Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.05 AVERAGE
4.05 AVERAGE
Abandoning this at about the midway point.
I don't know what I wanted out of this sequel, but it wasn't this. It reminds me of shows like Lost, in very specific ways. Lost was (in)famous for its constant flashbacks. It's something that became pretty tedious and a real narrative problem as the series went on, since they seemed so married to their decision to make half of every episode happen in the past. Or, maybe a better example: we abandoned the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale during its second season because it just kept giving us more and more flashbacks to the point that I felt they didn't actually have a story to tell anymore. Or The Gentlemen Bastards Series, which has spent about as much time on the characters' childhoods as it has on their present adventures.
What I'm trying to say is that this novel is tied to the same structure as Oryx and Crake. That being, a constant diving back into the past, into childhood, with only a few moments here and there in the present. While I think this worked well enough in Oryx and Crake, by the second book I'm no longer that interested in the backstory of the world that was already meticulously established in the first volume. Like, is this a world that needs to be more fleshed out to be understood?
I would say it very much does not need additional fleshing out. And so I found the book to be somewhat tedious. The cult is interesting and pleasant enough, but I'm just not interested in a retelling of the first novel from someone else's perspective. And, honestly, if that's all you have to offer...
So, yes, pretty disappointed here. I had high hopes for this trilogy.
I don't know what I wanted out of this sequel, but it wasn't this. It reminds me of shows like Lost, in very specific ways. Lost was (in)famous for its constant flashbacks. It's something that became pretty tedious and a real narrative problem as the series went on, since they seemed so married to their decision to make half of every episode happen in the past. Or, maybe a better example: we abandoned the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale during its second season because it just kept giving us more and more flashbacks to the point that I felt they didn't actually have a story to tell anymore. Or The Gentlemen Bastards Series, which has spent about as much time on the characters' childhoods as it has on their present adventures.
What I'm trying to say is that this novel is tied to the same structure as Oryx and Crake. That being, a constant diving back into the past, into childhood, with only a few moments here and there in the present. While I think this worked well enough in Oryx and Crake, by the second book I'm no longer that interested in the backstory of the world that was already meticulously established in the first volume. Like, is this a world that needs to be more fleshed out to be understood?
I would say it very much does not need additional fleshing out. And so I found the book to be somewhat tedious. The cult is interesting and pleasant enough, but I'm just not interested in a retelling of the first novel from someone else's perspective. And, honestly, if that's all you have to offer...
So, yes, pretty disappointed here. I had high hopes for this trilogy.
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-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:
No
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Margaret Atwood possesses a unique ability to craft chilling visions of the future that strike close to home. Initially caught off guard by the bleakness of this novel, I found myself revisiting it at a more opportune moment, which allowed for a deeper appreciation. While the experience remained challenging, I couldn't say I "enjoyed" it in the conventional sense; however, I deeply valued it. I admire fiction that elicits strong emotional responses, and despite its difficulty, this book left a lasting impact. It's often the most demanding reads that prove to be the most significant in the end.
dark
funny
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Wonderfully personal, multiple narrator story line. A continuation and detailed in-fill/drill down into a modern society that faces a huge global pandemic. Atwood is a fabulous writer. Has a few similarities to Octavia Butler’s “Parable of the Sower” but on steroids.
This fantastic story builds on the world created in Oryx and Cake. Margaret Atwood is so smart and presents such a well thought out and researched possible future, I almost started taking notes in case I have to survive on mushrooms, sorrel and maggots someday. I was completely riveted at the end and I can'twait for the third and final book!
Unlike Oryx and Crake which leads you to think deeply about the narrative and context, the year of the flood is more about world building and experimental story telling. Of course Atwood is always a genius and the story was interesting and good but it was different. There are two main narrators, time switches throughout and so does the perspective from first to third. This book is heavy handed in religion whereas Oryx and Crake was more of a discovery and philosophical questioning of ethics, morals and the evolution of humanity. If you’re more interested in the moral twists and mysterious storytelling of oryx and crake, you won’t find that here. What you will find is a story with characters and plot and twists. It isn’t what I expected but I enjoyed it all the same. Just wish I hadn’t gone in with expectations that it would be somehow more in the style of oryx and crake.
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This is the 2nd book of Atwood’s MaddAddam Trilogy. All 3 books run concurrently, not chronologically.
Writing: solid. Atwood is a pro.
Plot/characters: I spent the beginning of the book wanting more info on the virus, but it seems that that info is told from the pov of the scientists in the 1st book.
The plot is standard end of the world dystopian. Atwood usually feels pretty realistic…you believe this scenario could definitely happen. Ren and Toby are likable characters. Ren speaks in 1st person. Toby in 3rd. The pain ball arena is particularly disturbing.
Profundity: I mean…besides the fact that we need to quit destroying the world and that people are always your biggest danger in an apocalypse?
Writing: solid. Atwood is a pro.
Plot/characters: I spent the beginning of the book wanting more info on the virus, but it seems that that info is told from the pov of the scientists in the 1st book.
The plot is standard end of the world dystopian. Atwood usually feels pretty realistic…you believe this scenario could definitely happen. Ren and Toby are likable characters. Ren speaks in 1st person. Toby in 3rd. The pain ball arena is particularly disturbing.
Profundity: I mean…besides the fact that we need to quit destroying the world and that people are always your biggest danger in an apocalypse?