Scan barcode
ebbiebooks's reviews
481 reviews
You've Got Mail: The Perils of Pigeon Post – Fei Ge Jiao You Xu Jin Shen (Novel) Vol. 1 by Blackegg
Did not finish book. Stopped at 40%.
Did not finish book. Stopped at 40%.
I started this book without prior knowledge of the author's behavior. At first, I thought the concept was funny. But as soon as the first sex scene, I got uncomfy. Mind you, I've read other danmei before, the issue wasn't the smut itself but the way it was written. I also think I hate the dominant character, he's just unlikeable and a bully, without any redeeming quality. So all in all, it started to just feel not fun anymore, and I wasn't interested in knowing more about the story.
Then I've heard about the author. I told myself I would finish the chapter I was in the middle off and decide from there, and I got to the conclusion I couldn't continue as there were no more enjoyement whatsoever. And since I'm already reading 2 others series that I'm 50-50 about, I couldn't in my right mind continue this one. Ethically, it was also the right thing to do. I'm sorry for the translators and illustrators that worked on this project, but this book and the series just doesn't pass the vibe chek.
Then I've heard about the author. I told myself I would finish the chapter I was in the middle off and decide from there, and I got to the conclusion I couldn't continue as there were no more enjoyement whatsoever. And since I'm already reading 2 others series that I'm 50-50 about, I couldn't in my right mind continue this one. Ethically, it was also the right thing to do. I'm sorry for the translators and illustrators that worked on this project, but this book and the series just doesn't pass the vibe chek.
A Cast of Falcons by Sarah Yarwood-Lovett
mysterious
tense
- Loveable characters? No
3.0
I was annoyed in the first book at some of the characters, mainly because there were things that were either extremely dumb (thought process, actions, etc.) or ridiculously immature or inconsistent for adult characters + some bad stereotypes that didn't need to be there.
As for stereotypes, it not as bad, almost not there. But the rest is still there and I feel like I have less patient for it since this is not a debut no more. Like the two male love interest we inherited from the first book are emotionally dumb as bricks, and it creates conflict that makes no sense in a "character growth" concept since the last book (at least for Rav, ffs). And then, Nell is sorta ok with a simple sorry because shenanigans happened, but COULDN'T. BE. ME. Throw a manchild tantrum once, shame on you. Throw another one almost similar to the first, no shame on me I'M OUT, SEE YOU NEVER.
Otherwise, even though I still think the author is good at building tension in a murder mystery kind of way, I had trouble following some of the "who's who". I don't know if it's partially the audiobook's fault but there were a few characters, all of them a suspect at ome point or another, that I felt like I could copy paste their whole vibe onto another character or two and it wouldn't have made any difference. Some very important characters didn't show up much during the whole investigation process, which is fine I guess when you have a bunch, put towards the end, I really felt like there was no way for me to find out whodunnit. I don't mind when it's because of some clue that wasn't reveal if they are a big part of the investigation, but this time around, they weren't AND a clue was missing imo.
Anyway, still kinda okay for the tension and readability, but I'm not super motivated to continue tbh
As for stereotypes, it not as bad, almost not there. But the rest is still there and I feel like I have less patient for it since this is not a debut no more. Like the two male love interest we inherited from the first book are emotionally dumb as bricks, and it creates conflict that makes no sense in a "character growth" concept since the last book (at least for Rav, ffs). And then, Nell is sorta ok with a simple sorry because shenanigans happened, but COULDN'T. BE. ME. Throw a manchild tantrum once, shame on you. Throw another one almost similar to the first, no shame on me I'M OUT, SEE YOU NEVER.
Otherwise, even though I still think the author is good at building tension in a murder mystery kind of way, I had trouble following some of the "who's who". I don't know if it's partially the audiobook's fault but there were a few characters, all of them a suspect at ome point or another, that I felt like I could copy paste their whole vibe onto another character or two and it wouldn't have made any difference. Some very important characters didn't show up much during the whole investigation process, which is fine I guess when you have a bunch, put towards the end, I really felt like there was no way for me to find out whodunnit. I don't mind when it's because of some clue that wasn't reveal if they are a big part of the investigation, but this time around, they weren't AND a clue was missing imo.
Anyway, still kinda okay for the tension and readability, but I'm not super motivated to continue tbh
Blind Date by R.L. Stine
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Loveable characters? No
3.0
I remember Gavin (from Gavin Reads It All) saying at some point something like "R.L. Stine doesn't write very good male MC" and I can say I agree with the sentiment. I don't think that 's always the case, though I don't remember much about the Goosebumps books I've read as a child.
"Blind Date" is the first YA novel from Stine and I think it shows. It's still has a good pace overall and some of the writing is clever. It's also immensely readable, even if you might roll your eyes now and then. That being said, there are issues.
