Scan barcode
apgp's review against another edition
Just wasn’t in the mindset to read this right now, but will come back to it
jlsjourneys's review against another edition
5.0
I ADORED this (audio)book. It was a mix of the worlds best science journalism mixed with whiffs of true crime. What a fortuitous weekend find!
bree_lapolla's review
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
adgfost's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
For a memoir, the author spends the majority of her time writing about someone else. I wish there had been more frequent tie-ins with her own story in order to maintain a through-line. She’s clearly smart and talented with a unique and compelling voice; I just wish more of this book had been in her own voice.
nomada's review against another edition
4.0
I was not ready for this book and what it started talking about. Even with that lovely specific title it still took me for a loop. A loop that I thoroughly enjoyed.
sentetia's review against another edition
2.0
What I expected when I bought this book: A book about fish.
What I got: A double-memoir about a eugenicist and a woman who has an unhealthy obsession about him. And a lot of unnecessary filler.
The first chapter caught my attention and got me hooked, but it went downhill from there.
The parts about the racist eugenicist are fine. Fine in the way that they are a (mostly) chronological account of his life. (As a German person and DeSantis currently speedrunning The Handmaids Tale IRL, I find it concerning that forced sterilization because of "unfitness" is still IN THE LAW of the USA.)
We also get an account of the author cheating on her boyfriend, absolutely spiraling into a years long total obsession with getting her ex back and a well known dead eugenicist (David Starr Jordan), and still not getting any therapy. (At least she doesn't mention it. For the second half of the book, I was just screaming at her chapters: "Please get help.") - In the end, she is saying: Well. Chaos. That's the reason I cheated. Not my fault.
Another thing that really bugged me: In the chapter "The bitterest thing in the world" she cites a secondary source, who summarized the court files around the death of Jane Standford. As a science journalist, you should know, that you always have to take a look at the original material from BOTH "sides" and not just one biased account. (Yes, in this case it was biased in favour of it being murder and against the "public opinion", but still: Not the full picture.)
I believe the author also doesn't know how to human. (In the chapter Dandelions she completely lost me, as you can see.) - Also, do we need to talk about the first two sentences of the footnote?
And then, after explaining the title she goes: "His hurt, imagining him [DSJ] in some degree of anguish ... it has a wonderful effect. It makes my skin prickle with the most forbidden atheist fantasy." - What does Schadenfreude have to do with religion?! Why does she need to mention that she is an atheist?
The epilogue just exists to get close to 200 pages.
What I got: A double-memoir about a eugenicist and a woman who has an unhealthy obsession about him. And a lot of unnecessary filler.
The first chapter caught my attention and got me hooked, but it went downhill from there.
The parts about the racist eugenicist are fine. Fine in the way that they are a (mostly) chronological account of his life. (As a German person and DeSantis currently speedrunning The Handmaids Tale IRL, I find it concerning that forced sterilization because of "unfitness" is still IN THE LAW of the USA.)
We also get an account of the author cheating on her boyfriend, absolutely spiraling into a years long total obsession with getting her ex back and a well known dead eugenicist (David Starr Jordan), and still not getting any therapy. (At least she doesn't mention it. For the second half of the book, I was just screaming at her chapters: "Please get help.") - In the end, she is saying: Well. Chaos. That's the reason I cheated. Not my fault.
Another thing that really bugged me: In the chapter "The bitterest thing in the world" she cites a secondary source, who summarized the court files around the death of Jane Standford. As a science journalist, you should know, that you always have to take a look at the original material from BOTH "sides" and not just one biased account. (Yes, in this case it was biased in favour of it being murder and against the "public opinion", but still: Not the full picture.)
I believe the author also doesn't know how to human.
Spoiler
She seems baffled by the realization, that people care for each other and therefore we matter in the context of friends/family/loved ones.And then, after explaining the title she goes: "His hurt, imagining him [DSJ] in some degree of anguish ... it has a wonderful effect. It makes my skin prickle with the most forbidden atheist fantasy." - What does Schadenfreude have to do with religion?! Why does she need to mention that she is an atheist?
The epilogue just exists to get close to 200 pages.
cayleigh's review against another edition
4.0
This was not what I expected AT ALL, but I'm so glad I read it! The concept was so cool, and it was one of those rare occasions where the author weaves in their personal life with the subject matter seamlessly. I learned so much about the history of eugenics, Stanford University, and taxonomy. If you pitched me a book on the premise of those three subjects in combination, it may be a hard sell. But Miller skillfully wove the narratives together to create a really meaningful narrative.