Scan barcode
blackangel's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
erazonasarah's review
3.0
A little better than the second book, but still quite dull. You could easily skip the majority of this book and just read the last short 7 chapters.
oblue02's review against another edition
2.0
A very meh ending to a trilogy that started off with a ton of promise
mariavagovicova's review against another edition
5.0
from the begining of the left hand of god i was like "please not him not him not him". but it happened. and i fucking hate this book for it.
after reading the second book i was quite disappointed but this great "finale" was pretty good.
and what I loved about this trilogy the most is the language, especially in dialogues. they were pure gold. and henri, fucking Henri.
and i loved the thing with bacon.
after reading the second book i was quite disappointed but this great "finale" was pretty good.
and what I loved about this trilogy the most is the language, especially in dialogues. they were pure gold. and henri, fucking Henri.
and i loved the thing with bacon.
daydreamer45's review against another edition
2.0
For the big mess it actually is, this book was a weirdly engaging read. Anyway, I'm happy to be done with this world. :D
millie_belle's review against another edition
Boring book, drawn-out plot, unrelatable characters
defran's review against another edition
2.0
I was so disappointed by this book,really. The first was one was beyond my expectations,the second was nahhh,and the third one a disaster. I guess that I had high expectations and I was hoping for a breathtaking finale but no,it was nothing like that.
rosekk's review against another edition
3.0
It's been years since I read the first two (I've had this book for ages, but for about 6 years it was in separate house from me), so I'd lost some of the attachment to the world/characters by the time I picked this up. Fortunately it wasn't too hard to get back into the swing of things - the book helpfully provides a catch-up paragraph or two for those of us who needed it, and the fact that there aren't too many main characters, and they're all pretty distinct, makes it easy to remember who's who. I think my tastes have changed slightly since I started the series. I still enjoyed the book and had no trouble getting through it, but there were some niggling complaints.
The thing that bothered me most was that there are bits of the story that seem to be attempting to be philosophical, but I'm not sure they manage it very well. For instance, there's a part where Kant is brought in (entirely unnecessarily, I feel), and his ideas are simplified to the point of being misrepresented. I'm no expert on Kant, but I know enough to see where there's important details missing. It bothers me to see people arbitrarily paraphrasing well-known philosophers as if to make a point, partly because it so commonly ends up with the ideas being misconstrued, rendering it all pretty pointless. More importantly, however, a story is perfectly capable of aiding/containing/prompting that kind of thinking without clumsily name dropping philosophers. If you want to make a point about life or the world, just tell the story and leave the philosophers to write the essays and treaties. Both do valuable work without needing to step on each others toes, and readers will get more out of a story they can enjoy and think about in their own way than one riddled with inaccurate paraphrasing of ideas.
That said, the book held me interest well with an array of strange, often grim characters and dark humour.
The thing that bothered me most was that there are bits of the story that seem to be attempting to be philosophical, but I'm not sure they manage it very well. For instance, there's a part where Kant is brought in (entirely unnecessarily, I feel), and his ideas are simplified to the point of being misrepresented. I'm no expert on Kant, but I know enough to see where there's important details missing. It bothers me to see people arbitrarily paraphrasing well-known philosophers as if to make a point, partly because it so commonly ends up with the ideas being misconstrued, rendering it all pretty pointless. More importantly, however, a story is perfectly capable of aiding/containing/prompting that kind of thinking without clumsily name dropping philosophers. If you want to make a point about life or the world, just tell the story and leave the philosophers to write the essays and treaties. Both do valuable work without needing to step on each others toes, and readers will get more out of a story they can enjoy and think about in their own way than one riddled with inaccurate paraphrasing of ideas.
That said, the book held me interest well with an array of strange, often grim characters and dark humour.