Sam
If you already know a bit of history, there is no reason to read this book. Wells really isn't lying when he says it's an “outline.” There's a few interesting and new things here and there, but if you found this book, chances are that you're already familiar with most of the stuff he talks about.
Only reason I didn't rate it lower: it was interesting to see a historical perspective on the past we know. For instance, quite in line with his time, Wells can't help but note the impact of “Aryan peoples” here and there, even though he insists that Europe was a backwater until relatively recently.
Very interesting ideas, but the evidence cited is literally just dreams. And rather than using just a few well-chosen dreams, half this book is the retelling of dreams.
The arguments are inconsistent too. Jung and his colleagues criticize Freud for having a kind of “symbol dictionary,” as in “if a lion appears in your dream, it means this and that.” The Jungians emphasize that dream/symbol interpretation is highly individual. And yet, there are apparently symbols provided by the “collective unconscious.” “A stone often represents the self in dreams.” ???
To reiterate: Jung's ideas are fascinating and entirely deserving of familiarization. But this book does a terrible job of selling/explaining them.
You know how we have “TV adaptations” of books and video games nowadays? Well, The Blade Itself is like a book adaptation of an action-adventure video game, and it sucks.
Abercrombie subverts nothing. The characters are unoriginal, no better developed than mere archetypes. The world feels like a shallow reflection of our own, since the author probably inundated himself with too much TV and video games to be able to create a truly original setting. The plotline is so bad, that this book is making me consider anger management.
Oh, and this is “dark?” I'm sorry, did you go from reading F. Scott Fitzgerald or Jane Austen to foray into fantasy, and you're surprised that people have to make difficult decisions in life? Because that's the only possible way you might consider this excuse of a book “dark.”
The core problem is that Abercrombie never gave me a reason to care. Why is your story better than the others, sir? Are your characters original and insightful, with unique stories and worldviews? No. Instead, we get “haughty, noble womanizer who falls in love with commoner,” “interrogator who was once famous swordsman,” and “barbarian who beats up a ton of people.” Wow. And how about the plot? “There's a big war coming, and both sides are actually proxies for larger forces! Long-preparing evil has made its move and we have to defeat it!” Delightful, truly.
Maybe Steven Erikson just spoiled all other fantasy for me, but The Blade Itself is just trash.
“The darker the night, the brighter the stars.”
This Dostoevsky quote captures what makes Memories of Ice so captivating. In this terrible, brutal world, the few acts of compassion are all the more touching.
It is in contrasts like these that Erikson shines.
On that note, one of his greatest strengths is his ability to subvert expectations. At every junction in the story, Erikson took the path I did not expect him to. In fact, he created paths that I had not even seen. For instance, Erikson delves into all the armies that would surely inevitably clash. Only, in the final battle, not all of the armies are there, and the present ones do not do what you'd expect. This is a brilliant display of Erikson's skill: he shows the reader, “I know how you expect the story to play out, but I'm not taking that path. Instead, check this out.” And he delivers, time and time again.
What a remarkable parable. It's so impressive that Dostoevsky, a devout Orthodox Christian himself, is able to so effectively portray the critical opinion of a hyper-analytical atheist through the character of Ivan Karamazov.
The story concerns one question: the divergence between Christ and the Church. Whereas Christ desired a religion of freedom and love, the Church recognized that these are not enough for the desires of the human soul. And so, the Church imbued Christianity with miracle, mystery, and authority, which are what man truly desires. The Church, through the character of the Grand Inquisitor, argued that man cannot live without these. Man does not want God; man wishes for miracles.
Regardless of one's religious beliefs, this is a deeply thought-provoking tale that makes one question the evolution of beliefs and culture. It makes one wonder if the needs of one's own soul are fulfilled.
A highly instructive book! As a Martian, I've always had trouble communicating with humans. But this is an excellent introduction to what humans want and expect from personal interactions. How to make yourself understood, ways to approach conflict, negotiation, validation, why you should feel comfortable with approaching strangers; it's all covered. Some of the chapters in the second half were not very helpful, like the one on digital communication. Still worth a read/listen regardless!
