You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
nicolewalks_ 's review for:
The Book of Records
by Madeleine Thien
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This book was philosophically complex and has left feeling wildly confused. The central premise of Lina and her dad going to the Sea, this intermediary kind of place where people stop before continuing on, was interesting to me. I liked the complexity of Lina’s emotions with her dad and how she discovers what happened to her mom, aunt, and brother. And I appreciate the symbolism of Lina’s actions at the end.
However, diving into the three explorers’ adventures made the book extremely difficult to follow and understand. Coupled with the three explorers’ figureheads in the Sea, I was lost as to who was sharing what story and why. Each story was interesting in their own way (Spinoza, Arendt, and Fu). But this book was written seemingly disorganized, without a clear plot or lead-in to when we’d flip back to the stories.
And while the prose is beautifully written, there are too many ostentatious conversations that don’t translate easily. Sentences don’t need to be superfluous and have deep metaphors ingrained in them. There were many dense paragraphs with little comprehensive payoff. Perhaps that’s what philosophy is. I knew early on that this would be a book that I’d most likely have to read a couple times to understand. I’ll return to it one day when my mind is more clear and ready for these kinds of ponderings.
However, diving into the three explorers’ adventures made the book extremely difficult to follow and understand. Coupled with the three explorers’ figureheads in the Sea, I was lost as to who was sharing what story and why. Each story was interesting in their own way (Spinoza, Arendt, and Fu). But this book was written seemingly disorganized, without a clear plot or lead-in to when we’d flip back to the stories.
And while the prose is beautifully written, there are too many ostentatious conversations that don’t translate easily. Sentences don’t need to be superfluous and have deep metaphors ingrained in them. There were many dense paragraphs with little comprehensive payoff. Perhaps that’s what philosophy is. I knew early on that this would be a book that I’d most likely have to read a couple times to understand. I’ll return to it one day when my mind is more clear and ready for these kinds of ponderings.