Scan barcode
A review by saucy_bookdragon
All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders
dark
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
"Weirdness is value neutral."
All the Birbs in the Sky is an ambitious book with a unique premise that attempts to blend sci-fi and fantasy, but it fails to make it past the idea phase. I found the first third to be interesting as a super genius and witch befriended each other, I enjoyed their dynamic and how they learned about their abilities. The rest of the book felt like a completely different story with the apocalyptic focus that comes to sudden, giving whiplash. The characters are unmemorable, peaking in interest at the beginning of their arcs but devolving into blandness after the time jump. The prose is also bland but tries (and fails) to be poetic and profound.
And on the genre blend, sci-fi and fantasy have blurred lines between them, but to make the contradiction work you have to define what makes them so different. If your sci-fi has no basis in some sort of real theoretical science or a scientific thought experiment, then what makes it different from fantasy? It's the difference between Star Wars and Interstellar and Jurassic Park; the fantasy elements of Star Wars blend with the sci-fi because they are equally as plausible, but fantasy elements would have felt out of place in Interstellar since it has a basis in actual science and they'd be out of place in Jurassic Park because that's based in a scientific thought experiment.
This book would have been more interesting as a concept if it was more grounded sci-fi along with magic, but I don't see what actually makes Laurence's super-genius different from Patricia's witchcraft on a genre level. What makes this genre blend different from most superhero media where magic and this flavor of sci-fi coexist? Patricia's magic was a little more interesting. It was nature itself and I like the idea that you don't control magic/nature you coexist with it.
All the Birbs in the Sky is an ambitious book with a unique premise that attempts to blend sci-fi and fantasy, but it fails to make it past the idea phase. I found the first third to be interesting as a super genius and witch befriended each other, I enjoyed their dynamic and how they learned about their abilities. The rest of the book felt like a completely different story with the apocalyptic focus that comes to sudden, giving whiplash. The characters are unmemorable, peaking in interest at the beginning of their arcs but devolving into blandness after the time jump. The prose is also bland but tries (and fails) to be poetic and profound.
And on the genre blend, sci-fi and fantasy have blurred lines between them, but to make the contradiction work you have to define what makes them so different. If your sci-fi has no basis in some sort of real theoretical science or a scientific thought experiment, then what makes it different from fantasy? It's the difference between Star Wars and Interstellar and Jurassic Park; the fantasy elements of Star Wars blend with the sci-fi because they are equally as plausible, but fantasy elements would have felt out of place in Interstellar since it has a basis in actual science and they'd be out of place in Jurassic Park because that's based in a scientific thought experiment.
This book would have been more interesting as a concept if it was more grounded sci-fi along with magic, but I don't see what actually makes Laurence's super-genius different from Patricia's witchcraft on a genre level. What makes this genre blend different from most superhero media where magic and this flavor of sci-fi coexist? Patricia's magic was a little more interesting. It was nature itself and I like the idea that you don't control magic/nature you coexist with it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty and Bullying
Moderate: Death, Child abuse, War, and Violence