You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.49 AVERAGE
3.49 AVERAGE
I was excited to see she had written a new book, since "Oranges are Not the Only Fruit" was a really important book to me growing up, but this was overall a disappointing read. maybe it's just that I don't find sci-fi that interesting, or maybe it was the trans character that was very mediumly executed (good intentions I think, but just quite shallow and aestheticized). I think my biggest issue was it just wasn't very moving. I guess I feel like a love story should have more love in it. technically well-crafted, and she is always an interesting writer, but I think this book was for a different reader.
Irritating to me bc she writes with the self importance of revealing very cutting edge and revolutionary ideas and interconnections to me when none of it was new to me and quite reductive in its conclusion. I don't think it's just because I'm very well versed in second generation romantics cooped up at villa diodati as well as anthropomorphic robots.
Wauw. This an interesting read! You do need all your wits about you though. This is the kind o book I want to talk about with other readers, because I am sure I am missing at least half of what is going on. I will let it settle and then come back to this review.
2.5 stars.
I checked out this book from the library on a whim because it got a good write-up in the NY Times, but sadly ended up skimming the last 80 pages because I just wasn't interested enough (and wanted to read another book that had just come in at the library).
I found the characters in this story underdeveloped, and the plot (related to Frankenstein, but also related to AI and trying to upload our consciousness) tedious. I skimmed to the end because there was kind of a mystery, so I wanted to know how it would end. Suffice it to say that the ending was not worth it.
I checked out this book from the library on a whim because it got a good write-up in the NY Times, but sadly ended up skimming the last 80 pages because I just wasn't interested enough (and wanted to read another book that had just come in at the library).
I found the characters in this story underdeveloped, and the plot (related to Frankenstein, but also related to AI and trying to upload our consciousness) tedious. I skimmed to the end because there was kind of a mystery, so I wanted to know how it would end. Suffice it to say that the ending was not worth it.
uhhhhh yeah. hmm. this book was a mixed bag and i suddenly have a lot of feelings about it now that i'm thinking back on it. i listened to the audiobook, and i had it going at 1.5 speed by the last third just so that i could hurry up and get through this one. however, i wouldn't say it was altogether unlikable... hah!
i think the author had a lot (LOT) of big ideas + feelings + discussion points that she wanted to fit into one average-sized book, so she stuffed them all in without fully considering how she was going to successfully implement them into the plot or explore their complexities. the plot of the book was the first thing to suffer, and then the depth of characters, and then the overall emotional effect of... anything.
i definitely liked the mary shelley fan fiction sections, and the general idea of a postmodern exploration of bodies and literature and transhumanism and horror and consciousness is rly rly cool. but the author either got too excited and did a poor job or possibly bit off more than she could chew w/ this project. the dialogue was fairly poor, the trans character was portrayed clumsily at times and painfully at other times, and the plot just wasn't sound.
on the plus side, it's always a better book club discussion when the majority of the group doesn't like the book, so here's to the fun convo we had! i really wanted to like this one, but hey. onto the next!
i think the author had a lot (LOT) of big ideas + feelings + discussion points that she wanted to fit into one average-sized book, so she stuffed them all in without fully considering how she was going to successfully implement them into the plot or explore their complexities. the plot of the book was the first thing to suffer, and then the depth of characters, and then the overall emotional effect of... anything.
i definitely liked the mary shelley fan fiction sections, and the general idea of a postmodern exploration of bodies and literature and transhumanism and horror and consciousness is rly rly cool. but the author either got too excited and did a poor job or possibly bit off more than she could chew w/ this project. the dialogue was fairly poor, the trans character was portrayed clumsily at times and painfully at other times, and the plot just wasn't sound.
on the plus side, it's always a better book club discussion when the majority of the group doesn't like the book, so here's to the fun convo we had! i really wanted to like this one, but hey. onto the next!
Weird and a bit hard to follow, but also intriguing. After attending Kim Chisholm's literary seminar, so much came together, in retrospect, I loved it. Check out Kim's lectures online at https://www.thefoxedpage.com/
Given that Frankenstein is one of my favorite books and that Jeanette Winterson wrote another one of my favorite books it is safe to say that this was my most anticipated read of the year but... this wasn't it.
So first off, I wish there had been ponctuations to indicate what's dialogues and what isn't because that was annoying to decipher.
Now, to the story;
it is strange for me that the author decided to talk about REAL people who existed with a first person narration, that's really weird to me and it makes me uncomfortable, especially since they were so many intimate scenes between Mary and Percy.
