3.01 AVERAGE

challenging reflective slow-paced
adventurous challenging informative inspiring reflective slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Yes
Loveable characters: No
Diverse cast of characters: Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus: No
adventurous challenging dark hopeful informative inspiring mysterious reflective 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

brilliant ! also Very lesbian
margaret is a yes from me

I didn't like it much for the same reasons I didn't like New Atlantis much- it's basically a philosophy book masquerading as speculative fiction. I do think this one is a little closer to the modern day idea of science fiction than New Atlantis was, and it also seemed a little less racist/misogynistic, so I liked it better. Also, I found her direct self-insert character, and the transparency of "everything would be better if people just listened to me and I was in charge", is incredibly funny to me. It is a lot of lists and just things randomly happening, it's not really a narrative story. There are some really cool and beautiful descriptions in there, but the writing style can be difficult because it's a lot of really long run-on sentences. I do feel a little bad criticizing it for that- I know I use run-on sentences constantly- but this is significantly worse than any crimes I myself may or may not have committed. Also, too much talk of worm-men. Stop making me think about what that means. 
adventurous reflective slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Plot
Strong character development: No
Loveable characters: Complicated
Diverse cast of characters: Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus: No
challenging medium-paced
adventurous challenging funny informative lighthearted reflective fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven: A mix
Strong character development: Complicated
Loveable characters: Complicated
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: No

Sobre el libro en sí, poco que decir. Es un tratado de filosofía y física del siglo XVII, con todo lo que eso conlleva. Algunas cosas son curiosas de leer, pero se quedan en eso mera curiosidad.
Ahora, la edición de Siruela. Así da gusto gastarse el dinero: perfectamente traducido y anotado, con referencias a más textos. Al inicio viene acompañado de un pequeño ensayo-introducción a la obra y la escritora, firmado por la traductora, María Antònia Martí Escayol. Yo quiero que me traigan más señoras así de bien editadas al español, por favor.

While I praise the author for her innovative skills, I feel this book was really hard to enjoy. She claims in the prologue she wanted to create a fantasy so that people could learn while being entertained but this is just not entertaining. I know the idea of entertainment is probably very different today than it was in the 1600s, but I never felt this huge gap of ideias in Shakespeare, for instance, and he predates her by a century (although I do feel it's very unfair to compare anyone to Shakespeare). But, that being said, I think there are some interesting ideas in this, mainly her strong belief that we are all able to create worlds in our minds that are not less important or complex than the real ones. If she had only tried to write fantasy for the sake of writing fantasy, and not with the underlying intention of analysing and explaining her views in politics, science and religion, I fell this would have been a much better book.