Not bad. I didn't go in expecting a self-help flavor of book, so I was a bit surprised. Well written and filled with strong connections of the science to everyday life.
Ellis has a colorful command of language, especially when it comes to the description of mutilated bodies, much to the displeasure of my stomach. As the novel went on I would spend more time scanning through pages with a grimace on my face as he described the charred, oozing, grafted, gaping holes of the corpses left in Bateman's wake. The violence bordered on gratuitous at times but in the world Ellis paints it was never out of place.
The book delivered it's core message well, but was willing to sacrifice the reader's enjoyment for this. No character entered a scene without a handful of paragraphs describing their type of cuffs, tie, coat, the way it was set, and the brands it hailed from, emphasizing Bateman's worldview. Long after the message was delivered, this pattern stayed strong. For the entire novel. It was effective, but again, a prime culprit of what dragged this novel out to near 400 pages.
All in all, to see where the movie adaptation drew from adds a lot to the viewing experience, but not enough to recommend this to others.
Sapolsky does it again. Although much more narrative than his other book I adore, Behave, this story has no lack of his wit and fantastic storytelling. His life in Kenya is painted in colorful language, from the gut-wrenching horrors to the beautiful solemn moments. Each baboon has a story, and he is more than happy to tell it to you.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Haunting! A story that serves as a beautiful portrayal of the grimdark horror people faced in war. The language used is amazing, ranging from describing the shimmering leaves of poplar trees to the bloated yellow corpses that hissed like a balloon, coughing out their putrid gas. The story itself is very well told and feels realistic, pulling no punches as to the emotional life of one soldier among hundreds of thousands; all soldiers destined to die physically or spiritually after the war.
Perhaps I was in over my head, but the text did not feel as if the argument was making a point at all. Yes, colonialism is inherently violent, but why does one have to take such a roundabout way to make a statement? To take so long on describing the occult of a clan, the nature of it and what it serves, then loosely connecting it to why the natives become violent? The writing style did not lend itself to conciseness, instead meandering to various methods of control used by settlers without connecting them to anything.