfuscating facts and never painting a nuanced picture of a situation or a person as a whole. It goes out of its way to only state the bad things that every President does, and when it does concede that there is some good, it does so in passing only to have more negative things to say. At this point, it is not interested in telling facts - it is interested in telling ideology as to why America is bad, inherently evil, and not hearing any debates as to what may be a good rebuttal. It is binary in the fact that if you do not agree with what he is saying: you are either on the right side of history or on the side of oppressors.
The fact is, that I agree with what a lot of the book is saying. But the book is so relentless and aggressive with what it says and tries to paint anyone in the government as a dictator that I cannot advocate for this book.
Really only advocated for two policies - and they are good policies.
The book doesn't do much steelmanning but it does provide some good evidence to advocate for the policies. Problem is that I was already for Universal Basic Income prior to this, so I did just nod my head along with the book and a lot of the justifications it made, I knew before hand. But it is a good book to have a conversation with someone who decries it as “socialism” or “impractical”
But when the book advocates for open borders, I am still a little bit unconvinced. Walking away from the book with “I think I should do more research” is probably not the book's intended effect. This is a controversial issue so it does not really apply to American problems as opposed to how it is in Europe because there are a lot of talking points that the book ignores.
But overall, it was a good quick read.
Brilliant play, where it starts off as just a mere domestic drama about grief and the weird relationship of a man going after his brother's fiancée after he passes; it is almost innocent enough where I expected it to merely be about just that. But Miller then begins to twist the knife before stabbing me repeatedly by the end. I was floored by the audacity of the play to kick me while I was down and not have it feel gratuitous.
While it is respectable that the play tries to reach for all these concepts, takes a surprisingly self-critical examination as to the entire situation between Miller and Monroe as a thinly veiled allegory, taking this play on its face value - it's just bad.
The story being told out of order stymies so much of the emotional impact as there is not much of a reason for it to be out of chronology; as the reader tries to piece the story together, it flips into another subplot, and then another. Confusion does not enhance the experience - there is no need for it to be frantically confusing aside from Miller probably wanting to put all the emotional beats together all at once to make the protagonist seem even more miserable than he already was. It only makes the story more opaque and distances the reader from the characters even more.
The story is so maudlin and melodramatic, tastelessly touching on the concepts of the Holocaust and then The Red Scare, just to add to the fact that this is a “serious” story that no one is allowed to critique only for it to pivot about a relationship drama between two awful people. If this is a thinly veiled allegory for how Miller treated Monroe - it is no apology, but rather a self-flagellation for his behavior. And yet it still has the audacity to tacitly place some blame on Monroe for her death - just absolutely narcissistic and disrespectful to the situation.
Listen to the audiobook narration by Dion Graham: it elevates what is possibly one of the most engaging stories in American history, into something even better. When it comes to the speeches, the narrator NAILS the inflection and tone of MLK. Especially the “I Have a Dream Speech” where I found myself nearly in tears in hearing how it was described and how it impacted every single person in the audience. The book is not afraid of dramatizing events, but does it tastefully using primary sources and quotes that makes it as authentic as it is emotional. It reads like a novel. The narrator makes it even better.
King is an easy figure to deify; his place in history is shrouded in tragedy and reverence. He boasts the claim of being the only civilian to have a federal holiday named after him and for being the reason several civil rights legislation were able to be accomplished. But it is wrong to say that this man was perfect. Even as a man of God who was thrust into the nation's spotlight that demanded a spotless record to represent the Civil Rights Movement - he was a serial adulterer, often egotistical, and made mistakes that history has washed away in favor of not tarnishing his legacy. This book uses new evidence and interviews to show the side of King that is not shown to the public. While he is far from a bad man, he does succumb to temptation and the pressures that are oft born in the crucible of unexpected fame. Sometimes, someone has to make decisions that are bound to upset people who do not deserve to be wronged for the greater good.
