Patricia

This book made me so sad. Not because of the contents, necessarily, although that was of course a punch to the gut, but because it made me realise how rarely I get to read books like this, written with such a remarkable, bold, unsentimental style and hitting one right in the feelz (as the kids say) without resorting to fake dramatics or excruciating exposition. It was really, really excellent. The voices were varied, the connections subtle.. this is how it's supposed to be done. Looking forward to reading more from this writer.

Loved it, but it feels more like a... sketch of a book? Like it was missing some substance? I adore how Ms Chambers writes about nature though.

Kinda mawkish, didn't do it for me.

Found this novel, while interestingly dark and nasty, also simultaneously increasingly unbelievable and predictable. It was well written and deliciously witty at times, but on the whole slightly disappointing, compared to many of Boyne's other works.

It's... Fine I guess. It's touted as a guide to arguing with people with ‘wrong' opinions like ‘political correctness has gone mad' or ‘there are too many immigrants'. But it's not; it's just a bunch of transcripts of James arguing with these people. What he is really saying (and I agree with him!) is that you really need to do your own research, otherwise you're just as bad, only arguing from the opposite direction and aping the opinions of different people. And that's a valid point, only then... Why market your book like this?

This is the fourth time I've tried and it's just not for me. Thoroughly unamusing.

I don't get the fantastic ratings for this book... I thought it was all tell, no show, and the sweeping, bird's eye way of writing meant there was nothing to connect me to any of the characters. I couldn't make it through this book, but the high score here on Goodreads does give me the feeling I've missed something.

It was okay.

‘Portrait of the artist as a young man'. This is not the usual ghostwritten rock tat - it's a very well written autobiography, very evocative. Loved the honesty. And I learned some new words. :) Well done, Brett.

The ambiguity thing was cool, but I very much doubt I'll ever read a Henry James novel again.

I must admit I gave up on it. I just couldn't face more of the endless, endless blabbering about Life and Truth and Self Discovery and omg dude please. There are some great bits about India in this book, but you have to wade through SO much inane drivel to get to them it's just not worth it.

So weird that I've only realised now what a terrible writer Follett is. Pillars of the earth will always hold a special place in my heart but this was jarring. Short, stupid sentences. Everyone's plans and feeling are spelled out, nothing is left to the imagination, all subtext is immediately explained. He spins a good yarn but language-wise it's quite poor. Guess I've grown up a bit and started to read better books since PotE...

Quite an enjoyable read, although characters constantly calling the people they're talking to by their name started to grate a bit after a while and made the dialogues a bit stilted. But certainly better and more original than most of the fantasy I've read. I loved the worldbuilding.

A Georgette Heyer book I didn't like - that's a first.

Erg simpel.

I liked it, but not so much that I've come to understand the cult following...

This is such a frustrating book. I loved the world building, but I hated all the characters. The protagonist's character development was just bizarre. Dialogues were terrible. Everything that happened was just so disgustingly... convenient and unbelievable. And for a non-YA book it was damned YA-ish. I hear this writer has other books that are more about the world building and less character-centric. I might try one of those.

Props for the Judd/Poldark reference though.

Not bad, but I would have preferred more information about the octopus and less meandering about consciousness. The writing is quite good when it's about concrete matters. It quickly degenerates into rambling when it's about less concrete stuff, unfortunately.

Bill is still funny at times, but the whole ‘everything used to be better' and ‘I wish nothing would change' spiel is really starting to grate.

3.5 stars

I'm sorry! The writing is very good, but the bucket of shit that turns into a truckload of shit that turns into a river of shit dumped all over that character, who at that point is already drowning in a veritable ocean of shit... it just became so surreal I started laughing out loud, and I was lost to the book - or it to me. I still think of Jude sometimes, but it's always in terms of "that poor character that had a horrible experiment done to him by that writer".

Oh I loved this book enormously. So different. (Also a little bit in love with Sarkan, I have to admit). Happy to find a five star book after a year of mainly misses, too.

