Take a photo of a barcode or cover
elerireads's reviews
390 reviews
Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer
emotional
informative
sad
medium-paced
4.25
I've read this kind of journalistic, memoir-style nonfiction book exploring an issue before and not been at all impressed (Johann Hari), but this is how it's meant to be done. Such a thoughtful discussion of the role that meat plays in the world and all the different factors that weigh into our decision to eat it. We know from the outset that he has a bias, having spent most of his life trying to be vegetarian, with varying degrees of success, but it really did feel from reading it that he had come at it with genuinely open-minded curiosity (of course he could have just written it to sound that way!).
I liked the depth he goes into around the socio-cultural importance of traditional foods, and also that he doesn't minimise the desire/pressure to be polite and eat what other people are eating or what someone has cooked for you. But then he sort of turns it around and says in a way that makes it more important to believe in what you're eating and the symbolism of it. He puts it much better than that though so I'd recommend reading it! I also really enjoyed the chapter structured as a glossary of relevant terminology - the combination of dry wit and stylistic creativity made it very satisfying to read.
The investigation of farming and slaughterhouse practices was absolutely harrowing, although at least not surprising to me. The effort to talk about fish in more depth was important too, as they are often ignored or their suffering is dismissed as lesser than that of land animals which more visible and easily understood. Some of the most interesting bits were about the people trying to do it better, the difficulties they face, the unease he still felt, and emphasising how small the proportion of meat from these sources is. He also points out that eating any kind of meat is still contributing to overall demand for meat. He does advocate animal agriculture moving back to these kinds of small, family farming type practices. The piece I did think was missing was how much less 'efficient' these practices are and that it would be completely impossible to produce all meat this way unless demand is drastically reduced.
The book was prefaced with a discussion of his grandmother's attitude towards food and how that was shaped by her experience of extreme hardship and starvation during the Holocaust. It comes back around to it at the end, finding that although he's arrived at a different answer to what he should be eating, the core principle is the same. I thought it was a valuable perspective to add.
I liked the depth he goes into around the socio-cultural importance of traditional foods, and also that he doesn't minimise the desire/pressure to be polite and eat what other people are eating or what someone has cooked for you. But then he sort of turns it around and says in a way that makes it more important to believe in what you're eating and the symbolism of it. He puts it much better than that though so I'd recommend reading it! I also really enjoyed the chapter structured as a glossary of relevant terminology - the combination of dry wit and stylistic creativity made it very satisfying to read.
The investigation of farming and slaughterhouse practices was absolutely harrowing, although at least not surprising to me. The effort to talk about fish in more depth was important too, as they are often ignored or their suffering is dismissed as lesser than that of land animals which more visible and easily understood. Some of the most interesting bits were about the people trying to do it better, the difficulties they face, the unease he still felt, and emphasising how small the proportion of meat from these sources is. He also points out that eating any kind of meat is still contributing to overall demand for meat. He does advocate animal agriculture moving back to these kinds of small, family farming type practices. The piece I did think was missing was how much less 'efficient' these practices are and that it would be completely impossible to produce all meat this way unless demand is drastically reduced.
The book was prefaced with a discussion of his grandmother's attitude towards food and how that was shaped by her experience of extreme hardship and starvation during the Holocaust. It comes back around to it at the end, finding that although he's arrived at a different answer to what he should be eating, the core principle is the same. I thought it was a valuable perspective to add.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty, Animal death
The Understudy by David Nicholls
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
Didn't really enjoy this. In fact I kind of want to give it 1 star, but I've only given it 2 stars because I know that hating stories about lies spinning out of control is something quite specific to me, so on average I think people would enjoy it more than I did.
Basically I just didn't like any of the characters. The only one I could even vaguely root for was the daughter, but I wouldn't even say I liked her. A lot of the dialogue was just tedious and honestly I didn't really care what happened to the main character at the end.
Basically I just didn't like any of the characters. The only one I could even vaguely root for was the daughter, but I wouldn't even say I liked her. A lot of the dialogue was just tedious and honestly I didn't really care what happened to the main character at the end.
Loveless by Alice Oseman
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Ok it was YA, it was a bit preachy and there wasn't all that much plot. Georgia goes away to university for the first time and over the course of the year figures out that she's asexual and aromantic, but in the process treats all her friends appallingly and so then has to go and win her friends back because actually friendships are just as important as romantic relationships and yada yada yada. Also they do a Shakespeare play.
