You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.34 AVERAGE
3.34 AVERAGE
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
tense
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:
Complicated
I hate giving such a low rating to a Margaret Atwood novel, but I think this is weak in comparison with others I've read. I'm not clear what she was trying to say, and although the initial premise was interesting, it quickly became ridiculous. I never really felt Involved and couldn't decide whether it was a dystopian thriller or a comedy.
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
It appears to be a book of two halves. The first, a gritty, despairing dystopian with these two characters who you can relate to in their frustrated anger at the country and economy that have let them down. The second half, an unsubtle stab at big unfeeling businesses on the relatively unbelievable slippery slope of human rights and morality issues. I’m sure there’s some bigger message that I’m not getting from the book as a whole, but I didn’t particularly enjoy getting to the end of this book. It is unmistakably Atwood in its message, but the delivery wasn’t there for me.
This book was weird, and not in an intriguing sci fi way like I typically enjoy. Also, the two main characters were so unimaginably stupid and hateful that I could barely stomach it long enough to finish it.
I’m not sure that you could say that anything is a “typical” Margaret Atwood book, as she writes so well in multiple genres. But one of her recurring theme is a realistic but really depressing possible future state of our world. The Heart Goes Last is among her dystopian universes of some bleak potential future earth. It’s not as far removed from the present world as the Oryx and Crake, Year of the Flood, Madd Addam trilogy or The Handmaid’s Tale but it’s still a pretty terrifying world.
Our protagonists Stan and Charmaine are not particularly likeable, but they are also not the terrible people protagonists like Nick and Amy from Gone Girl. I started out liking Stan somewhat, sympathizing with his dilemma about whether to accept the help of his ne’er do well brother, the aptly named Con. But after the couple, who have lost their jobs in the economic recession and who had been living in their car, take a chance and relocates to the experimental community of Consilience, they both shows their inner idiot.
The premise is interesting. In Consilience, the problem of homelessness and joblessness is “solved” by having everyone employed by the company town which mainly services a large prison. The catch is that the prisoners are all volunteer residents, and everyone rotates alternating months to take turns being a prisoner (and working inside Positron prison) one month, and then shifting out and living in Consilience and working a “civilian” job the alternating months. Each house or apartment is actually home to two sets of people – one for even months, and the other for odds, but the “alternates” are never to meet or have any contact.
This premise, while interesting, does not make any logical sense. Prisons are very expensive to operate and are funded by state or federal governments for the safekeeping of dangerous people. Prisons are not self-sufficient economically, let alone able to support an entire town of not-actually criminal residents without government funding. Their premise depends upon this monthly rotation of citizens in and out of the prison. They give an economic justification for Consilience's success (they are producing with town and prison labor scare goods for the black or grey market, including sex robots). However there isn’t any aspect of the economic justification they offer for the profitability of the community that actually relies on the fact that the labor is performed by people acting as prisoners. It could just be a company town. Those too were quite profitable for the operators, and not so much for the residents / workforce.
So, why exactly do we have the rotating monthly civilian / prisoner / civilian / prisoner premise for the population of Consilience? The only reason I can conjure is to create the “forbidden fruit” of unauthorized contact with the alternates who occupy your house while you’re doing prison duty. So of course that’s what our protagonists gravitate towards immediately upon entering and swearing a lifetime oath to following the community rules. They start breaking rules, and then this utopia of free housing and jobs swiftly reveals its darker side. Things get dark, confusing, and quite quirky (its always good to have multiple Elvis impersonators, thank you very much – especially if you’re listening on audiobook, as the reader makes a good effort at The King).
There were many aspects in this book that reminded me of other novels:
• Stan’s work in the chicken farm while acting as prisoner reminded me of the horrifying genetically mutated chickens of Oryx and Crake, Atwood’s own previous work.
• The over-emphasis on the sex robots reminded me (sadly, as I hated the book) of The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi.
• The concept of “imprinting” with another person seems identical to werewolf love patterns as outline in the Twilight novels, which even used the same terminology. Anything that reminds me of Renesme and Jacob gives me the willies. Yikes.
