Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
emotional
mysterious
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A wonderfully fresh take on the Groundhog Day theme. The writing is superb. So sad and yet so funny. So depressing and yet so uplifting. Nested plots par excellence. Compelling plot lines.
The premise of Life After Life is fantastic - not just what if reincarnation is real, but what if it's real, and you are reborn as yourself, on the same day, to the same mother, to the same life, to live over and over again?
It was the premise that lured me in, and kept me reading this piece of historical fiction with a twist. My only complaint is that, by virtue of the premise, the execution became repetitive and even monotonous at times. Observations and perspectives changed somewhat, which was novel at first, but the changes were often slight.
My one wish is that Atkinson spent more time exploring Ursula's increasing sense of déjà vu, although that may have taken the novel to a place the author chose not to go. Still, Life After Life is an interesting, worthwhile read.
It was the premise that lured me in, and kept me reading this piece of historical fiction with a twist. My only complaint is that, by virtue of the premise, the execution became repetitive and even monotonous at times. Observations and perspectives changed somewhat, which was novel at first, but the changes were often slight.
My one wish is that Atkinson spent more time exploring Ursula's increasing sense of déjà vu, although that may have taken the novel to a place the author chose not to go. Still, Life After Life is an interesting, worthwhile read.
Well-written and I like the premise. However, the end left me flat. It felt like she forgot to end it, I would've liked for it to wrap up better.
Too beholden to an overcomplicated structure early on. 150 pages in and I didn't have a feeling for any of the characters.
I have mixed feelings about this book: the end wound up being pretty good but it could have been so much better, mostly because the length of it made it so laborious through the middle. Had it been 100 pages shorter, I would have rated it four stars. That being said, I liked the writing, I liked the character development, I liked the idea behind the whole premise of the book: the multiple lives, I even liked the variety in the differences of the lives, I like how Ursula problem solved her “premonitions” so as not to make the same mistake twice. I liked Atkinson’s subtle hints in her writing about living “life after life”: p. 414, “You can step in the same river but the water will always be new.”, p. 446 “'What if we had a chance to do it again and again, until we finally did get it right? Wouldn’t that be wonderful?' 'I think it would be exhausting'”, p.471 “Amor fati… it means acceptance. Whatever happens to you, embrace it, the good and the bad equally. Death is just one more thing to be embraced I suppose.”
Some of Ursula’s lives were much more brutal than others, and thankfully, those were usually only played out in one scenario, Ursula learned her lesson right away. But others repeated too often, and I think that Atkinson was making the point that those timelines were really the ones Ursula was supposed to follow, but with a slight tweak. Still, if even one of each of the constantly repeated scenarios had been edited out than the book would have easily been condensed by 100 pages. I thought Atkinson was quite clever on p. 469 when Ursula had the epiphany that her life had no legacy because she never married or had children (at least not in the life she was currently living) she thinks, “she understood what it was that she lost. Pamela’s life would go on after she was dead, her descendants spreading through the world like the waters of a delta, but when Ursula died she would simply end.” Ursula’s legacy was brought to life on p. 525 when she saved the two lives she was meant to save all along after she finally understood what was happening to her and why her own life had been rescued at birth, not to prevent the war, but to preserve her family.
I do have a theory that Ursula’s ability to reincarnate is an inherited trait, for a couple of reasons: on p. 170, Sylvie is seen outside the Savoy in the arms of another man, on p. 499, Sylvie is “back in the past” reminiscing about London, spring flowers, and her pony Tiffin (she mentions remembering Tiffin a lot), and on p. 520 at Ursula’s last birth, Sylvie is prepared to clip the umbilical cord, saying, “Practice makes perfect.” I think that Sylvie has the same ability to reincarnate, which makes me wonder about the varying timelines. Time travel is one of my favorite genres and I have read many books with that theme at their center and I have formed some time travel theories. The most prominent theory being, that these life scenarios are not cancelling each other out, but instead they are all real, and being lived out simultaneously, but on a different “stream” for lack of a better word. So, are these lives changing because of Ursula’s choices? Or Sylvie’s? I also think that perhaps one of Ursula's siblings has inherited this trait as well… won't tell you which one because of spoilers....
So to sum up, I did like the book, or at least the idea behind the book, it is just a bit too long. It wasn't a waste of time to read, but I don't think I would recommend it as a must read.
Some of Ursula’s lives were much more brutal than others, and thankfully, those were usually only played out in one scenario, Ursula learned her lesson right away. But others repeated too often, and I think that Atkinson was making the point that those timelines were really the ones Ursula was supposed to follow, but with a slight tweak. Still, if even one of each of the constantly repeated scenarios had been edited out than the book would have easily been condensed by 100 pages. I thought Atkinson was quite clever on p. 469 when Ursula had the epiphany that her life had no legacy because she never married or had children (at least not in the life she was currently living) she thinks, “she understood what it was that she lost. Pamela’s life would go on after she was dead, her descendants spreading through the world like the waters of a delta, but when Ursula died she would simply end.” Ursula’s legacy was brought to life on p. 525 when she saved the two lives she was meant to save all along after she finally understood what was happening to her and why her own life had been rescued at birth, not to prevent the war, but to preserve her family.
I do have a theory that Ursula’s ability to reincarnate is an inherited trait, for a couple of reasons: on p. 170, Sylvie is seen outside the Savoy in the arms of another man, on p. 499, Sylvie is “back in the past” reminiscing about London, spring flowers, and her pony Tiffin (she mentions remembering Tiffin a lot), and on p. 520 at Ursula’s last birth, Sylvie is prepared to clip the umbilical cord, saying, “Practice makes perfect.” I think that Sylvie has the same ability to reincarnate, which makes me wonder about the varying timelines. Time travel is one of my favorite genres and I have read many books with that theme at their center and I have formed some time travel theories. The most prominent theory being, that these life scenarios are not cancelling each other out, but instead they are all real, and being lived out simultaneously, but on a different “stream” for lack of a better word. So, are these lives changing because of Ursula’s choices? Or Sylvie’s? I also think that perhaps one of Ursula's siblings has inherited this trait as well… won't tell you which one because of spoilers....
So to sum up, I did like the book, or at least the idea behind the book, it is just a bit too long. It wasn't a waste of time to read, but I don't think I would recommend it as a must read.
Admittedly, I didn't fully finish this novel, so I feel a little bad giving it a rating without being done. I was attempting to get through it, but kept getting bored and not paying attention. The main character dies too many times and re-lives her life too many times to keep things straight or for me to stay invested. I probably would have finished, except that I was listening to the novel and the app on my phone messed up in the last few hours of the novel and I lost my place. Then, I realized it would be impossible to tell where I was based on how the novel is written, and it's just not worth it to me to figure it out at this point.
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
eva braun jumpscare
Good prose, but I just couldn't get through all the skipping around and trying to recall who it was I was learning about this time. Probably just me since I know this one was rather acclaimed. I read someone else's review which begged the question about there needing to be a point to a novel. I don't think there does, but when one is written in such an unorthodox way, surely there was a reason/point, and while I am curious, I'm also not really in a place to be reading something which makes me take notes to keep the stories straight. Again, just me. I do plan to read Atkinson's new book, which is also getting rave reviews. Maybe it will inspire me to come back to this one someday.
dark
emotional
mysterious