Update 7/12
————
Okay, I've read a few reviews about this book from obviously very disappointed people and so I feel that I should say more about what I liked about this. Not saying that all of those people have missed these points, but I've seen a lot of ‘Sarkan is a dick / stockholm syndrome / cardboard cutout' comments and I do not agree.

I think that all of the wizards in this book are basically traumatized into coldness by their long lifespans. One of them explicitly touches on this at some point, explaining that it's hard when everyone you love dies, but that it gets easier over time. The Dragon himself is kidnapped at the age of three, taken from everything he knew and put in this cold environment. The man is scarred. He doesn't want any ties with anyone.

Apart from that, they are also, just like everyone else, part of a human race that has lost all contact with nature, both in their actual dealings with it and in their approach of magic. The kind of magic that Agnieszka brings into the mix is actually rooted in nature, just like she herself is. This tale is not about a ‘bad guy' (the Wood and the wood queen) that you 'suddenly have to feel sorry for at the end of the book', it's about how continuous lack of communication through time results in ossified layer upon layer of first lack of understanding and eventually hatred. The bad guy was never the wood. It wasn't even man either, per se. The bad guy is not listening and not wanting to change. Agnieszka represents communication and change.

I think the reason Sarkan falls for her is that they apparently can do some seriously sexy flower magic together, which I gather is a very sensual experience he's never had before. None of these wizards have, since they've all learnt their magic in coldness. She likes him because he at least has the intelligence and intellectual curiosity to look beyond his own limits, and to entertain the possibility of a different way.

Finally, while I do agree that there are certain Mary Sue-aspects to Agnieszka, her tremendous magical power clearly comes from her deep roots in nature, so it's not that weird that the others have to study and graft for seven years: they approach their craft from the science side. It's like she's whittling a very nice and very useful plate out of wood, whereas they have spent years building factories, doing research and making just-as-useful but rather sterile plates out of plastic.

So there you have it. Plates. I'm staying firm at five stars.

(Although I do think that Agnieszka shouldn't be dismissing /all/ learning like she clearly is doing. That did rub me up the wrong way a bit. Not everyone should be satisfied with being allowed to skip through the woods all day long.)

I've set myself the task of re-reading all Realms of the Elderlings books before I finally tackle [b:Assassin's Fate 30688013 Assassin's Fate (The Fitz and the Fool, #3) Robin Hobb https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1492869860s/30688013.jpg 44600531] (I started reading and then realized that all through the previous two Fitz & the Fool books I'd actually had lost all sense of what had happened before, which was a great shame, so I'm doing it all AGAIN), and: wow.You see, in the past twenty years I'd re-read the Farseer trilogy a few times, because I loved it so much. I had never re-read the Liveship Traders trilogy, because I didn't love it the first time, mostly based on the fact that it was not the Farseer trilogy. I remembered next to nothing about it. And I'm so happy I've just gone through it again. The characters are so much more layered than in the Farseer Trilogy (which is actually a bit disappointing to me now, in that regard) - although I guess part of that is to do with the fact that all of Fitz' books are written from his POV. And I was so chuffed to rediscover the feminist feel of this trilogy! I guess I didn't care too much about that stuff back in the day, but reading it as a wizened old lady of 39 it was so gratifying to read about normal female women who could be just as strong and weak and smart and stupid and dashing and scarred as the men. I realise I'm repeating myself, but I loved it.... next up, of course, is the Tawny Man trilogy. I'm already dreading it, I'm still reeling from the trauma of reading it the first time when it came out.

Did not finish. Not for me. (I prefer books in which.... things happen. Other than animal cruelty and ‘it being hot' that is.)

Really liked it at first since the founding of the city, the quirkiness and the basketball excursions were fun to read. But halfway through it got bogged down, I felt (I am a European with no connection to Oklahoma whatsoever). I found all the stuff about that Flaming Lips singer and the Chamber guy buying land just too boring to come back to. In the end I decided it was best to mark this as DNF and move on.

Happy to have read it since it's a classic, but it didn't really tug at my heartstrings. If I'd read it back when I was 7 or 8 I'm sure I would have loved it though.