Take a photo of a barcode or cover
asheslay 's review for:
The Queen's Gambit
by Walter Tevis
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
one thing i get for sure now is when the fans tell you "oh the book is good but the tv adaptation is IMMENSELY better" you listen to them.
Let's say someone asks me my opinion about Lemony Snicket's a series of unfortunate events, i would probably say, "oh the books are good but what the tv show did to them is IMMENSELY better" and you'd be dumbass for not listening to me. [even though i haven't read all the books. Think about it though WHY did i, a person who never had trouble reading and always had trouble watching, consciously choose not to continue with the books and instead watch ALL THREE seasons of the show? Yep.]
This book is fine I guess? It is a story about a woman who makes big in a game dominated by men, gatekept from women by men, throughout history. Yeah the whole her being a 'her' thing matters. A lot.
Reading this was not engrossing, and I am by no means throwing shade to the long wordy illustrations of chess games. That WAS the fun part, in fact.
The characters were flat. I can describe them in 2-3 words each: fat chess player; strict; unpredictable; supportive; absent; beautiful + sporty; pretty chess player; gifted chess player; russian chess player; russian chess player (2). It's like Tevis attributed an adjective each to all the main characters off the top of his head and called it a day. Even Harmon, the woman around whom the story revolves, was underdeveloped {like a bishop still stuck on e2 14 moves into the game.} {i know chess too} {that's so smart of me} {innit}
The only thing that happens in this book is, you guessed it, chess. "Of course the focus was supposed to be on chess; what are you getting at?" The other things that do follow are only ushered for the sake of some semblance of a rickety structure. The tragedies, the relationships, the friendships and the romances, they had hardly any weight and contributed nothing to the story.
Let's talk about Elizabeth Harmon:
1. She likes chess.
2. She's a chess prodigy.
3. She's gifted.
4. She likes winning
5. She doesn't like losing
6. She has always had a heavy addiction problem BUT it doesn't really affect her life, and later, her career too. It was just another passive motif.
7. She has as much emotions as those robots we used to visualize decaes ago. {i.e not chatgpt!}
I am looking forward to watching the show now, and I have dared to have expectations.
[p.s: if the show is disappointing, I will take another star bwahaha]
one thing i get for sure now is when the fans tell you "oh the book is good but the tv adaptation is IMMENSELY better" you listen to them.
Let's say someone asks me my opinion about Lemony Snicket's a series of unfortunate events, i would probably say, "oh the books are good but what the tv show did to them is IMMENSELY better" and you'd be dumbass for not listening to me. [even though i haven't read all the books. Think about it though WHY did i, a person who never had trouble reading and always had trouble watching, consciously choose not to continue with the books and instead watch ALL THREE seasons of the show? Yep.]
This book is fine I guess? It is a story about a woman who makes big in a game dominated by men, gatekept from women by men, throughout history. Yeah the whole her being a 'her' thing matters. A lot.
Reading this was not engrossing, and I am by no means throwing shade to the long wordy illustrations of chess games. That WAS the fun part, in fact.
The characters were flat. I can describe them in 2-3 words each: fat chess player; strict; unpredictable; supportive; absent; beautiful + sporty; pretty chess player; gifted chess player; russian chess player; russian chess player (2). It's like Tevis attributed an adjective each to all the main characters off the top of his head and called it a day. Even Harmon, the woman around whom the story revolves, was underdeveloped {like a bishop still stuck on e2 14 moves into the game.} {i know chess too} {that's so smart of me} {innit}
The only thing that happens in this book is, you guessed it, chess. "Of course the focus was supposed to be on chess; what are you getting at?" The other things that do follow are only ushered for the sake of some semblance of a rickety structure. The tragedies, the relationships, the friendships and the romances, they had hardly any weight and contributed nothing to the story.
Let's talk about Elizabeth Harmon:
1. She likes chess.
2. She's a chess prodigy.
3. She's gifted.
4. She likes winning
5. She doesn't like losing
6. She has always had a heavy addiction problem BUT it doesn't really affect her life, and later, her career too. It was just another passive motif.
7. She has as much emotions as those robots we used to visualize decaes ago. {i.e not chatgpt!}
I am looking forward to watching the show now, and I have dared to have expectations.
[p.s: if the show is disappointing, I will take another star bwahaha]