Scan barcode
A review by missbear
The Comet Seekers by Helen Sedgwick
emotional
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Reading The Comet Seekers was a deliberate experiment. It was the first book recommended to me by the fantastic algorithm at the Storygraph and I could immediately see why based on what I said I loved to read about: the natural sciences and scientists, ensemble casts and books that cover large periods of time, books that capture a sense of wonder and a strong sense of place, books that weave together different plotlines. BUT, there was one problem: the book had a 3.54 rating, well below my self-imposed threshold of 3.7.
The Storygraph says this shouldn't be a problem. Part of the idea of their algorithm is to stop people from putting too much stock in ratings: after all, many books have niche audiences that love them, even if many people don't, and wouldn't it be sad if you passed up on a book that would be perfect for you just because thousands of people with whom you share no reading tastes in common at all didn't like it? I'm pretty convinced by this argument, so I gave it a chance.
Reader, I loved it. I know exactly why this book has such a low rating. It is written in a strange (yet beautiful and lyrical) way, without quotation marks, something I'm sure many readers hate. It is focused pretty closely on an incestuous relationship between cousins that is presented as romantic and tragic, not criticized or condemned, something I'm sure many readers found off-putting. It is magical realism, but in an extremely odd and entirely unexplained way, something I'm sure many readers found baffling. I understand all of this. But for me, the atmosphere, the skill with which Sedgwick wove her disparate plotlines together, the emotion, the lyrical prose, the science - it just sparkled.
The Storygraph says this shouldn't be a problem. Part of the idea of their algorithm is to stop people from putting too much stock in ratings: after all, many books have niche audiences that love them, even if many people don't, and wouldn't it be sad if you passed up on a book that would be perfect for you just because thousands of people with whom you share no reading tastes in common at all didn't like it? I'm pretty convinced by this argument, so I gave it a chance.
Reader, I loved it. I know exactly why this book has such a low rating. It is written in a strange (yet beautiful and lyrical) way, without quotation marks, something I'm sure many readers hate. It is focused pretty closely on an incestuous relationship between cousins that is presented as romantic and tragic, not criticized or condemned, something I'm sure many readers found off-putting. It is magical realism, but in an extremely odd and entirely unexplained way, something I'm sure many readers found baffling. I understand all of this. But for me, the atmosphere, the skill with which Sedgwick wove her disparate plotlines together, the emotion, the lyrical prose, the science - it just sparkled.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Incest