Other aspects reminded me of futuristic movies or tv, including the 1980s "Max Headroom" tv series. C-c-c-catch the wave. Do I really think that Atwood has even read the Twilight saga, let alone is borrowing plots? Not really, but it was distracting and struck me as not nearly as “original” as so many other of her works. I wasn’t so caught up in the universe of this book that I didn’t notice parallels to other books and concepts. Yes, I suppose that there are really only a limited number of awful things that can happen in the future. But rather than create a whole new universe, this seems to more make a collage of existing concepts.
It isn’t my favorite Margaret Atwood book. Because I know how great her books can be, I was disappointed. But, it wasn’t a bad book, and it kept my interest as I read it in two days (work days). Because this is a genre and author that I like so much, my expectations are really high.
Our protagonists Stan and Charmaine are not particularly likeable, but they are also not the terrible people protagonists like Nick and Amy from Gone Girl. I started out liking Stan somewhat, sympathizing with his dilemma about whether to accept the help of his ne’er do well brother, the aptly named Con. But after the couple, who have lost their jobs in the economic recession and who had been living in their car, take a chance and relocates to the experimental community of Consilience, they both shows their inner idiot.
The premise is interesting. In Consilience, the problem of homelessness and joblessness is “solved” by having everyone employed by the company town which mainly services a large prison. The catch is that the prisoners are all volunteer residents, and everyone rotates alternating months to take turns being a prisoner (and working inside Positron prison) one month, and then shifting out and living in Consilience and working a “civilian” job the alternating months. Each house or apartment is actually home to two sets of people – one for even months, and the other for odds, but the “alternates” are never to meet or have any contact.
This premise, while interesting, does not make any logical sense. Prisons are very expensive to operate and are funded by state or federal governments for the safekeeping of dangerous people. Prisons are not self-sufficient economically, let alone able to support an entire town of not-actually criminal residents without government funding. Their premise depends upon this monthly rotation of citizens in and out of the prison. They give an economic justification for Consilience's success (they are producing with town and prison labor scare goods for the black or grey market, including sex robots). However there isn’t any aspect of the economic justification they offer for the profitability of the community that actually relies on the fact that the labor is performed by people acting as prisoners. It could just be a company town. Those too were quite profitable for the operators, and not so much for the residents / workforce.
So, why exactly do we have the rotating monthly civilian / prisoner / civilian / prisoner premise for the population of Consilience? The only reason I can conjure is to create the “forbidden fruit” of unauthorized contact with the alternates who occupy your house while you’re doing prison duty. So of course that’s what our protagonists gravitate towards immediately upon entering and swearing a lifetime oath to following the community rules. They start breaking rules, and then this utopia of free housing and jobs swiftly reveals its darker side. Things get dark, confusing, and quite quirky (its always good to have multiple Elvis impersonators, thank you very much – especially if you’re listening on audiobook, as the reader makes a good effort at The King).
There were many aspects in this book that reminded me of other novels:
• Stan’s work in the chicken farm while acting as prisoner reminded me of the horrifying genetically mutated chickens of Oryx and Crake, Atwood’s own previous work.
• The over-emphasis on the sex robots reminded me (sadly, as I hated the book) of The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi.
• The concept of “imprinting” with another person seems identical to werewolf love patterns as outline in the Twilight novels, which even used the same terminology. Anything that reminds me of Renesme and Jacob gives me the willies. Yikes.
Other aspects reminded me of futuristic movies or tv, including the 1980s "Max Headroom" tv series. C-c-c-catch the wave. Do I really think that Atwood has even read the Twilight saga, let alone is borrowing plots? Not really, but it was distracting and struck me as not nearly as “original” as so many other of her works. I wasn’t so caught up in the universe of this book that I didn’t notice parallels to other books and concepts. Yes, I suppose that there are really only a limited number of awful things that can happen in the future. But rather than create a whole new universe, this seems to more make a collage of existing concepts.
It isn’t my favorite Margaret Atwood book. Because I know how great her books can be, I was disappointed. But, it wasn’t a bad book, and it kept my interest as I read it in two days (work days). Because this is a genre and author that I like so much, my expectations are really high.
I didn’t think the premise of this dystopia was that plausible with people spending one month in prison then one month out but then it’s hard to buy into it when the tone is so silly.
Feels like Atwood had half an idea for this and then gave up fleshing it out so we get this shadow of her former work.
Feels like Atwood had half an idea for this and then gave up fleshing it out so we get this shadow of her former work.
dark
mysterious
medium-paced