Pål Hernes Fiva
Important and interesting, but the heavy content and the digressive, circuitous and reiterative writing style meant I spent 7 (!) years reading the book. I persisted, though, which I guess is a testament to the book's quality.
I enjoyed the previous book, but this is just a lazy cash-in. Uninspired writing, boring incidents and zero insight beyond “wow travelling is amazing! For your brain!”. As Cat would say: I'm so over it!
Ikke uten kvaliteter, men etter alt for mange personer, steder og konsepter tilsynelatende uten stor påvirkning på plottet ga jeg opp etter ca 150 sider. Fine stemningsbyggende scener og potensielt interessant vri på norrøn mytologi.
Noe av styrken til boken ble et problem for meg; grundigheten i beskrivelsen av diverse forkvaklede teorier gjorde slitsomt å lese. Samtidig viser bredden og grundigheten hvor seiglivet dårlige ideer kan være. Boken var for meg mest interessant når den kobler sammen ulike emner (historie, filosofi, økonomi) og viser hvordan disse påvirket ideene om raser.
Seneca: “Far too many good brains have been afflicted by the pointless enthusiasm for useless knowledge.”
Too silly. Just one example from the wikipedia synopsis:
“Agnes planned to dress as the Bleeding Nun, a ghost who haunts the castle and exits its gates at midnight. Raymond accidentally eloped with the real ghost of the real Bleeding Nun. Exorcizing the ghost of the Bleeding Nun required assistance from the Wandering Jew.”
Broad, but for the most part sufficiently deep. Only exception was the discussion on the difference between American and Asian culture(s), which I found too anecdotal and superficial to be of any interest.
Some ideas will influence my thinking in my job as a teacher: both overall concepts, such as high vs low sensitivity, to specific advice, such as how to organise group discussions.
As with many similar issues: Adapting classes to fit more types of students also increases the quality of the class for all students.
“I always thought clichés got a bum rap. Because, often, they're dead-on. But the aptness of the clichéd saying is overshadowed by the nature of the saying as a cliché.”
Boring. Flat language and characters. Repetitious. Contrived. Generic.
Phenomenally entertaining, but the last part does not work on any level. The ending is almost literally that it was all a dream, only that the protagonist's entire personality was also “dreamt”. Too silly.
Despite intriguing premise and its relevance to current affairs, I found myself bored by it.
It kept me interested for about two thirds, but the final third was a slog as the story became increasingly predictable. For a story about occult knowledge and the power of intuition is especially disappointing that the author feels the need to spell things out. Disappointed.
Reads like capitalist critique/wish fulfilment/power fantasy. All the bad people are one dimensional baddies that are completely uninteresting. For a book which aims so much bile at individuals accruing so much wealth it is hilarious that the main love interest turns out to be secretely wealthy all along. See? Rich people can be nice too!
A competent collection of sci-fi tropes, featuring an impossibly naive (faux-naïf?) narrator. Nothing new under the sun.
Builds slowly to a crescendo that is entirely predictable. For a “weird tale” it is not weird enough.
The mystery is compelling, but grows increasingly ridiculous and the ending is just silly. Terribly disappointing after a promising promise.
This kind of snuck up on me; didn't think I cared about the characters but I was crying by the end. Left me absolutely devastated.
Promising at first, but the messianic nature of the protagonist leads to a curiously two dimensional story for all the talk of schemes within schemes and the mystical mumbo jumbo. Disappointed!
Strangely conservative criticism of a subset of American culture: the rich and how difficult it is to get richer and more successful while maintaining a work-life balance. And some sort of “identity”, while it is really all about their id.
“It is sort of an atrocity contest.”
Despite some major flaws (one of the villains is immersion-breakingly one-dimensional), it is so much fun!
As a journalist's take on current event: compelling, informative and thought provoking. As philosophical/political treatise: simplistic and naïve, i.e. the almost randomly quoting figures from history (Napoleon etc) which simply beggars belief, and the comparisons between a court case and various battles through history seem pretentious in the extreme.