What struck me about this book is 1) how unabashedly queer this book is, not even subtext - just full on gay which was a nice thing to see be treated as normal and 2) how funny this book is. This book takes its time in the first half, really letting these character dynamics shine through in perhaps the most human way possible. They downplay the horror by making jokes without sacrificing the sincerity of the characters - it's not like the MCU where it uses bathos to defuse tension, it really is to augment the depth of these characters because it is human nature to make jokes about things. It was nice to see a book not afraid to show that side of humanity. It put these characters front and center as they all have depth in their own ways and elevates them from the usual fodder.
But what makes me not enjoy this book as much as many others do is the fact that it is just not scary. It tries to do the likes of Poe or Blackwood where much of the horror is within the minds of the characters, but there's a good chance that what is happening is real - something I've grown to not like. I want a story to go big or go home - not toe the line of what's real or what's not as things appear and disappear the following chapter without explanation. It dilutes the horror just a bit because I feel as if it was just cheating me a bit by playing both sides. In the cases of Poe or Blackwood, they earn their scares because of the prose that winds to a tension and it is told from the perspective of an unreliable narrator - something that is not the case here.
While I appreciated the attempts at characterization, it seems to focus so much more on the horror; I wanted to learn more about these characters rather than what was going on in the House.
There is some controversy around this book surrounding the misinformation - but much of it is harmless, just leaps that Walker took for research. Such as his suggestion that lack of sleep causes cancer - which there is no evidence for that (but the point is that it is bad for your health).
But as an OT student, I knew most of the information already. There was very little new information, except at the end with anecdotes, and perhaps the political messages at the end calling for work reform. It is well written enough that the familiar information is enjoyable to read again, but this book does not go deep enough into the science for my liking. It talks more about the implications and results of the science of sleep rather than the neurological reasons. Too much theory for my liking.
If Catcher in the Rye was able to capture the internal monologue of a moody teenager going about his day, Nine Stories was able to capture the small every day lives of very different people through natural sounding dialogue and subtext - so much subtext.
It is hard to define a common theme throughout each of these stories, but if there is one thing that kept on appearing - it was subtext. Stories will feel as if they just sort of happen, but it is up to the reader to mine out the meaning from the story which contains so much with so few words. It is rewarding, but it warrants a second read for someone to truly appreciate it. If Catcher in the Rye told a lot about the themes and feelings of the character, Nine Stories showed a lot but does not explain. While these stories were not written at the same time, Salinger's talent as a writer shines through with the economical use of words. Nothing is wasted. With the exception of one, they all almost read like small plays that probably could not be performed due to the sparse amount of description.
Anyways, here are my raw initial thoughts that I took in my year-long journey to read all these stories. Notice how I slowly began to appreciate the style as it went along. Maybe I can revisit these.
Reviews:
1) “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” - interesting story, but way too enigmatic and dialogue based for my taste. The story is gross without bringing attention to it - but not sure what it all meant and didn't walk away wanting to. But good story even if it is so purposely vague 7/10
2) Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut - an interesting short story that is a microcosm of the emptiness of suburbia, but with such an unlikable main character that's a sexist, racist, and an abusive mom. It is an unpleasant read, but it is an interesting one once viewed through a different context. 7/10
3) “Just Before the War... - Gonna be honest, this is way too much subtext that I can't enjoy the text as much as the rest. It was good, but really simple and even the character arc was really simple. It's quaint, but this one isn't mind-blowing even though it was probably the most minimalist story thus far that got its point across. low 7/10”
4) The Laughing Man - this is definitely the worst story so far (imo). Tells a story within a story, but only one of them is interesting and the other is fine - but is told so sparsely (continuing with the plain prose) that it's not engaging. Don't know why these two interconnect with each other either. It's fine I guess, but nothing extraordinary. 6/10”
5) Down at the Dinghy - a sweet story about motherhood and complying with a child's imagination, as naïve as the are, in spite of a society that can be cruel and harsh. The ending was sort of touching in a way - and it didn't go the easy route of conedming prejudice explicitly, but rather subtly. 8/10
6) For Esmé - I feel like I should like this more, but as for every story here thus far, I just don't get the emotional impact. The story is cute, but it's way too simple for me to appreciate it. It's predictable, but executed well - but I've yet to feel an emotion other than “that was a good short story”. 7/10 (but a good one)
7) Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes - it's a really good story and shows Salinger's talent for writing dialogue that feels authentic. But I can't say much more than that aside from wondering what the message is. On the surface level though, it is a very interesting story that is executed well - but feels like there could have been more to it. 7/10
8) De Damuier-Smith's...
