Scan barcode
alfsan's review against another edition
4.0
works to fully understand from an historic pictional perspective, the difference between women and man, from the origins of time. what makes us different from the beginning, how it all started and where do we split appart and reunite
pogseu's review against another edition
4.0
how about an alternative creation myth: women came first, and used to procreate without the help of men. They would be fertilised by the sea or the moon. But they started giving birth to deformed babies, which they called Monsters and which they left to die on the Killing Rock. Unfortunately the Monsters (or Squirts) were rescued by Eagles. A shame really, because once they started mating with women, the moon and the sea weren't sufficient anymore, and women needed the men's seeds.
the story is told by a Roman historian (a man) who inserts little remarks here and there on maternal love, how men and women interact or how boys and girls are made aware of their sexual differences.
only four stars because the book is so repetitive.
the story is told by a Roman historian (a man) who inserts little remarks here and there on maternal love, how men and women interact or how boys and girls are made aware of their sexual differences.
only four stars because the book is so repetitive.
kinklekota's review against another edition
there were moments when I truly enjoyed this book. It grabbed my attention and made me think a lot. Mostly about its flaws.
The book seems to be written by an amatheur. It is fragmented and poorly composed, the tale seems to have no credibility at all, and the narrator constantly repeats himself (which has been driving me mad). On top of that, the author seems to be strongly influenced by stereotypical thinking.
However, I cannot believe she would write something this bad if it weren't on purpose. A hundred of possible explanations for her terrible plot managing comes to my mind. Maybe she tried to mimic a poor storyteller, who doesn't remember the order of events well and omits some parts of the tale because he finds them irrelevant or refers to the events he hasn't told about yet, etc. Maybe she wants us to experience the feeling of a scholar faced with repetitive and yet meagre material and hardships of reconstructing the story from bits we are provided with. And the stereotypes are in fact somehow twisted, because I have always thought that ancient people did not respect women at all, just grabbed them by hair and haul them into a cave, and it's totally different here (still, I would prefer it to be less modern).
I would have given it even four stars if it were more serious. Or if I KNEW that she is just mocking the reader with her style. Unfortunately, I only SURMISE it is so, and that's not enough to convince me that it is a good book.
The book seems to be written by an amatheur. It is fragmented and poorly composed, the tale seems to have no credibility at all, and the narrator constantly repeats himself (which has been driving me mad). On top of that, the author seems to be strongly influenced by stereotypical thinking.
However, I cannot believe she would write something this bad if it weren't on purpose. A hundred of possible explanations for her terrible plot managing comes to my mind. Maybe she tried to mimic a poor storyteller, who doesn't remember the order of events well and omits some parts of the tale because he finds them irrelevant or refers to the events he hasn't told about yet, etc. Maybe she wants us to experience the feeling of a scholar faced with repetitive and yet meagre material and hardships of reconstructing the story from bits we are provided with. And the stereotypes are in fact somehow twisted, because I have always thought that ancient people did not respect women at all, just grabbed them by hair and haul them into a cave, and it's totally different here (still, I would prefer it to be less modern).
I would have given it even four stars if it were more serious. Or if I KNEW that she is just mocking the reader with her style. Unfortunately, I only SURMISE it is so, and that's not enough to convince me that it is a good book.
dudiiribeiro's review against another edition
challenging
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
coleperry's review against another edition
2.0
Cool novel, treatment of gender manages to be both novel and tired.
I loved the historiographical commentary from the Roman telling the story of studying an origin myth. The postmodern structuring of the novel was fun and thought-provoking. I was also really excited for the potential for disrupting traditional gender narratives, especially with the telling of a female origin myth. The treatment of gender and gender differences/relations, though, was disappointing on the whole. To reinvent the species' origins, but then reinscribe tired, contemporary gender stereotypes was pretty unimaginative. A woman walks into a man's dirty hut for the first time and invents a broom on the spot to clean up after him? Really?
Men are portrayed as naturally callous risk-takers who let children die and don't even see why this is a bad thing. Men lack compassion and women do all the care work. Women are cleanly and nags (even when the men begrudge them the point); men are messy but athletic adventurers. All the mischief young boys get into is described at length, but the story hardly ever mentions what girls do. This transposition of 21st century gender stereotypes and preoccupations onto both Roman and pre-historical understandings was very distracting. I won't even go into the pervasive heteronormativity.
There's a couple of women who flee the traditional women's home society (binary gender segregation was the status quo) to live with the men, but nary a man or boy who chooses to live with women. To me this reflects a current gender narrative wherein feminism/liberation/equality means that it's okay for some women to be more like men, if they so choose, but men receive social censure for any sort of effeminacy. In the story, there's not even precedent for men displaying the characteristics associated with women.
