Scan barcode
rtaire's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, and Sexual content
Moderate: Domestic abuse and Homophobia
Minor: Death of parent
littlewishling's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
Graphic: Sexism and Sexual content
Minor: Death, Domestic abuse, and Grief
istiel's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
Graphic: Misogyny and Sexism
Moderate: Domestic abuse
Minor: Infidelity and Toxic relationship
tangleroot_eli's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, and Sexual content
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Emotional abuse, and Racism
givemaribooks's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
I quite enjoyed the audiobook narrator.
Moderate: Domestic abuse
friends2lovers's review against another edition
1.0
It seems to me that the only reason Lucy never contacts Oléron is
Quotes
It was printed and put up for sale. [...] the title was embossed in silver on rich blue leather: The Lady’s Guide to Celestial Mechanics, with the author listed as L. Muchelney. Lucy had agonized over this initial, before ultimately deciding that she would use her full name when she published her own unique work, and initials when she wanted the focus to be on the work she was translating.
Note: Um, she’s listed as the “author” and not the “translator” or "editor"? How does that keep the focus on the work she’s translating? The extent of Lucy’s edits and additions is not clear, but an “author” credit seems disingenuous to me. Oléron is the author, Lucy is not. It would be more appropriate to say “translated, edited, and annotated by L. Muchelney." Also, Lucy agonizes over whether to use her initial or full name, but doesn't agonize over the fact that she still hasn't contacted the original author about their work getting translated, published, and sold for profit???
Fury was an anchor in the swirling storm: she turned it on him in spite of her better instincts. “I shouldn’t have to perform like a dancing bear. My work should be proof enough on its own.”
“Your work,” he said, “is not entirely yours.”
Lucy stopped short.
Mr. Frampton continued, inexorable. “It would be one thing if you’d translated the Méchanique céleste for the benefit of your fellow scholars. The more we share, the faster we all advance. But it was a commercial success, far beyond any expectation.” His mouth was a flat line by now, his displeasure plain. “The more popular it got, the more uneasy I became with the notion that the original author had no idea your translation existed.”
“So you sent it to him,” Lucy whispered.
“I did.”
Note: Mr. Frampton is the ONLY character in this stupid book who seems to be "displeased" with Lucy about this. But still, even he brushes it off later in this conversation. I don't get why this is not a bigger conflict!
“I believed I was the first woman to really try and advance the progress of astronomy—I fancied myself a brave pioneer, an explorer like you once were. A shining beacon to girls and women of the future. It was a great comfort, whenever people like Mr. Hawley and Mr. Wilby offered insults and dismissals. All I had to do to claim victory was to prove them wrong—and don’t men of science value proof more than anything? Once people saw what I did, really saw it and acknowledged it, they’d believe other women were capable of thinking, of learning, of discovering the world in the same way that men are. But tonight I learned that there were other women before me. So very, very many of them. They were here all along: spotting comets, naming stars, pointing telescopes at the sky alongside their fathers and brothers and sons. And still the men they worked with scorned them. Scoffed at them. Gave the credit and the glory to the men who stole their work—or borrowed it or expanded it. Rarely cited it directly. And then those men did their best to forget where the work came from. Women’s ideas are treated as though they sprung from nowhere, to be claimed by the first man who comes along. Every generation had women stand up and ask to be counted—and every generation of brilliant, insightful, educated men has raised a hand and wiped those women’s names from the greater historical record.”
Note: (Bolding emphasis is my own.) Isn't Lucy getting all the credit and glory for work she stole/borrowed and expanded? Does she really not see that her actions are akin to what she's condemning here, and therefore antithetical to her own professed ideals? The hypocrisy is infuriating!
Oléron was a woman! A dark-skinned woman! As soon as the first shock had passed, she was flooded with chagrin at one simple, telling fact: the possibility of Oléron being anything other than a white-skinned man had quite simply not occurred to her. What a mortifying realization for someone who prided herself on being keenly observant. Well, astronomers did spend most of their time being wrong. What mattered was what they did when they realized the truth.
Note: I don't even know what to say about this contrived, predictable plot twist or Lucy's reaction to it. I'm not surprised that Lucy didn't see this as a possibility.
Moderate: Sexism and Sexual content
Minor: Domestic abuse and Emotional abuse
nat_montego's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
5.0
Graphic: Sexual content
Moderate: Sexism
Minor: Domestic abuse, Toxic relationship, and Outing
qraveline's review against another edition
3.75
Graphic: Sexual content
Moderate: Misogyny and Sexism
Minor: Domestic abuse and Emotional abuse
erikawynn's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Homophobia, Racism, and Sexism
Minor: Death of parent
rknitss's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
Minor: Domestic abuse