Surprisingly a funny short story about a guy that is pretentious as hell and his ego destroying him. Unlike any of the other stories here, it is not so steeped in subtext and is pretty blunt with how narcissistic the main character is. It's probably my favorite short story out of all these. 8/10
9) Teddy - 10/10
Honestly, this is worth reading all the stories for itself. I would never have expected a philosophical conversation between an 11 year old and a college Professor to be this endearing, engaging, and surprisingly profound without it even being pretentious. Somehow Salinger writes an intelligent young man without it being caricature
And that ending good lord. Awesome story
A little disappointed in this - aside from a few entertaining scenes, it doesn't seem like this is a classic that is well worth reading again (which apparently, Twain himself agrees vastly preferring the sequel which is more fondly remembered). It's pretty aimless as to reflect the tedium of every day life in a southern town, but it's not exactly the most entertaining - even with the spin of the children's POV. The subplots are entertaining enough, but it just feels like a series of vignettes with an overarching plot thrown in. There is however an interesting villain that they throw in, but there's not much development in that regard.
It's just good.
I feel jealous about all the people who managed to really have a profound experience reading this. After forcing myself to read all this - I just feel like I understood half of it, intimidated by the absolute density of the work and the ambition the book reaches.
It is a philosophy book first, a novel second, and it truly takes its time to discuss these massive philosophical topics. The plot takes a backseat and it makes no qualms to devote pages upon pages to whatever the topic of the chapter is. Most of it is way beyond my understanding and in typical Dickensian fashion, is way more verbose than needed (though that can be due to the translation).
This is definitely a great book - but a book I do not feel as I was prepared for. This is not a beginner's introduction into classics for sure. Maybe one day I will build up myself to take a proper chance at this once again, but for now I am relieved that I got to accomplish at least finishing this book.
This must be one of the most important books I've ever read; every sentence in this book felt so profound, as if I had to have a new perspective on life. Yes this man was thoroughly gifted (if him being a well read neurosurgeon with great emotional intelligence didn't say otherwise), but this book is more about how one could face death with integrity - even in the worst days of his own life, it could be filled with so much beauty and tenderness.
I am split with this: the book was not very well written (with the translators keeping the typos with the good old fashioned [sic] when it didn't make sense), using plain prose and jumps between perspectives many times in scenarios that ruin the tension. One of my pet peeves is embedding action in dialogue - which it does many times over.
However, it was a very good story that I feel is ripe for an adaptation to fix these errors - especially with the entire story based around sound and music.
It's one of those times I really anticipate watching a book be improved upon by an adaptation.
Got overly sentimental and optimistic at the end, but the book speaks the truth: people are inherently kind and that cynicism is the laziest heuristic to have. It is so easy to simply assume the worst in people, but it often takes less than courage to be kind - it is our default, perhaps marred by social barriers inherent in society.
Isn't life disappointing?
In Orson Welles' movie Citizen Kane, it opens up with a broad overview of the central main character Charles Foster Kane and the grandiose life that he lived - from birth to death, he lived in a mansion, with a life of notable achievements that has cemented his place in history. This entire sequence spoils all the events of the story, giving a broad overview of the events of a man we have yet to meet with only the knowledge that the “public” would already know. Yet, the movie soon jumps backwards in time - ready to give the same information again, but this time with tender nuance that now paints that information in a different light. What once seemed to be a great life, now becomes something that's lonely and pitiable once we truly see it for a second time. It's not the broad accomplishments in a man's life that defines his greatness - it is the tiny details that now turn his life into a tragedy.