If you're a 90s kid like me, you'll recognize the stereotypes used back then to portray teens and their adult parents. It's weirdly nostalgic, but also a bit uncanny.
My main problem with the book is how mental health/illness is depicted and relied upon heavily for plot twist. It's not good rep, let's put it like that. And I know a few of us really take issues whenthe mental illness is part of the resolution at the end of the story . I don't know if Stine learns his lesson down the road, but I might find out as I plan on reading quite a few YA horror from him in the foreseeable future.
It was fine.
"Blind Date" is the first YA novel from Stine and I think it shows. It's still has a good pace overall and some of the writing is clever. It's also immensely readable, even if you might roll your eyes now and then. That being said, there are issues.
If you're a 90s kid like me, you'll recognize the stereotypes used back then to portray teens and their adult parents. It's weirdly nostalgic, but also a bit uncanny.
My main problem with the book is how mental health/illness is depicted and relied upon heavily for plot twist. It's not good rep, let's put it like that. And I know a few of us really take issues when
It was fine.
Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation: Mo Dao Zu Shi (The Comic / Manhua) Vol. 7 by Mo Xiang Tong Xiu
adventurous
mysterious
3.5
Fun enough, though it's a very "in between" volume. The most interesting part is the flashback towards the end.
The Husky & His White Cat Shizun: Erha He Ta De Bai Mao Shizun (Novel) Vol. 6 by Rou Bao Bu Chi Rou
adventurous
funny
3.75
I feel like this one suffers a little from being between major parts of the story.
There were a lot more steam, so that takes up space as well that isn't spend in actual plot relevant stuff.
I really like the gourd demons stuff. Wasn't really into the whole "I need to tell him this very important thing, but I can't, but I will, but I won't, but...", as I just read another book with the same trope and I feel like it's weak storytelling.
There were a lot more steam, so that takes up space as well that isn't spend in actual plot relevant stuff.
I really like the gourd demons stuff. Wasn't really into the whole "I need to tell him this very important thing, but I can't, but I will, but I won't, but...", as I just read another book with the same trope and I feel like it's weak storytelling.
The Late Show by Michael Connelly
tense
4.0
As a Michael Connelly, it's enjoyable. There's some tense stuff, and the MC is in danger at some point, which is usually a fun time. There are some internal politics that are interesting.
I do wonder if Connelly is biting more than he can chew:
I'm not super happy with the fact the MC, a woman, is often time put in situations because of her genderie. put in danger sexually + the whole sexual harassment with her former boss and her old partnern not backing her up is not resolved in a satisfactory way. The whole "maybe I was SAed yesterday, we will never know" is not handled well either. I talked a bit about the politics, but at some point, I felt like the "good people" around Ballard who were putting into question her methods and how she should be carefully because she had a target on her back in the department started to feel gaslighty. Connelly do the same with Bosch, but without the issue surrounding gender and everything, it doesn't come off the same way. I don't know if it's intentionnal or not, it was hard to tell. But if it's intentionnal, I'm still not super happy with that as it feels like Connelly is (again) using gender to victimize his MC, which feels a little icky.
On top of that, the whole homelessness by choise is a little weird put in comparison with other homeless people present in the book.
And then, the transgender victim wasn't handled great either. There is something weirdly intentional in putting trans allyship in your MC, who's a detective with the LAPD, but putting medical staff in the biological camp, systematically. The overall thing is not conducted well, furthermore whenwe all know that % wise, the probability that a police officer is an intolerant dirtbag is waaaaay higher. But hey, I knew to expect some copaganda, I just though it would be somehow a little less obvious. Not saying doctors and nurses are always great with transgender patient, but the whole vibes were off for 2017 imo.
Hopefully, the recipe for the next Ballard book do better (not holding my breath for the copaganda, of course).
I do wonder if Connelly is biting more than he can chew:
I'm not super happy with the fact the MC, a woman, is often time put in situations because of her gender
On top of that, the whole homelessness by choise is a little weird put in comparison with other homeless people present in the book.
And then, the transgender victim wasn't handled great either. There is something weirdly intentional in putting trans allyship in your MC, who's a detective with the LAPD, but putting medical staff in the biological camp, systematically. The overall thing is not conducted well, furthermore whenwe all know that % wise, the probability that a police officer is an intolerant dirtbag is waaaaay higher. But hey, I knew to expect some copaganda, I just though it would be somehow a little less obvious. Not saying doctors and nurses are always great with transgender patient, but the whole vibes were off for 2017 imo.
Hopefully, the recipe for the next Ballard book do better (not holding my breath for the copaganda, of course).
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love by bell hooks
informative
3.0
I was looking forward to loving this book, yet it was not the case. I don't dislike it, it's just very middle of the road for me.
