Scan barcode
rdyourbookcase's review against another edition
5.0
I loved the almost mosaic-like illustrations and the attention to culture (tomato, toMAHto.) The story was silly and I wish I could read it at my breakfast story time that is coming up!
100pagesaday's review against another edition
4.0
Two sisters sit down for breakfast; big sis realizes that something is amiss. This breakfast reminds her of the worst breakfast ever. Little sis, however, doesn’t quite remember, so big sis tells her in vivid detail of burnt toast, slimy vegetables, too hot tea, far too much honey and worst of all-juice with bits. As little sis joins in the worst breakfast ever gets ooeier, gooier and grosser until there is a huge mess of made-up worst breakfast ever.
Imaginative and fun, The Worst Breakfast is perfect for any picky eater out there. A rhyming scheme and inventive text kept up the giggles and the pace. The text is best read aloud going along with all of the suggestions, with emphasis placed on capitalized words and pauses between syllables when they are spaced out. The illustrations are very different than what you typically see in children’s books; they are bright and fun, but edgier and begged to be looked at deeper. You can spend time on each page trying to find each food and a series of silly little monsters. I do wish that the one page that is just filled with text was spaced out a bit and had pictures to it, as it was difficult for me to get through with the pace that it deserved and all the foods listed there would have made an awesome illustration. Overall, an inventive and lighthearted children’s book, best for ages 5-8. Oh, and I definitely agree that juice with pulp is awful.
This book was received for free in return for an honest review.
Imaginative and fun, The Worst Breakfast is perfect for any picky eater out there. A rhyming scheme and inventive text kept up the giggles and the pace. The text is best read aloud going along with all of the suggestions, with emphasis placed on capitalized words and pauses between syllables when they are spaced out. The illustrations are very different than what you typically see in children’s books; they are bright and fun, but edgier and begged to be looked at deeper. You can spend time on each page trying to find each food and a series of silly little monsters. I do wish that the one page that is just filled with text was spaced out a bit and had pictures to it, as it was difficult for me to get through with the pace that it deserved and all the foods listed there would have made an awesome illustration. Overall, an inventive and lighthearted children’s book, best for ages 5-8. Oh, and I definitely agree that juice with pulp is awful.
This book was received for free in return for an honest review.
lertsek's review against another edition
Hey I liked the art, a lot. The writing? Well.
rebus's review against another edition
3.25
I have always despised the work of China and have recently discovered and come to love the work of Zak, so it's a mixed bag for me. It's kind of an adult version of a really dumb kids' book.
And who doesn't like pulp in their orange juice?
And who doesn't like pulp in their orange juice?
decaying's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.75
teenytinylibrary's review against another edition
4.0
Two sisters rehash the worst breakfast they ever have. Their descriptions start tamely - burnt toast, soggy tomatoes, and then spiral into the most fantastical and disgusting foods. Mieville's writing is tweely rhyming (and meta - making fun of a few slant rhymes) and Smith's watercolor illustrations pile putrid food upon putrid food. This would be a great storytime book for two voices and a fun read to share with the whole family. Two thumbs up!
jenny_d's review
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
This was really sweet! Not sure how well a child would connect with the illustrations, but I thought they were good at conveying the Horror of a Bad Breakfast.
amdame1's review against another edition
2.0
I love China Miéville, but was disappointed with this picture book. Maybe I just like his novels.
This is the tale of two sisters recounting the worst breakfast they ever had. Things start out mundane, like burnt toast but quickly devolve into lists of things like vegemite, barm cakes, forcemeat, and muktuk - things that many students/young readers will not even be able to identify.
Illustrations are kind of cubist-modern, colors felt a bit drab. They did not enhance the text for me. However, the sisters are not white!! They are super cute brown girls. <3
This is the tale of two sisters recounting the worst breakfast they ever had. Things start out mundane, like burnt toast but quickly devolve into lists of things like vegemite, barm cakes, forcemeat, and muktuk - things that many students/young readers will not even be able to identify.
Illustrations are kind of cubist-modern, colors felt a bit drab. They did not enhance the text for me. However, the sisters are not white!! They are super cute brown girls. <3
kesterbird's review against another edition
4.0
So: The illustrations are marvelous. The text... is not bad. It's just a bit lazy? I dunno. I was more than a little delighted to find that China Mieville had written a kids book, but it turns out he's just not the star of this book.
My theory: Mieville had a new nibling and thought he should write a book for them. (I have chosen nibling, without looking anything up, because I just feel like one makes more effort for one's own progeny). He mentioned this to his publisher. His publisher found an illustrator who was THRILLED that he was gonna get to work with Mieville. Then, the illustrator got the text and it was... disapppointing, so he just pretended it wasn't and illustrated the story he was sure Mieville would've written, if Mieville hadn't been phoning it in so thoroughly.
But don't read this and think "euh, too bad, not picking that book up" because the illustrations make this book. There's pteradactls in the toastsmoke, there's octopus in the porridge, there's little blue astronauts in the baked beans, there's tiny dragons in the undercooked eggs, and it's -wonderful-.
My theory: Mieville had a new nibling and thought he should write a book for them. (I have chosen nibling, without looking anything up, because I just feel like one makes more effort for one's own progeny). He mentioned this to his publisher. His publisher found an illustrator who was THRILLED that he was gonna get to work with Mieville. Then, the illustrator got the text and it was... disapppointing, so he just pretended it wasn't and illustrated the story he was sure Mieville would've written, if Mieville hadn't been phoning it in so thoroughly.
But don't read this and think "euh, too bad, not picking that book up" because the illustrations make this book. There's pteradactls in the toastsmoke, there's octopus in the porridge, there's little blue astronauts in the baked beans, there's tiny dragons in the undercooked eggs, and it's -wonderful-.