John Williams' novel Stoner is perhaps the opposite of this - opening up describing William Stoner, a man who left no tangible mark on the world after his death and no notable accomplishments to remember him with, whose students did not hold him in high regard and who the faculty seldom spoke of. He never rose above the rank of assistant professor and wrote a singular book - perhaps forgotten by now by the many others, lost in the annals of time. Perhaps many would say his life was a failure - and perhaps many would ask, why is this our protagonist? He is not a man with a sad backstory that contrasts and humbles him, nor is he a man of great figure that we want to become. He is simply a man; a man who aspired for very little, but failed in the end; a man who stayed in one place his whole life until his death. There is very little distinguishing this man from any other man I would pass on a street and not give a second thought to. Perhaps, that is Stoner's greatest strength: it lies within the fact that it is a true reflection of life, without deluding itself into something grander, and not despairing itself into something less. Stoner is a love letter to an unremarkable, boring life - one that is as rich as any life can be.
Despite its dedication to reflecting life, it does not compromise its readability; is able to ride the fine line between verisimilitude and entertainment, somehow making the most mundane of events and observations feel almost like an epic. It achieves this through such excellent prose that does not beg to be looked at; it is bereft of fancy vocabulary and instead opts to make these sentences flow in such long sentences, with such natural rhythm. Beautiful in a way that is invisible - like a guiding hand that turns your head to see something you otherwise would have missed - and devastating in the way that there is a constant through line of tragedy that is never mentioned.
Despite tragedy striking, life simply goes on. Throughout Stoner, there is a sense of cautious optimism in the face of unplaced grief and melancholy. It is never unrelenting to the point it is overly depressing, but it is just real enough that it is never truly resolved. Just as it is in life, sometimes it is best to move on. It may not be fair or right, but it is just how the world is: a series of events, apathetic to how one might feel in the end. It captures so many of the tiny little hurts and disappointments of life, with the sparse moments of happiness that are perhaps fleeting. Never have I read a book that captures what it's like to be flirting with the idea of suicide that comes from mundanity or the realization of their replaceability without entering the realm of clinical depression. It is a pain that is relatable because it is a thought that enters everyone's minds. But it also makes the beauty in this book that more profound, juxtaposed with the quiet misery. Life is a balance of both - an entirely human experience, grounded in one man.
William Stoner is deceptively a simple character - one that may be passive and just a vessel to see through the world. He is instead a man of quiet resilience and stoicism that he becomes almost heroic in spite of tragedy. He has his faults and consistently makes mistakes that are of naivety or impulsivity, but above all he maintains his identity, never letting the world around him strip him of his identity and passions. He is a good man - full of love that is mishandled and thwarted - who lives in a world that is concerned with grander things. Equally fascinating is the troubled marriage between him and Edith - an unstated, passively crumbling nature that causes them both much strife. There is an unspoken tragedy of circumstance as to how it happens. Is it a relationship carried on by apathy and unstopped inertia? Or perhaps it is the many successful blows of unrequited actions that culminate in lost love? Many of the other characters are brought to life with so few words - each given an entire implicit backstory, full of depth that has yet to be explored. Even the antagonists feel so real - they are not evil, just people that do not like Stoner for relatable reasons. Just like life.
This is the kind of book that has to be read to be experienced - there is no way I could sell someone on the premise that this incredibly niche genre and setting could be something so profound where not much of note happens, but Stoner is beautiful, able to weave the words to make something that feels almost life-changing in how authentic it is. It is one of those times where I wish a book was longer; it is not often that I read a passage and scramble for a highlighter after re-reading it many times over just to make sure what I was reading was as great as I thought it was, only for it to be actually that good. It somehow makes the mundanity of life so thrilling - keeping me on the edge of my seat for petty disagreements- and so well paced that so many pages go by that I really didn't know how much time has passed. Even though it does not provide the answer as to what the true meaning of life is, it makes me appreciate what life could be.
My only gripe is that it uses the phrase “had had” and “that that” almost as if Williams goes out of his way to do so. >:(
I never thought I could be just so bored by a children's book. I expected whimsiness and adventure, but really most of the book is just dialogue between a few characters who bicker and ultimately say the same thing.
