Scan barcode
lydie95's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
4.5
bibliotequeish's review against another edition
4.0
A weird sleep falls over the small village of Midwich. When the villagers wake up they soon realize that all the women are pregnant.
I found the dynamic between the women and “their children” to be the most interesting.
This was a gentle spooky book. Perfect for the spook sensitive.
I found the dynamic between the women and “their children” to be the most interesting.
This was a gentle spooky book. Perfect for the spook sensitive.
nellyandclem's review against another edition
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
iainkelly_writing's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
4.0
A premise that promises so much, and a great set up in sleepy little England, with moral dilemmas and intrigue. The only drawback are passages of moralising and philosophical debate that slow the pace down - Zellenby is presented as a bore by the narrator, but we have to read large tracts of his musings. In such a short novel, there was room for more scope to a global story. Still, Wyndham never disappoints and his stories and ideas still seem fresh and insightful about the human condition.
victoriasaurus's review
2.0
2.5 stars? Though to be fair most of my gripes are probably down to the fact that it was written in the Fifties, and therefore of its time. And though some plot points may have benefitted from a bit more development, it felt kinda refreshing to read a sci-fi novel that doesn’t include masses of complex world-building.
Anyway R*P Gordon Zellaby you would have loved Twitter.
Anyway R*P Gordon Zellaby you would have loved Twitter.
lunaseline's review
3.0
Jag hörde talas om en ny tv-serie, och gjorde det naturliga - läste boken istället!
Oklart om "boken var bättre" gäller (eftersom jag inte sett serien), men i detta fall gissar jag att det är lite hugget som stucket. Wyndham skriver snyggt och påhittigt, med en del välutvecklade karaktärer (även om jag har svårt att hålla isär männen i olika patriarkala roller, pga yrke eller ålder eller... kön?). Förutom könsrollerna har boken åldrats helt okej.
Tyvärr blir det aldrig riktigt spännande. Obehagligt - ja, och på bra sätt i sann sci-fi-anda, men också ganska långa stycken med hypotetiska diskussioner (mellan de där männen jag knappt håller isär). Lite synd, för grundidén och grundobehaget sitter där det ska.
Oklart om "boken var bättre" gäller (eftersom jag inte sett serien), men i detta fall gissar jag att det är lite hugget som stucket. Wyndham skriver snyggt och påhittigt, med en del välutvecklade karaktärer (även om jag har svårt att hålla isär männen i olika patriarkala roller, pga yrke eller ålder eller... kön?). Förutom könsrollerna har boken åldrats helt okej.
Tyvärr blir det aldrig riktigt spännande. Obehagligt - ja, och på bra sätt i sann sci-fi-anda, men också ganska långa stycken med hypotetiska diskussioner (mellan de där männen jag knappt håller isär). Lite synd, för grundidén och grundobehaget sitter där det ska.
rozzacoops's review against another edition
3.0
Some quite laughable musings about women’s role in society (as only a 20th century sci-fi writer can provide) and a brief moment of quite elegant self aggrandisement where JW breaks the “fourth wall”, seemingly wanted to remind the reader that the concept of the book is far more interesting and nuanced than other sci fi of the time - notably HG Wells’ “War of the Worlds”.
However, otherwise quite a cool concept.
However, otherwise quite a cool concept.
rastonwarriorrobot's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0