Many aspects of this novel would qualify as some definition of feminist, but I think it's pretty unfortunate that this books seems to naturalize gendered inequality (it's a human origin myth and yet, from the start, gender inequality coincides with biological difference!). It's great that women are shown resisting the domination of the men in the story and that they have strong leaders themselves (in fact they were doing great on their own!), but that's pretty weak feminism. With a story centering gender, but focusing on the pre-historical even pre-cultural, Lessing could have done a lot of interesting things with the idea of gender. Instead, the story takes the faux-radical approach of questioning ideas about the origins of the human species and even the gendered writing of history. Yet Lessing chooses to leave in place reactionary gender ideologies that prop up contemporary gendered inequality and oppression.
For all the postmodern writing techniques that Lessing is a master of, the novel fails to take into account postmodern and poststructuralist understandings of (and insights into) gender. So, despite how it posits women as the progenitors of the human race, I see this book as reinforcing the differentiation and thus the subordination of women. Men and women are inherently unequal; men have fun, women nag; blah blah. Seems like tired reasoning to me.
I loved the historiographical commentary from the Roman telling the story of studying an origin myth. The postmodern structuring of the novel was fun and thought-provoking. I was also really excited for the potential for disrupting traditional gender narratives, especially with the telling of a female origin myth. The treatment of gender and gender differences/relations, though, was disappointing on the whole. To reinvent the species' origins, but then reinscribe tired, contemporary gender stereotypes was pretty unimaginative. A woman walks into a man's dirty hut for the first time and invents a broom on the spot to clean up after him? Really?
Men are portrayed as naturally callous risk-takers who let children die and don't even see why this is a bad thing. Men lack compassion and women do all the care work. Women are cleanly and nags (even when the men begrudge them the point); men are messy but athletic adventurers. All the mischief young boys get into is described at length, but the story hardly ever mentions what girls do. This transposition of 21st century gender stereotypes and preoccupations onto both Roman and pre-historical understandings was very distracting. I won't even go into the pervasive heteronormativity.
There's a couple of women who flee the traditional women's home society (binary gender segregation was the status quo) to live with the men, but nary a man or boy who chooses to live with women. To me this reflects a current gender narrative wherein feminism/liberation/equality means that it's okay for some women to be more like men, if they so choose, but men receive social censure for any sort of effeminacy. In the story, there's not even precedent for men displaying the characteristics associated with women.
Many aspects of this novel would qualify as some definition of feminist, but I think it's pretty unfortunate that this books seems to naturalize gendered inequality (it's a human origin myth and yet, from the start, gender inequality coincides with biological difference!). It's great that women are shown resisting the domination of the men in the story and that they have strong leaders themselves (in fact they were doing great on their own!), but that's pretty weak feminism. With a story centering gender, but focusing on the pre-historical even pre-cultural, Lessing could have done a lot of interesting things with the idea of gender. Instead, the story takes the faux-radical approach of questioning ideas about the origins of the human species and even the gendered writing of history. Yet Lessing chooses to leave in place reactionary gender ideologies that prop up contemporary gendered inequality and oppression.
For all the postmodern writing techniques that Lessing is a master of, the novel fails to take into account postmodern and poststructuralist understandings of (and insights into) gender. So, despite how it posits women as the progenitors of the human race, I see this book as reinforcing the differentiation and thus the subordination of women. Men and women are inherently unequal; men have fun, women nag; blah blah. Seems like tired reasoning to me.
laurafd's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.5
ntembeast's review against another edition
3.0
I must say, when I started this book, I didn't quite realize what I was getting myself into. Half the time I don't quite take the time to know what my school books are about. So finding out I was reading something along the lines of a fictional novel depicting how the human race first began and what it was like for them to exist is one thing. A completely altering addition is that Doris Lessing, our author, stood by the claim that women were the first people to have existed--not men. This odd twist of things makes so much sense in her reasonable, thoughtful, provoking method of writing. But we enter a completely new and strange dynamic as well when we realize that our narrator is the historian who was given these documents to decipher for the world telling us this story. But that's not all. He's a Roman. An ancient Roman, in the times of Rome's military conquests and world-wide expansions in an attempt to become the greatest empire in the world.
What a dynamic we're thrown into! Doris Lessing does her best to twist our viewpoint into something unfamiliar and uncomfortable--every which way she turns our eyes!