It all just feels so contrived and written on the fly - even if it's a kid's book, I expected some logic to follow through. It just felt like a bunch of random events happening, stretching the already thin premise even thinner. None of the characters go through a significant change or really suffer any consequences, it's just a bunch of things happening. Even the titular character James, who is just alluded to have had a rough childhood, really just stays the same and there's no quirkiness to supplant it. I can't even recall a moral for the story - it really just feels like things just happen and the characters simply react instead of taking agency.
Not exactly a book I'm going to be rushing to show my children. I will say though, I always do get a laugh out of the bits of dark humor with killing off people in absurd ways. Unfortunately that doesn't stay consistent through the book.
I am so tempted to give this a perfect score on the basis of that ending alone - it is a perfect summation of everything this book has been building towards, with the perfect amount of rancor and optimistic satire. One of the few times I felt like clapping at the end of the book for just how happy it made me feel, somehow turning all the bizarre circumstances that happened into the book into something poignant.
It's just that there is a lull in the middle - with pacing issues that really took away from my enjoyment. It feels as if there was a lot of wheel turning at the expense of characters. Some of the humor also really misses due to the cultural barriers, with the use of British slang and an overuse of Casablanca references (which I love, but man...). It has so much to say but at the same time, it gets a little lost in the plot.
However, if the rest of the books somehow surpass the quality of this - I am ready to read the rest of the series. It takes itself seriously just enough that it doesn't become a full blown farce, while keeping the levity needed for a story this absurd.
I am not going to pretend and say that Malcolm X was not a complicated man. I am not going to lie and say that I even agree with a lot of the ideas he puts forth, in fact I find many of them wrong, in fact most of them repulsive. They were radical then and viewing them from the lens of today - they are outright wrong. He was a pro-segregationist and villainized all those who were not the same skin color as he was, collectively calling white people “white devils” and advocating for violent militancy in order to achieve the goals he intended, under the guise of a distorted form of Islam.
So why might I like this book? Why do I consider it one of the most interesting pieces of literature that surpasses a level of intrigue of most fiction I read? When these very ideas probably have left a lasting scar on the Civil Rights movement, why was I absolutely enthralled with each passing minute I read?
Even though X reaches the wrong ideas, through the naked and candid honesty, I wouldn't blame you if you agreed. Because of how articulate and intelligent he was - there was not a single moment during the book did I ever think the conclusions he came to were out of left field or absurd; each thought was the culmination of many others, shaped by a society that wronged him and born into a group that he believed only wanted to comply instead of fight back. He saw his own culture assimilate and emulate the oppressors rather than stand ground and take pride. If the idea he presents be radical, so be it. But one cannot deny that it was a logical conclusion he came to, no matter how wrong it is now. I had to do a double take many times as I found myself agreeing on an almost instinctual level, before taking a step back and acknowledging that these ideas were extreme.
He experienced injustice first hand and brings many anecdotes as to why the ideas he presents must be. Yet, he makes no attempt to clean his own image - as he makes no qualms about showing his petty anger and tendency towards violence. One can see through the candid prose as to how intelligent he was - not only a gifted writer, but also someone who has immersed himself in countless books. It only adds to his ethos: he is a flawed man with these “perfect” ideals who experienced injustice that has molded him into what he is. It makes some of his lesser moments more forgivable. When he talks about the history of mankind, he talks about it through the lens of white men who were molded to commit evil atrocities against all other races. When he talks about science, he talks about why other races are inferior to the black man. All these can be forgiven because to him, he wholeheartedly believes it and uses it to drive more of his passion in the world to help others. An editor trying to please the public may have removed this content, but this only adds to the complexity of X - where he is both right and wrong to extreme degrees.
Yet - he changes many times over. He goes through many rebirths and recognitions of his own beliefs - so many times he went back on what he believed with the same devotion and passion as before. It only adds to the complexity of the man, where in a span of a few weeks, he ceases to be the same man he was at the beginning of the book. So many times does his faith become question and his beliefs put into check. I was astonished to see just how much he was able to accomplish and how far he was able to take his radical ideas and imbue it with such powerful rhetoric. Yet a lot of his efforts cease to stand as he grew into this person he was.