There were claims made by the author that I found not to be unversally true yet were presented as such. There were parts were I felt like this was a call to action for women to, yet again, take the bettering of men as their burden to bare, or for feminists to be more empathetic to men's plight, and I just couldn't understand why. Or rather, why did hooks think feminists/women are not already doing those things, why did hooks insists that women are disgusted by men showing vulnerability? I started to wonder if the book was written far in the past... yet that's not the case. To be fair, I think that we did evolve in the last 20yrs, though I'm usually not optimistic about how far humanity can grow in such a small period of time. I feel like it's already a little outdated. Not saying that there are no feminists or women who are like that nowadays, but in my own experience, they are not as numerous as the book make it seems.
The book has a few very good chapters, mainly about boys and how to care for them in childhood. If we only focused on that, I bet I would have like it more, as the points made in thoses parts were excellent. I do think however that feminists parents could find somewhat similar information in gentle parenting books and such. Again, in the last 20 yrs, I feel like we've made progress on that front were it's more commonly accepted to let little boys cry, and feel their emotions, and play with dolls, and paint their nails. Sure, society will still try to smack patriachal masculinity back onto them, but parents being a safe space to talk about that, and the home being a safe space to express themselves however they want to is more and more a given. So I'm still debating with myself how essential this book is on that front. I do however think it might be one of the few books that helped us get there back in the early 2000.
Now, as for where hooks talks about adults... I'm critical of a lot of the things that are presented as conclusions and solutions. And it really puzzles me that, while hooks says that men don't have insentive to not give in patriarchy so we have to help them understand it's for their own good, a parallel wasn't made about other oppression and how ally don't need to find personnal gain to stay on the right course. Why do we give that benefit of the doubt to men then? I'm not trans, yet I do the work to be and stay anti-transphobic. I don't gain anything from it (or very marginal, as transphobia is connect to misogyny). I don't need trans people to tell me it's going to benefit me in some way for me to keep at it. I also don't need trans people to help me do the work, even less so freely. So basically, I was frustrated at the lack of aknowledgement, or rather it wasn't said enough, that emotional labor is exhausting and sould-crushing. Why do women, who are already crushed by patriachy, should then do the work of emotional labor and not "abandon" men who are oppressive with them? There were so many times were I just felt like there was no space for abused women to just give up. And little empathy for the very difficult place abused mother are stuck into.
I liked the part where hooks started to talk about teenager and adult son's relationship with their mother and how the violence that can be at the center of it isn't talk about much, but it wasn't talk about much either here.
I also have an issue in general with love being prestend as THE solution to everything. I find it simplistic. The imperative to forgive and love is something I cannot get behind, as I think it's something very personal to each individual. I feel like when we put those things on a pedestal, we send the message to people who cannot forgive that they are wrong to do so, that they are weak, that they are broken. Yet I'm of the mind you can live a perfectly healthy life without forgiving everyone who wronged you or your peers.
Again, I would have like to love this book, but either my expectations were to high or I'm not the right reader for feminist books about/for men.
There were claims made by the author that I found not to be unversally true yet were presented as such. There were parts were I felt like this was a call to action for women to, yet again, take the bettering of men as their burden to bare, or for feminists to be more empathetic to men's plight, and I just couldn't understand why. Or rather, why did hooks think feminists/women are not already doing those things, why did hooks insists that women are disgusted by men showing vulnerability? I started to wonder if the book was written far in the past... yet that's not the case. To be fair, I think that we did evolve in the last 20yrs, though I'm usually not optimistic about how far humanity can grow in such a small period of time. I feel like it's already a little outdated. Not saying that there are no feminists or women who are like that nowadays, but in my own experience, they are not as numerous as the book make it seems.
The book has a few very good chapters, mainly about boys and how to care for them in childhood. If we only focused on that, I bet I would have like it more, as the points made in thoses parts were excellent. I do think however that feminists parents could find somewhat similar information in gentle parenting books and such. Again, in the last 20 yrs, I feel like we've made progress on that front were it's more commonly accepted to let little boys cry, and feel their emotions, and play with dolls, and paint their nails. Sure, society will still try to smack patriachal masculinity back onto them, but parents being a safe space to talk about that, and the home being a safe space to express themselves however they want to is more and more a given. So I'm still debating with myself how essential this book is on that front. I do however think it might be one of the few books that helped us get there back in the early 2000.
