Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.47 AVERAGE
3.47 AVERAGE
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Reading this was a mixed experience. I really like Natasha Brown’s prose, just her writing style is so good to read and I was so excited to read this book after reading Assembly. But the main way I would describe my reading experience of this book would be underwhelming.
This book has a lot of really interesting segments, there are some great scenes, and there are a lot of characters with interesting foundations that I would want to see more of.
However, as a whole, this book feels a bit too much but also not enough. The book is trying to cover SO MUCH of modern discourse and modern politics (which I think Natasha Brown is really good at identifying and pulling specific threads from) but because of the disjointed narratives, the different perspectives, and the short length of the book, it doesn’t really get beneath the surface on any of these issues.
I think if the book was longer I would have felt different about it. Since the book is interrogating the discourse around these political issues rather than the feeling of the issues themselves (like Assembly does) I would’ve just liked more time with the characters to develop some sort of narrative arc. Without a narrative arc for the plot or for the characters it just all feels a bit unsatisfying.
I think I would still recommend this book, Natasha Brown is an author I’d want to see more from for sure, but I think it’s hard to try and balance a discussion about the entirety of Britain’s modern political discourse in 150 pages, and I’m just left feeling like this could’ve been a 500 page masterpiece and we’re only getting a trial version.
Loved this at the start but it fell off a bit. Maybe just a bit too smart for me?
challenging
challenging
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
challenging
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Entertaining collection of conversations between cultural critics in the wake of a minor scandal. I'm not quite sure what it added up to but still totally enjoyable and sometimes quite funny.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Infidelity, Injury/Injury detail, Classism
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
I couldn’t follow the flow of this book. The interaction of the characters felt inconsequential until the next section. It was clearly trying to make some sort of commentary, but I think too much has changed in the political and rhetorical landscape for this to come off as satire at the time of reading.
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
IT'S A POLITICAL SATIRE ASKING THE QUESTION "WHAT DO WE REALLY STAND FOR?"
Now I was struggling a bit with this because it is very specific towards British politics so it took me some time to process what exactly am I reading. The story begins with a catalyst: someone got unalived with a gold bar and now the gold bar has gone missing.
The story then proceeds to other perspectives and how people react to this story: a symbolic gold bar and the act of unaliving someone, presumably a person of power. We follow the journalist writing the story, what angle they want to proceed with, what kind of feeling to ignite in the people (because yes, journalism in theory is about reporting the truth and let people decide but the reality today it is about manufacturing feeling and consent).
Then we also follow the real owner of the goldbar - the 'amoral banker' whose life is f-ed because of the article.
And finally we get to a politcal debate / interview as we follow the perspective of Lenny Leonard as she explains to us her MO on giving the 'gotcha' moment to the interviewer whom she knows is out to make her look like an idiot on live TV. Not gonna lie, it was satisfying.
But what I love about this book is how none of these people are "just truly evil". Because that's what everyone is mostly are. We all operate based on our own moral compass. Even for the so-called 'evil amoral capitalistic banker' he was written in a way that I have a bit of sympathy for (tbh we all should have a baseline sympathy for everyone as long as they're not psycopath ra-ist murderer genocidal racist maniac or something along the line.
But I find myself drawn to Lenny the most because she's the one who proclaims herself as 'misanthrope' equal-opportunity hater. Is it a grey line for her or is she simply ultra self-aware?
Now I was struggling a bit with this because it is very specific towards British politics so it took me some time to process what exactly am I reading. The story begins with a catalyst: someone got unalived with a gold bar and now the gold bar has gone missing.
The story then proceeds to other perspectives and how people react to this story: a symbolic gold bar and the act of unaliving someone, presumably a person of power. We follow the journalist writing the story, what angle they want to proceed with, what kind of feeling to ignite in the people (because yes, journalism in theory is about reporting the truth and let people decide but the reality today it is about manufacturing feeling and consent).
Then we also follow the real owner of the goldbar - the 'amoral banker' whose life is f-ed because of the article.
And finally we get to a politcal debate / interview as we follow the perspective of Lenny Leonard as she explains to us her MO on giving the 'gotcha' moment to the interviewer whom she knows is out to make her look like an idiot on live TV. Not gonna lie, it was satisfying.
But what I love about this book is how none of these people are "just truly evil". Because that's what everyone is mostly are. We all operate based on our own moral compass. Even for the so-called 'evil amoral capitalistic banker' he was written in a way that I have a bit of sympathy for (tbh we all should have a baseline sympathy for everyone as long as they're not psycopath ra-ist murderer genocidal racist maniac or something along the line.
But I find myself drawn to Lenny the most because she's the one who proclaims herself as 'misanthrope' equal-opportunity hater. Is it a grey line for her or is she simply ultra self-aware?