Malcolm X is still a controversial man that I still have trouble coming to terms with after reading this book. I came to understand the other side of the Civil Rights movement much more than I did before; Martin Luther King Jr. is viewed as the face of the movement and rightfully so, with the ideas of nonviolence and integration becoming vindicated by history, much to X's chagrin. However, reading this book made me understand the frustrations that many must have felt during the Civil Rights movement and how slow it must have felt, giving too much leeway to those who commit injustice. It doesn't make what X said right but at the very least, I understand.
Felt like he was running through the gamut of ideas this premise lends because there weren't many surprises to this, however I must commend the book for being very well written without calling attention to its prose. There weren't any fancy words to distract from the simplicity of the word choice, but it's enough to paint a very thorough picture of what is going on.
I just think this book is more of a novelty than anything profound because I struggle to walk away from this book thinking there was anything more to it. It does address ageism but it doesn't go too much in depth. It skips over what could have been interesting - but it is a short story after all.
Well, off to watch the movie eventually.
What I expected to be a biting satire on American culture leading to the rise of fascism despite the laws preventing such, I instead got a toothless novel that aged poorly for the right reasons - because unlike what the title has you believe, I don't think it can happen here.
Buzz Windrip takes hold of the American consciousness as he rises to the ranks of being a serious candidate for President - except that he's brash, biogoted, and a blatant fascist, but that is not enough to deter support for him. Eventually that lands him a job as President to which he quickly abuses his power and descends America into a totalitarian state.
Ultimately - it does not feel like it has much to say. Sure, it could happen here - but what is here? What makes America stand out from the other countries that have befallen into fascism? Sinclair does not define America as a unique country or dive deep into American culture as exceptional, but instead as just a country that yearns for change. It doesn't feel unique - just a country that is ultimately apathetic to what happens while a dictator spouts unrealistic things to garner support, much to the pleasure of the cult of personality that surrounds him.
Sinclair focuses too much on the consequences of his election rather than the how and why a fascist was elected. A good chunk of the beginning did this, giving the voters a voice and seeing as to why someone like him would be appealing and ignoring the fascistic tendencies in rhetoric and policy because America is a unique country, but it doesn't sustain the energy throughout the rest of the book. It escalates much too quickly - from a country in discontent in the Great Depression to a country tearing itself apart as detractors are placed in camps by their own citizens. I'm not saying that displaying the evils of fascism is wrong, but it's just not an interesting concept to explore anymore - and what ages the book the most since it focuses exactly on that.
To the book's credit, it is impressive to see how much he got right with how fascists would react much before anti-fascist literature would take hold - but it no longer makes for an interesting read when other books have done it better. What could have set this book apart was exploring if America could fall victim to this - but it doesn't make me believe it even could. If it explored how it distorts American ideals more and how it would be fascism dressed as red, white, and blue then it would be interesting; instead, we get a generic rebel against the dystopian government adventure.
I wish we got something that would explore the political ramifications of a fascist by including more of Windrip who serves as almost an implied character aside from a few chapters from his point of view. I would have loved to see how exactly he would erode the democratic process, but the author just seems to handwave how it happens. I expected him to be the villain and for the few chapters he was present, I thought he was an interesting one: racist and misogynistic, blatant in his intentions, and yet getting to be elected. I'm not asking for a moment where it puts the good guy against the bad, just moments where perhaps the big bad could show why he's doing these awful things. Or how he bypasses the Constitution. It was a missed opportunity to show a more sinister side of him rather than having his presence be so distant form the book's main events.
Unfortunately, none of the characters are interesting enough to also warrant interest. Aside from a few moments, they all fall into familiar archetypes and are far from captivating to fill the vacuum of personality that Windrip leaves.
So overall - I'm disappointed. I love the ideas that this book postulates, but there isn't enough to make this the seminal classic I was expecting. I do not regret reading it because it acts as an interesting time capsule for seeing the rise of fascism pre-dating the world knowing how awful Nazis would be, but I just don't think the book says anything too interesting now, and what it does say isn't fully explored. Far from an awful book, but it is middling in how it handles its subject matter.
