Scan barcode
A review by atlantisblauw
This Is How You Lose the Time War by Max Gladstone, Amal El-Mohtar
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
0.5
Thank god, I reached the end. I have no idea how people can enjoy this utter drivel. No world-building, no character development, metaphors that make no sense. There's no explanation of how they travel through time, you don't know what the war is about. The characters don't even know each other, but they 'love each other'.
The authors are clearly trying to sound very deep by listing endless enumerations of imagery, repetition, contradictory statements and questions that aren't really all that deep. "She has won, yes, she has won. She is certain she has won. Hasn't she?"
And of course, many inanimate objects verbing. "Vines live [...] Rain clouds threaten. Lightening blooms, and the battlefield goes monochrome. Thunder rolls."
The metaphors are hilariously awful. "branches clatter like locust wings" and "a sun that is an eye with a great hourglass pupil like a goat's". Have they ever seen a goat? How is its eye in any way like an hourglass? "The ends don't always resemble our means." What's the logic here? "The seal breaks as easy as a spine" - Yeah we all know spines snap like twigs, right? *roll-eyes*
The letters start out extremely childish. "Postscripts sure are fun", one of the main characters writes in a PPPS. Yeah, I also thought they were fun, when I was ten. Then at some point it turns into love letters from a 14 year old Gothic girl, with silly things like "I want you to cut me" or "The pain truly is excruciating. It's wonderful, really" and the romanticising of suicide.
The only thing I can appreciate is there are two nice plot twists. Maybe it could have been a nice book if it had been written by someone more skilled. I'm stunned that this mess of a book was awarded both a Hugo and a Nebula award.
The authors are clearly trying to sound very deep by listing endless enumerations of imagery, repetition, contradictory statements and questions that aren't really all that deep. "She has won, yes, she has won. She is certain she has won. Hasn't she?"
And of course, many inanimate objects verbing. "Vines live [...] Rain clouds threaten. Lightening blooms, and the battlefield goes monochrome. Thunder rolls."
The metaphors are hilariously awful. "branches clatter like locust wings" and "a sun that is an eye with a great hourglass pupil like a goat's". Have they ever seen a goat? How is its eye in any way like an hourglass? "The ends don't always resemble our means." What's the logic here? "The seal breaks as easy as a spine" - Yeah we all know spines snap like twigs, right? *roll-eyes*
The letters start out extremely childish. "Postscripts sure are fun", one of the main characters writes in a PPPS. Yeah, I also thought they were fun, when I was ten. Then at some point it turns into love letters from a 14 year old Gothic girl, with silly things like "I want you to cut me" or "The pain truly is excruciating. It's wonderful, really" and the romanticising of suicide.
The only thing I can appreciate is there are two nice plot twists. Maybe it could have been a nice book if it had been written by someone more skilled. I'm stunned that this mess of a book was awarded both a Hugo and a Nebula award.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide and Toxic relationship
Moderate: Violence and Murder
Minor: War