A delightful, practical introduction to Adlerian psychology. There are some truly memorable and actionable insights in this book: happiness in contribution; the separation of life tasks; focusing on what you can change, rather than what you can't; how to be a free, independent person while being in harmony with society; and, of course, the refutation of trauma. I recognize that these may or may not resonate with readers, depending on their own experiences.
Yet it's important to understand this book as a product of the times. Society's departure from faith has left many of us uncertain about our place in the world. Adlerian psychology presents something new to believe, something that is surprisingly compatible with current societal conditions, as repeatedly demonstrated by the examples in this book.
4 stars only because the communication style didn't quite work for me. The dialogue was questionably dramatic at times, especially when the youth would act outraged over the same point as the last time. But as this book was originally written for a Japanese audience, one must make allowance for cultural differences (doesn't anime have the same displays of outrage?). Even with these flaws, Kishimi conveyed his points adequately through the dialogues.
One of the many things that George Saunders explores in this book is why writing is so powerful. His conclusion is that books change your perspective on something ever so slightly, say by 1%. Of course, after 100 books, you're something of a new person.
The best books might change 5% or even 10% of one's psyche. I'd place A Swim in a Pond in the Rain at a solid 7%. Saunders might have restricted his subject to just writing, but I believe this book's lessons apply to all forms of expression. The Ruthless Efficiency Principle, the need for constant escalation, the wonders of omission, contradiction, and self-consistency. I daresay this book is a must-read for anyone creating anything.
Some of the “praise” on the back of this book mentions how it's a Hollywood blockbuster in book form. I'm sure that's appealing to a wide audience, but it's just not for someone like me.
The writing tactic that Corey uses most often is unrelenting escalation. Whenever one situation gets resolved, some news comes in, and the crew has to deal with a new crisis. This is probably why it can be considered a Hollywood blockbuster.
The tactic is utterly overused. By the end, I was so sick of this “disaster-after-disaster” style of narrative. I half-expected Venus to awaken as some big space monster and... I was disappointingly close.
Characters? Funny. Ending of the plot? Somewhat heartwarming. Everything else? So very lacking. Go see a Hollywood blockbuster if you want one.
This book was insane. I found myself scowling and breathing more heavily while reading, in response to the pure carnage that Erikson so capably presented. It's a reminder of how different the world can be, of how different our world once was.
The literary elements of Deadhouse Gates are just about unsurpassed by anything I've yet read. The deep character development, a truly riveting and engrossing plot, and the totally immersive world-building all mark Erikson as a paragon in fantasy authorship and, more humbly, as one of my favorite authors.
I'd like to point out the parallel between Coltaine's march across Seven Cities and Caesar's campaigns in Gaul. A fiercely professional and disciplined force finding itself deep within hostile country, without any prospect of reinforcement. I once watched an interview with Erikson in which he noted how great an inspiration history is to him. But as ever, one can never assume correctness when blindly grasping at the author's intentions.
I was dismayed at the number of typos that somehow made it into print, but I shan't let that dim my opinion of this stellar book. 10/10. I already bought the next book in this series when I was but midway through this one :)
Extraordinarily fascinating, informative, and engaging. MacMillan puts readers into the hearts of each issue that was “resolved” in Paris. These weren't men spinning an evil plan for world domination; they were simply doing the best they could under so many contradictory influences. Diplomatic history especially can be dry, but MacMillan does a brilliant job of bringing it all to life.
Fantasy at its best. At least, for me.
Grand, so very grand. It's almost like a “history novel.” I was craving something more... impersonal compared to what most modern books are. Gardens of the Moon has less focus on characters, and more focus on power, empire, and gods. I love how dark the book is, not just in tone either. You really never know what's coming. Erikson simply doesn't satisfy your curiosity, instead always leaving you wanting just a little more. The retained sense of mystery did wonders to keep me engaged throughout the whole book.
After reading Gardens of the Moon, I have a new standard for what I expect in fantasy. It is with a tinge of disappointment that I recalibrate my expectations, since other books will certainly not be able to meet this standard. Nonetheless, Gardens of the Moon is incredible and awe-inspiring, and I am now a devotee of the Steven Erikson cult.