Putting that aside, the part about percy/mary/byron was the best but goodness Lord Byron was insufferable as hell, and percy and him were also so damn sexist and yet we see Mary still idolizing him. My girl Mary invented an entire genre of literature and we keep seeing her drool after a man who is less talented than her? No Thanks. It was also interesting that there was no mention of the woman Percy left for Mary, why leave that out?
It is also strange to me that the choice was made to make Victor and Ry interact, when the original Mary created him, he didn't exist, so why make him an actual character when all the other did exist? Those whole choices of characters were weird to me.
Every single character is as sexist as can be, special mention to Ron Lord: a cliché pervert mysoginist with zero layers and Victor: king of mansplaining everything and of breaking into half assed so called scientific soliloques at the first occasion: yikes!
Even Claire is presented as some cliché of a stupid woman in both parts, and for absolutely no reasons.
The fact that Ry is trans felt kind of all over the place for me, we don't really know how that's related to the plot except to be fetichized by Victor.
I could have done without the sexual assault btw, thank you very much.
Overall this book was really confusing to me. Several parts felt disconnected and irrelevant to one another. Plot threads are started but never resolved, we don't really know where the author stands on the point she brings to debate.
Yes, it it beautifully written and some passaged were stunning and incredibly atmospheric, but I didn't understand a lot of it and I found many elements annoying and useless to the story and too many characters were unsufferable for me to enjoy this book.
So first off, I wish there had been ponctuations to indicate what's dialogues and what isn't because that was annoying to decipher.
Now, to the story;
it is strange for me that the author decided to talk about REAL people who existed with a first person narration, that's really weird to me and it makes me uncomfortable, especially since they were so many intimate scenes between Mary and Percy.
Putting that aside, the part about percy/mary/byron was the best but goodness Lord Byron was insufferable as hell, and percy and him were also so damn sexist and yet we see Mary still idolizing him. My girl Mary invented an entire genre of literature and we keep seeing her drool after a man who is less talented than her? No Thanks. It was also interesting that there was no mention of the woman Percy left for Mary, why leave that out?
It is also strange to me that the choice was made to make Victor and Ry interact, when the original Mary created him, he didn't exist, so why make him an actual character when all the other did exist? Those whole choices of characters were weird to me.
Every single character is as sexist as can be, special mention to Ron Lord: a cliché pervert mysoginist with zero layers and Victor: king of mansplaining everything and of breaking into half assed so called scientific soliloques at the first occasion: yikes!
Even Claire is presented as some cliché of a stupid woman in both parts, and for absolutely no reasons.
The fact that Ry is trans felt kind of all over the place for me, we don't really know how that's related to the plot except to be fetichized by Victor.
I could have done without the sexual assault btw, thank you very much.
Overall this book was really confusing to me. Several parts felt disconnected and irrelevant to one another. Plot threads are started but never resolved, we don't really know where the author stands on the point she brings to debate.
Yes, it it beautifully written and some passaged were stunning and incredibly atmospheric, but I didn't understand a lot of it and I found many elements annoying and useless to the story and too many characters were unsufferable for me to enjoy this book.
Passages:
“That is the nature of a story. Life, we imagine, is familiar enough until we begin to tell it to another. Then, we observe the wonder on their faces - sometimes it is wonder, often it is horror. Only in the living of it does life seem ordinary. In the telling of it we find ourselves strangers among the strange.”
“I do not wonder that we drink as much as we do, or that the poor, when they can afford it, drink most of all. Wretched conditions may be blamed, or the weight of business, or the urge to power, but our beings struggle in our bodies like light trapped in jars, and our bodies struggle in this world as a beast of burden chafes it’s yoke, and this world itself hangs alone on its noose, strung along indifferent stars.”
“That is the nature of a story. Life, we imagine, is familiar enough until we begin to tell it to another. Then, we observe the wonder on their faces - sometimes it is wonder, often it is horror. Only in the living of it does life seem ordinary. In the telling of it we find ourselves strangers among the strange.”
“I do not wonder that we drink as much as we do, or that the poor, when they can afford it, drink most of all. Wretched conditions may be blamed, or the weight of business, or the urge to power, but our beings struggle in our bodies like light trapped in jars, and our bodies struggle in this world as a beast of burden chafes it’s yoke, and this world itself hangs alone on its noose, strung along indifferent stars.”
This was all the more infuriating because it pretty much deals with my favourite themes: Frankenstein, AI and queer identities. But that last one is really, really poorly done.