For a book that I expected to be an interesting commentary on today's political landscape, it was merely something that didn't have much to say at all.
Normally I give books I dislike the benefit of the doubt when they have such a high rating; maybe I'm not astute enough in the literary sense or maybe I just have not reached the age yet when I can assess something critically when I don't like it. I am human. I am prone to error. My opinions may not have enough nuance, especially when they disagree with the general consensus that Starship Troopers is actually a good book. A great one. A literary classic even.
But believe me when I say it: this is THE worst book I have ever read. Period.
And unless I deliberately go out of my way to find a book that is worse than this, this book will remain to be one of the most unpleasant, condescending, and agonizing experiences I have ever had with a book. This book is pure militaristic propaganda and going in with knowledge around the debate of whether this was actually a satire or not should have been more than enough to signal me to avoid this book.
I usually never finish books I don't like. Life is too short for that but I decided to stick with it to really justify my opinion. My attention waned and I don't feel like I got all the nuance due to my mind glazing over words, sentences, and sometimes paragraphs - but this time around I was a masochist.
To avoid the book's politics is to avoid this book entirely. This book was written in response to Heinlein objecting against Eisenhower's decision to cease testing on nuclear weapons in 1959 and coinciding with Heinlein's health related discharge from the military, not allowing him to see combat he decided to make sure he got a taste of it by writing about it, making sure to infuse his politics within it and make this pro-recruitment propaganda that the US Army came around to recommend years later.
This book follows the story of a young soldier in the future (“Johnnie”) as he goes from a reluctant man who yearns to join the military despite facing disapproval at home to a super competent military officer in the face of an endless war against evil bugs invading their planet.
But really, the premise for this book may as well be cited for false advertising. This book never needed to be science fiction in fact. Aside from fighting a future war with powered armor, this book barely has anything to do with high tech. You would expect some grand epic space battle - but getting to that point is an excuse to spend over 70-80 pages (or basically half) dedicated to boot camp and how it operates.
Not necessarily a bad thing, boot camp is the best part of the movie Full Metal Jacket. So you would assume that this would build character and give depth to worldbuilding, my criticisms of this be damned. But that's the thing: it doesn't. So much of the book is dedicated to the day to day routine of boot camp; the importance of the food and being able to sleep in any condition. Or marching. Or hearing about how officers try to justify their cruel punishment is not a violation of the 8th Amendment and how they are forced to whip their men when they don't want to.
Much of this is just an excuse for the author to go on tirades as to how veterans should be the only people eligible to vote and participate in democracy and hold a job. Much of this is an excuse for the author to explore false conflict as Johnnie struggles to continue and dedicates an entire chapter (!) to thinking about the pros and cons of being a soldier. Society collapsed because parents didn't punish their children enough, not because of a massive energy crisis, political corruption, or an economic recession. No, because this generation is bad unlike the previous generation which had no problems whatsoever.
There are no characters in this book, there are simply mouthpieces to espouse propaganda. They go on speeches, monologues, and soliloquies about how great it is to be in the military and why we should cower and quake before soldiers and let them run the government. We can't forget about how a lot of it is just talking about how the military is organized into platoons and squads, just a whole lot of exposition and false conflict that leads to more exposition.
The protagonist isn't this cool everyman we relate to and see him become strong, we see him instead do guard duty and eat dinner. We hear about the cool stuff rather than see it. His character arc into macho man isn't given the depth it needed because surprise! - it's not given enough time.
If there is some merit to it being science fiction, it's that the enemy is a bunch of faceless bugs without a motive. Sounds like Heinlein's trying to purposely dehumanize the enemy and make them out to be monsters. Because war is always justified when you cannot reason with the enemy!
This is a book in the way that you could put two pieces of bread together and call it a sandwich. This is just a collection of words together that was vetted by the US Military to enlist with the occasional reference to space thrown in so you don't realize you're reading a 250 page pamphlet.