Why then, with this peculiar, intriguing concept did I give the book only a three out of five? The writing is simple and easy to follow. It's provocative and brings out various reactions from the reader--there it has no want. The storyline itself is gripping and unusual, so that cannot be the cause. Simply placed, it is not in the line of my fancy. While I enjoyed the novel--yes, very much so! I was not dulled by a moment of it!--neither was I thrilled and engaged to the extent I felt that I could have been. Perhaps it is only me, and perhaps others will find this a novel much worth the fussing and fretting over. In my case, however, I read it with the casualness of one hearing someone ramble about a viewpoint that you don't necessarily agree with, but you don't want to be rude about and so you nod your head and make sure not to interrupt. Did I find it intriguing and entertaining? Yep. You bet I did. I still feel something was lacking from it though.
Perhaps it is her casual phrasing? Perhaps it was that it was written through this historian's view, giving us facts and suppositions, events as they happened and changes. But that is not enough to draw someone in all the time, even if the subject has allure. I get it. She was trying to make a point and going for the aspect of credibility rather than a riveting method of storytelling, taking for granted or purposefully knowing that her subject was what she wanted people to focus on, not the adventure of the book itself. And I feel that does take away an essential aspect from a book. You can sit back and casually read it, practically flip through it, and come away and say, "Well that was a beneficial read. What's the next thing on the list?" It doesn't leave you wanting, mulling, anything. It's done the moment the story ends. You don't spend all that time wondering about what could have happened afterwards, because there is very little emotional attachment to the characters within the tale. Even our narrator doesn't give us anything to hold on to half the time. And what he does portray is strange and bewildering. Which makes me believe that this is how Doris Lessing wanted the novel to be written, and to come across to us readers.
Story and concepts appreciated, Mrs. Lessing! But I'm afraid that I hunt for more engaging rather than argumentative and educational reads. Thank you for your efforts though. They were interesting, for the duration.
If you'd like to try this book, readers, give it a go in a library first, or pick it up used. But I don't recommend you going out and buying it. Not at all. You may find you enjoy it, or that you like it more than I did. But this is a book I wouldn't advise you to take the risk on initially, before you know what you're getting yourself into.
What a dynamic we're thrown into! Doris Lessing does her best to twist our viewpoint into something unfamiliar and uncomfortable--every which way she turns our eyes!
Why then, with this peculiar, intriguing concept did I give the book only a three out of five? The writing is simple and easy to follow. It's provocative and brings out various reactions from the reader--there it has no want. The storyline itself is gripping and unusual, so that cannot be the cause. Simply placed, it is not in the line of my fancy. While I enjoyed the novel--yes, very much so! I was not dulled by a moment of it!--neither was I thrilled and engaged to the extent I felt that I could have been. Perhaps it is only me, and perhaps others will find this a novel much worth the fussing and fretting over. In my case, however, I read it with the casualness of one hearing someone ramble about a viewpoint that you don't necessarily agree with, but you don't want to be rude about and so you nod your head and make sure not to interrupt. Did I find it intriguing and entertaining? Yep. You bet I did. I still feel something was lacking from it though.
Perhaps it is her casual phrasing? Perhaps it was that it was written through this historian's view, giving us facts and suppositions, events as they happened and changes. But that is not enough to draw someone in all the time, even if the subject has allure. I get it. She was trying to make a point and going for the aspect of credibility rather than a riveting method of storytelling, taking for granted or purposefully knowing that her subject was what she wanted people to focus on, not the adventure of the book itself. And I feel that does take away an essential aspect from a book. You can sit back and casually read it, practically flip through it, and come away and say, "Well that was a beneficial read. What's the next thing on the list?" It doesn't leave you wanting, mulling, anything. It's done the moment the story ends. You don't spend all that time wondering about what could have happened afterwards, because there is very little emotional attachment to the characters within the tale. Even our narrator doesn't give us anything to hold on to half the time. And what he does portray is strange and bewildering. Which makes me believe that this is how Doris Lessing wanted the novel to be written, and to come across to us readers.
Story and concepts appreciated, Mrs. Lessing! But I'm afraid that I hunt for more engaging rather than argumentative and educational reads. Thank you for your efforts though. They were interesting, for the duration.
If you'd like to try this book, readers, give it a go in a library first, or pick it up used. But I don't recommend you going out and buying it. Not at all. You may find you enjoy it, or that you like it more than I did. But this is a book I wouldn't advise you to take the risk on initially, before you know what you're getting yourself into.
mrears0_0's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
this is the worst thing I’ve ever read
faysie34's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0