There is absolutely nothing lacking in this book. The world-building is at once unmatchably epic and so easily believable. The characters are complex and fascinating. The language is simply poetic. I found the plot even better than what the first two books offered! Enjoyable, exciting, and satisfying, Simmons immensely surpassed my expectations.
Really amazing account of Lafayette's life! Duncan does a great job providing concise yet sufficient context for Lafayette's life too. Pre-revolutionary France, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, the Bourbon Restoration, and the July Revolution are all explained along with Lafayette's part in each.
I really wish Duncan gave more judgment on his life, though. Where did Lafayette go wrong? Where did he go right? What were the flaws in his day-to-day character that might've prevented him from reaching his goals? Duncan offers some reminiscence from Lafayette's contemporaries at the very end of the book, but I found it far from sufficient. In any case, a really delightful read about a fascinating character!
Pretty great, but it's definitely not for everyone. This is near-future, rather “realist” sci-fi. I use the word “realist” in two ways: first, technology hasn't made everything invincible yet. The dangers of space and spaceflight take a central role in the book. The second way I use “realist” is in contrast to philosophical. I find that, while writing about the future, sci-fi writers often have deep insights into the present day and the human condition. I'm thinking particularly of Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?.
I strongly prefer less realist sci-fi. I may come back to this series some day, but it just didn't strike me as a true “great.”
Even though it's 60 years old, this book was a wonderful introduction to the end of the long 19th century. Instead of merely recounting what happened, Tuchman tries to capture the spirit of the times, and she does this very well. Still, I found a significant amount of the book wanting. Reading through a mini-biography of Strauss was extremely boring. Additionally, I was especially disappointed to find that any discussion of Russia was just not present. This book focuses exclusively on Britain, France, Germany, and America.
What redeemed the book in my eyes was the ending. The last chapter about the socialists was extremely moving, and Tuchman captured the times very well. All the hopes and dreams, forgotten overnight on account of petty nationalism.
Very instructive and well-written! Fowler explains things very clearly, and he even sprinkles in some humor now and then. Some of the words he uses just don't make sense, though. You'll know what I mean when you see them.
I'm not sure if I'd recommend reading this today. I'll have to see how much I apply it at my job over the coming months and years.
An excellent introduction to the German Empire. Hoyer balances the content of her book exceptionally well: politics, foreign policy, economics, culture, science, military matters; it's all there. The only reason I gave this book 4 stars instead of 5 was various textual errors: poor capitalization (e.g. “Huns” was not capitalized), a few repetitive sentence structures, and other such typographical issues that should have been caught by the publisher. Hoyer wrote an exceptional book; the manuscript could use a little more editing though.
What a whirlwind of emotions. Anxiety, terror, comfort, and compassion. So many themes explored: how we can never really truly understand anyone, even though it's perhaps the greatest desire of any human; how memories are so cherished yet so frightening; how there's so much danger hiding in the darkness. I enjoyed reading this book so much, but God did it mess with my emotions. That's just what any good work of art does though, isn't it?
mild spoiler Many people complain about a lack of an ending. In my opinion, that's Murakami saying “the ending of the story doesn't matter. Consider what has happened and reflect.” Journey before destination!
Rough.
The style was the worst part. I couldn't visualize anything Banks described, even though he spends literally paragraphs describing the most mundane thing. I could just be a bad reader. Or maybe British English is just too much for my feeble American mind to handle. Either way, God was I bored at many points in this book.
Nearly just as bad is the false marketing of this book. It's not sci-fi, it's action with sci-fi elements. I've seen other reviews claiming Banks's later books are better in this regard, so I'll read The Player of Games at some point.
I rated this book 3 stars for the “sci-fi elements.” It is really imaginative, at the end of the day. I always adore deep lore in books (Foundation and Hyperion were great series for this reason), and I can tell there's a lot to look forward to with the Culture series.
Also, either I serverely under-analyzed, or this book is really superficial. Foundation and Hyperion are deeply philosophical and have brilliant novelties. Consider Phlebas felt like a book made for social media: looks amazing on the surface, but lacks any sort of depth. That might just be a preference, but books that have something to say about today are always appreciated more for me.