A few years back, I picked up Invincible even knowing the caveat of how slow this started. But I dropped it even without completing it due to how frustrated I got and now, re-reading this after watching through the amazing first season of the show, I still see why I dropped it and I don't blame myself for doing so.
But only if I got to issues 10-13, where things got to pick up, and then I would have at least mustered the interest to continue because this book starts off rough: Mark Grayson begins to get his powers and thus is now lectured by his father - the most powerful superhero in the world, the famed Viltrumite: Omni-Man.
It is an all too familiar set-up because it is. For a superhero deconstruction, it leans heavily on the tropes of a young superhero getting their powers for much too long without varying it up. It sacrifices what little amount of pages it has for dry humor instead of developing the plot, almost as if it doesn't take itself too seriously. We've seen this done ad infinitum in Spider-Man: it wasn't new then and certainly it has played out now to the point that I dropped it.
It also rushes by the plot too fast. When the big moment happens, it almost doesn't seem like it makes much of an impact due to how fast it goes. Whether that is due to the strength of the writing or the constraints of the pages it all feels rushed. It doesn't seem like Kirkman knows what to do with it because things continue as normal, maintaining the campy tone of coming of age superhero despite something sinister going on. It could have leaned into this factor (like the show does) but it seemingly ignores and downplays the impact, even rushing past moments that I expected to have longer impact but it just doesn't. So many opportunities to build the world and explore the character's emotions - but it just doesn't. The story lacks the emotional depth it has become known for.
Reading this again, it becomes clear to me that the show is the superior version of this story: making changes that improve upon how the horror is, shuffling the order of events to play up the horror and drama, and giving depth to characters that were barely mentioned in the story. As I was reading it, I could not help but unfavorably compare it to the adaption that does nearly every single aspect better, brought to tenfold with the brilliant voice work and animation from the crew. It elevates the story that I once dismissed as being standard fare into something else entirely.
To conclude, this story is fine. It is all too familiar until the very end where it all makes sense, but takes all too long to get there without much substance leading to it. So much of it feels dated, following trends in humor that feel dated. However, I'm reading through the second ultimate collection and it seems that Kirkman acknowledges his mistakes and improves upon everything. So let's hope that things get better.
Repulsive.
Deconstruction of the superhero genre by making them snobbish or even vile is not a new concept, something that is being done ad infinitum in this current age of superhero media. But Garth Ennis takes this concepts and tries way too hard to be a new voice in the age of superhero deconstruction at its own detriment. I understand what Ennis was trying to do by making the superheroes as disgusting as possible but he practices no restraint in showing at least a little bit of humanity in it. Most of the content in the book could have been written by a middle schooler and I would have believed you as nearly every single page has reference or full display of sex, drugs, and violence without nuance. It is indulgent in the guise of being a deconstruction of the superhero genre and barely qualifies as an attempt. Regardless of the in-universe justification, everyone is an awful human being who gets off on being as awful as they can, and the story revels in the disgusting edginess and has the gall to be smug about it.
Ennis has been vocal about his distaste for superheroes and that is fine, and naturally it would bring into fruition a series that deconstructs the essence of superheroes. But it is not an excuse to have every single character be awful, where the only sympathetic people are the manipulated victims of superheroes, and spout these awful things. I get that content in a story is not the author endorsing their views, but the line blurs when even the sympathetic people scoff at homosexuality and play it as bad as sexual assault and pedophilia. Or when sexual assault is played as a joke. Maybe if there was a shed of humanity like a foil character that was actually a decent person that wasn't walked all over for it, this story would at least have some credibility. But as for now, this story doesn't mean to explore what it would be like if top superheroes were evil; it exists to be as offensive as it can be.
There is more to this story than being a self-indulgent bitter and edgy echo chamber, but it becomes hard to see that when every single line of dialogue mires itself in such moral filth. It is possible to have a genre deconstruction without resorting to avoiding any attempt at pathos. I get it what he's trying to do - but the end result is repulsive.
Anyways, I've heard the TV show changes up a lot from the books so I'll be gladly watching that.