Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.49 AVERAGE
3.49 AVERAGE
Vandermeer is an experimental writer, playing with stream of consciousness, consciousness beyond human perception and non linear time. Combine that with a fascinating cluster of characters and you get a very challenging modernist esque read that is best enjoyed as a sensation or experience rather than trying to understand every sentence. A refreshing change in writing style to other scifi but nonetheless challenging and possibly not for me.
“But, in the end, joy cannot fend off evil. Joy can only remind you why you fight” (301).
If I had to label this, it’d be trippy environmental horror. I had maybe 20% of an idea what was happening in the first half of the book and it took me forever to get through, but by the end I was entranced and disappointed it was over. I’m excited to keep reading this author.
If I had to label this, it’d be trippy environmental horror. I had maybe 20% of an idea what was happening in the first half of the book and it took me forever to get through, but by the end I was entranced and disappointed it was over. I’m excited to keep reading this author.
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
In a word, ugh.
I feel as though I should preface this review by stating that this work was my introduction to Jeff VanderMeer. I start reading, and immediately I have strong thoughts about the writing. Mostly, that there was some beautiful language happening. Occasionally. Besides that, there was a HEAVY excess of mirrored language that rendered the technique completely ineffective and confused the meaning in almost every sentence. Despite this, I was able to follow the story at first, thinking, "Okay, this is confusing; we have no context. I'll keep reading, and eventually we will get the context and it will make more sense." I am no stranger in ambiguity, and a lot of the time I actually prefer to have to work a little bit more to suffuse what the text is "supposed to mean," to whatever extent that means anything in and of itself. I don't like things being handed to me.
Anyways, I was right. Kind of.
It took way to freaking long. While I mostly had a handle on the actual events of the plot in the beginning, it became totally incoherent by the end of part 2, except some brief moments of coherency. The philosophical musing doesn't mean a lot when we have no context to discern the significance of what is being said, Jeff.
I thought, okay, this has to be a sequel. I'm missing something. There's no way this was meant to be understood on its own.
I checked it out? "It's stand-alone," he says. Bull! Shit!!!!
Section 3: You don't actually need to make us experience it to convey the passing of time. Coherent? Mostly. But did we really need all that?
Section 4: Totally incoherent. No context. A little clearer near the end, but the work would have been stronger if this had any weight on context at all.
Section 5: Spoken to my mother: "Oh--we're revisiting the fish again." Coherent? Sure. But renders 3 completely unnecessary.
Section 6: Dear God! Coherency! I actually have a reason to care about the characters, halfway through the damn book! The first moment of context in this whole damn thing.
Section 7: Just why? See, it's this kind of pretentious shit that gets me. VanderMeer rights like he's never heard of the word restraint. If you overuse a technique (mirroring, for example), use a weird font, a weird format, every. single. time you get the impulse, then none of that has any punch! It's all just more of the slush. Instead of using these kinds of things sparingly, for impact, it's like he just decided to do EVERYTHING. That's not a good thing.
Section 8: Probably one of the more coherent sections. Actually an interesting way to learn about Charlie X. 7/10.
Section 9's structure: Don't ever do this. Please, don't ever do this. Nobody read all that, Jeff! Nobody! The repeating sections were completely ineffective. The murder one was strongest, but going on for pages and pages doesn't make it any stronger. Amateur technique.
Section 9 otherwise: Okay. The environmentalist message is hammered in way stronger than it is at any point in the book, which is fine I guess. You can tell Jeff's passionate about it. The vagueness of the rest of the novels prevents all previous attempts from being effective anyways. No reader investment in that particular fox, though. Circumstances surrounding it are just too vague, even with the backstory.
Section 10: We finally reunited with the original trio (except for Moss, who has been lingering around most of the novel) for a couple pages after nearly 200 but...by then, why should we care?
I'm done ranting now. It surprised me every once in a while, but I was just eager to be done with this book. Maybe VanderMeer's style works for some, but not for me. 1.5 stars, realistically.
I feel as though I should preface this review by stating that this work was my introduction to Jeff VanderMeer. I start reading, and immediately I have strong thoughts about the writing. Mostly, that there was some beautiful language happening. Occasionally. Besides that, there was a HEAVY excess of mirrored language that rendered the technique completely ineffective and confused the meaning in almost every sentence. Despite this, I was able to follow the story at first, thinking, "Okay, this is confusing; we have no context. I'll keep reading, and eventually we will get the context and it will make more sense." I am no stranger in ambiguity, and a lot of the time I actually prefer to have to work a little bit more to suffuse what the text is "supposed to mean," to whatever extent that means anything in and of itself. I don't like things being handed to me.
Anyways, I was right. Kind of.
It took way to freaking long. While I mostly had a handle on the actual events of the plot in the beginning, it became totally incoherent by the end of part 2, except some brief moments of coherency. The philosophical musing doesn't mean a lot when we have no context to discern the significance of what is being said, Jeff.
I thought, okay, this has to be a sequel. I'm missing something. There's no way this was meant to be understood on its own.
I checked it out? "It's stand-alone," he says. Bull! Shit!!!!
Section 3: You don't actually need to make us experience it to convey the passing of time. Coherent? Mostly. But did we really need all that?
Section 4: Totally incoherent. No context. A little clearer near the end, but the work would have been stronger if this had any weight on context at all.
Section 5: Spoken to my mother: "Oh--we're revisiting the fish again." Coherent? Sure. But renders 3 completely unnecessary.
Section 6: Dear God! Coherency! I actually have a reason to care about the characters, halfway through the damn book! The first moment of context in this whole damn thing.
Section 7: Just why? See, it's this kind of pretentious shit that gets me. VanderMeer rights like he's never heard of the word restraint. If you overuse a technique (mirroring, for example), use a weird font, a weird format, every. single. time you get the impulse, then none of that has any punch! It's all just more of the slush. Instead of using these kinds of things sparingly, for impact, it's like he just decided to do EVERYTHING. That's not a good thing.
Section 8: Probably one of the more coherent sections. Actually an interesting way to learn about Charlie X. 7/10.
Section 9's structure: Don't ever do this. Please, don't ever do this. Nobody read all that, Jeff! Nobody! The repeating sections were completely ineffective. The murder one was strongest, but going on for pages and pages doesn't make it any stronger. Amateur technique.
Section 9 otherwise: Okay. The environmentalist message is hammered in way stronger than it is at any point in the book, which is fine I guess. You can tell Jeff's passionate about it. The vagueness of the rest of the novels prevents all previous attempts from being effective anyways. No reader investment in that particular fox, though. Circumstances surrounding it are just too vague, even with the backstory.
Section 10: We finally reunited with the original trio (except for Moss, who has been lingering around most of the novel) for a couple pages after nearly 200 but...by then, why should we care?
I'm done ranting now. It surprised me every once in a while, but I was just eager to be done with this book. Maybe VanderMeer's style works for some, but not for me. 1.5 stars, realistically.
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Delightfully strange in true VanderMeer fashion. However, I think I would enjoy it a bit more if I hadn’t listened to the audiobook. Maybe next time!