Now, as for where hooks talks about adults... I'm critical of a lot of the things that are presented as conclusions and solutions. And it really puzzles me that, while hooks says that men don't have insentive to not give in patriarchy so we have to help them understand it's for their own good, a parallel wasn't made about other oppression and how ally don't need to find personnal gain to stay on the right course. Why do we give that benefit of the doubt to men then? I'm not trans, yet I do the work to be and stay anti-transphobic. I don't gain anything from it (or very marginal, as transphobia is connect to misogyny). I don't need trans people to tell me it's going to benefit me in some way for me to keep at it. I also don't need trans people to help me do the work, even less so freely. So basically, I was frustrated at the lack of aknowledgement, or rather it wasn't said enough, that emotional labor is exhausting and sould-crushing. Why do women, who are already crushed by patriachy, should then do the work of emotional labor and not "abandon" men who are oppressive with them? There were so many times were I just felt like there was no space for abused women to just give up. And little empathy for the very difficult place abused mother are stuck into.
I liked the part where hooks started to talk about teenager and adult son's relationship with their mother and how the violence that can be at the center of it isn't talk about much, but it wasn't talk about much either here.
I also have an issue in general with love being prestend as THE solution to everything. I find it simplistic. The imperative to forgive and love is something I cannot get behind, as I think it's something very personal to each individual. I feel like when we put those things on a pedestal, we send the message to people who cannot forgive that they are wrong to do so, that they are weak, that they are broken. Yet I'm of the mind you can live a perfectly healthy life without forgiving everyone who wronged you or your peers.
Again, I would have like to love this book, but either my expectations were to high or I'm not the right reader for feminist books about/for men.
A Murder of Crows by Sarah Yarwood-Lovett
The Good stuff
I'm going to keep going with the second book. I think I was in the right mindset to enjoy this book however, so I hope some of the issues will be corrected because I might not be as merciful in the future.
informative
mysterious
tense
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
3.5
I'm giving this book some grace as it's a debut. But I've been frustrated with some of the things throughout the pages. Luckyly, there were redeeming quality that made me enjoy it enough, and I can recognize some literary strenght when I see them.
The Issues
The Issues
- Some of the tertiary characters (*cough ERIN *cough) are extremly unidimensionnal, cliché and bad caricature. It's not funny, it's annoying. And the reason for it is weak, as the contrast that is "built" through this specific character flaws is a very silly details, that could have been thrown away without affecting said contrast. We can build contrast without it (and we do later in the book, hence it was superfluous).
- The MC's motivation to tell eveything to the cops or to keep some information from them makes her look stupid. The way it's presented is not clever. The fact she had issues with justice in the past should make her more savy on the matter.
- The MC is an ecologist, yet she let her cat go outside unsupervised, saying it's ok because it's during the day. This is extremely idiotic.
- The police don't follow up on key suspects (that are not the MC) quickly enough sometimes, and it's driving me insane. It makes them look incompetent.
- There's a mistake at some point where a character that isn't there intervenes in a dialogue.
- The trial is weirdly written (long statements from lawyer while witness are on the stand, no or very little objections, etc.)
- The resolution of the conflict with Adam is silly (but the conflict is silly as well, so...)
The almost 180° from Nell on assuming her background is poorly motivated.
The Good stuff
- There were a few times where I was really moved by the struggles the MC went/goes through. Her longing for connection, but having been badly burned before and the feeling like she cannot trust other was masterfully presented. It became a little weak around the last part of the book, where the self-pity feels a little forced somehow. There are a few instances where she's not believed, on things that calls into question her character, her intentions and her feelings, and it hits hard. I could feel the frustration and hopelessness in my bones. I did cry a few times.
- THE TENSION. This book is immensely readable. The sense of urgency is well crafted and made me want to know what was coming next.
- I wasn't exactly surprised by who was the culprit in the end, but I thought the whole thing was very interesting and intricate enough to keep me guessing (at least until a certain point). Some misdirections were clever, and I didn't feel betrayed by the book as some of the subtilities were found out later on by the detectives.
I'm going to keep going with the second book. I think I was in the right mindset to enjoy this book however, so I hope some of the issues will be corrected because I might not be as merciful in the future.
We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson
dark
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
It was fine, though I didn't like the ending much. Also, I think I expected a more unsettling experience.
Sure, the "mob mentality" is scary at some point, but somehow I never really felt like it was going to be life threatening. Charles is annoying and could be scary in a way, but he also felt like wet powder... A lot of unspoken threats, but not much more than that.
I think the blurb I read set my expectations too high, or on the wrong path.
There is something I really quite enjoy about Shirley Jackson's style/vibe however. And I'd say going along for a ride in Merricat's POV was kinda fun.
Sure, the "mob mentality" is scary at some point, but somehow I never really felt like it was going to be life threatening. Charles is annoying and could be scary in a way, but he also felt like wet powder... A lot of unspoken threats, but not much more than that.
I think the blurb I read set my expectations too high, or on the wrong path.
There is something I really quite enjoy about Shirley Jackson's style/vibe however. And I'd say going along for a ride in Merricat's POV was kinda fun.