Reviews with content warning for Police brutality - No Gods, No Monsters

This book is quite a trip, some interesting concepts in it but I feel those concepts are never fully explained. Like stuff happens but you're not given much insight into how everything works. There's a lot of characters and so a lot of shifting points of view which can be hard to follow and connect at times, I felt that I had to sometimes go back and try to remember which character was who and there's kind of a mysterious narrator watching it all which made it a little more confusing. I think there's something philosophical in this book so if you're into existential questions, this might be a good book for you. The book does get quite dark towards the end, not my cup of tea but there is something very real and very raw in it.

Content Warnings

alsira98's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark mysterious medium-paced

4.0

Content Warnings

psychnp's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

2.0

Heavy and feels incomplete

Content Warnings

bessadams's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.0

Content Warnings

wordsareworlds's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

This book was absolutely riveting. Loved how Turnbull played with PoV and brought so many different perspectives in on community, how we work together to make it, and how growth is not a one-and-done event. The breadth of characterization and focus on culture drew me in, and wanting to see how the seemingly separate threads would come together kept me hooked.

Content Warnings

megnut's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.5

Each thread of the story is interesting... but it's hard to follow and keep everything straight because there's so many. And that means the plot doesn't really seem like it can move forward much.

It's a fascinating world, but I don't really feel like I got to see or experience it much.

Content Warnings

ashleykitkat's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging reflective tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character

2.75

With hype such as No Gods, No Monsters, was listed as one of the best books of 2021 by The New York Times, NPR, Audible, the New York Public Library, Kirkus, Library Journal, and Tor.com, which started their review with "Let’s get this out of the way upfront: Cadwell Turnbull’s second novel No Gods, No Monsters is absolutely worth your time. If you’re at all a fan of science fiction and fantasy, if you’re at all interested in deep characterization and interiority playing out against the fantastical, if you’re into the interplay of how genre can operate in conversation with the real world, if any of that is your bread and butter, then you’re good; you can stop reading this review and go pick up the book" I looked forward to this book discussion selection I chose. Unfortunately I finished the book thinking that it was OK. Part of the acknowledgments say: "My new readers. For getting to the end for this crazy thing. I know I have too many characters. Much gratitude and many apologies." That admittance is something that held me up from my enjoyment as I struggled with so many characters and points of view that I wished I had a chart to map out relationships to look back on, especially when it switched from third person to first person without a clear indication of who "I" is that often left me quite confused. I agree with this portion of a review I found https://everybookadoorway.com/sharp-as-a-knife-no-gods-no-monsters-by-cadwell-turnbull/ that says "I don’t mind a looser plot, but I finished this book and realised I had no clue what was going on. We know that there are werewolves, and a few other kinds of monster, but the shape of the supernatural world is barely hinted at – all we get are tantalising, frustrating bits and pieces that promise that whatever we’re picturing, it’s bigger and weirder than that. No Gods, No Monsters ends up feeling like a drawn-out prologue more than it does a finished novel." I definitely can't say I did not like the book though as the writing was often beautiful, the characters were intriguing, and I wanted to learn more about the society of monsters. I also learned about new monsters I hadn't known about previously such as a soucouyant, a creature that drinks blood and sheds skin in Caribbean folklore. And interestingly enough, a previous book discussion selection of mine - Djinn City - also contained a boy that shape shifted into a dragon so I was pleasantly surprised to encounter a similar being here. Although I liked the concepts, I wish the narrative itself did not feel so disjointed, and with more clarity, as I read so I could have enjoyed the reading experience more. On that note, the author did write a guide on his website https://cadwellturnbull.com/2021/09/30/a-sort-of-guide-to-reading-no-gods-no-monsters/ to reading this book which is somewhat helpful in understanding the author's intention. I am not saying this is a bad book by any means. It is definitely artsy and plays with a variety of ideas from personal rights to multiverse theory; it is just perhaps not my cup of tea and I find it frustrating when the first book in a trilogy cannot stand alone as its own entity.

Content Warnings

leweylibrary's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

1.5

Listen I know I've heard good things about this book and probably know people who would like it, but it was not for me. I was bored out of my mind and almost DNF'd it at least twice. I wanted to like it so badly though because the premise is so freaking cool! Ugh.

I was about 80 pages in and just nothing was really happening, it felt like build up on build up for a bunch of different characters that are starting to overlap. The time period everything is happening is confusing, and I'm still not sure I understand what the big thing that happened even is? I love the premise, but the execution was so weird in the most pretentious way. Writing confusing shit is not cute or fun if people don't understand it. Stop trying to be a big, bad, cool writer who's elevated and throwing out literary devices and shit left and write. Just write something people want to read.

At about 90 pages in, a big thing did happen, and I was like okay, now we're getting somewhere. Aaaand then it would switch characters and we'd be back to getting nowhere. It somehow felt like the ENTIRE book was a lead up to the second book and that's just insane to me. I finished the last 50 pages or so out of spite tbh.

Quotes:

(I I could break my neck, ) she remembered thinking as she flew down the stairs, her heart thumping in her chest like a wild animal attacking its cage. She remembered wanting to so badly, relishing every moment that her foot landed on the nosing of each step, the worn souls of her shoes sliding dangerously across the knife's edge of each miniature cliff. She could break her neck and she wouldn't have to burn this horror out of her. She wouldn't have to be a good daughter. She wouldn't have to be anything at all. She could be cracked stone and fine soil. She could be a bed of weeds. (133)
"We're all blind," he says after swallowing. "Take solace in that. Choice comes first. Meaning comes later." (279)
The chant is an evolution of an anarchist slogan: "no gods, no. Masters," the original version meaning( I know human above.( It is meant as a call against hierarchy. Ridley assumes that this variation means( i no human above, no human below,( or something like it. A call against hierarchy and discrimination. (327)
As he walks with the crowd, he understands what he had forgotten: that a march is not just a voice against violence and trauma, but also a reminder that even in a cause that is stacked against them, no one is alone. (327)
There's something beautiful and devastating about the sight. Ridley feels small against it: the marvels of nature and human beings, intruding on one another; massive systems that existed before he was born and will continue long after he is dead. What can anyone do against them? The voices around him provide an answer. Like ants, perhaps enough human bodies can form a critical mass, becoming a marvel capable of great things, even against obstacles calcified through years of accumulated resource and power. Maybe. More often than not, Ridley has seen this fail to provide any change. But the effort has value for those fleeting moments when success can be snatched for the side of good. (327)
Even has things change, much stays the same, She thinks. Other tragedies are already queued up for their entrance. (334)

Content Warnings

More...