It also felt a bit overwritten? For the first few chapters I was thinking wow this has really clearly and sensitively captured the confusion that Georgia is feeling, but as it went on I started think "yeah ok we get it she's asexual and she hasn't figured that out yet" and get a bit fed up with it. The thing is it's a book written from Georgia's perspective about figuring herself out, so obviously the whole thing is just a lot of introspection and going over and over the same thoughts trying to rearrange them so they actually make sense. It just gets a bit tedious from a reader's perspective, especially the part where she was blatantly using Jason and taking advantage of his feelings for her, even after she had acknowledged to herself AND ROONEY that she didn't like him 'like that'.
All of that said, I could see and appreciate what Oseman was trying to do, which was to capture as accurately and in as much detail as possible what it feels like to be a young asexual person, to come to terms with that and then a coming out process. YA is brilliant for its coming of age stories but ordinarily I think there's a background understanding that can be assumed both because of readers' lived experiences and because there's so much other writing about coming of age stories. But that's not really the case here - there's basically no other fiction centering asexual characters, or really any other kind of media. Essentially Oseman had to assume zero background knowledge? What I'm trying to say is, I think the overwriting was probably necessary because this really was the first book of its kind. I also liked that Oseman made sure to incorporate so much fun and joy into Georgia's life, that by the end she was able to make jokes about asexuality and revel in the funny sides of her different perspective on the world, and ultimately of course that she was incredibly loved and had so much love to offer the world, i.e anything but loveless.
It also felt a bit overwritten? For the first few chapters I was thinking wow this has really clearly and sensitively captured the confusion that Georgia is feeling, but as it went on I started think "yeah ok we get it she's asexual and she hasn't figured that out yet" and get a bit fed up with it. The thing is it's a book written from Georgia's perspective about figuring herself out, so obviously the whole thing is just a lot of introspection and going over and over the same thoughts trying to rearrange them so they actually make sense. It just gets a bit tedious from a reader's perspective, especially the part where she was blatantly using Jason and taking advantage of his feelings for her, even after she had acknowledged to herself AND ROONEY that she didn't like him 'like that'.
All of that said, I could see and appreciate what Oseman was trying to do, which was to capture as accurately and in as much detail as possible what it feels like to be a young asexual person, to come to terms with that and then a coming out process. YA is brilliant for its coming of age stories but ordinarily I think there's a background understanding that can be assumed both because of readers' lived experiences and because there's so much other writing about coming of age stories. But that's not really the case here - there's basically no other fiction centering asexual characters, or really any other kind of media. Essentially Oseman had to assume zero background knowledge? What I'm trying to say is, I think the overwriting was probably necessary because this really was the first book of its kind. I also liked that Oseman made sure to incorporate so much fun and joy into Georgia's life, that by the end she was able to make jokes about asexuality and revel in the funny sides of her different perspective on the world, and ultimately of course that she was incredibly loved and had so much love to offer the world, i.e anything but loveless.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Acephobia/Arophobia
Minor: Emotional abuse, Toxic relationship
Ace: What Asexuality Reveals about Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex by Angela Chen
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.0
A much needed book I think. Not just an exploration of the asexual experience, but also the way it intersects with other identities. More than that though, Chen turns the asexual lens back on the world and discusses the ways that ace people have had to think more deeply about certain issues and that the ideas that that thinking has produced are actually generally applicable and valuable. From more nuanced understandings of consent and sex positivity, to the societal devaluing of platonic and other nonsexual intimacy, this covers all the major bases.
It's very accessibly written - a mix of interviews with lots of different asexual people, some academic research and interspersed with bits of Chen's own experience. But she also doesn't baby us. Chapter 2 in particular is a massive info-dump, I suspect to get through the 'educating' part so she could get onto the more interesting discussions, so I can imagine if you're completely new to this stuff it might be a bit of a jargon overload. Could have done with a glossary I think, so I'd recommend having a pen and paper out for that chapter in particular! Otherwise, it wasn't among the best nonfiction writing I've ever read, but honestly I think a big part of that is that I like my nonfiction to be underpinned by a lot of underlying research... which is understandably thin on the ground in this case.
It's very accessibly written - a mix of interviews with lots of different asexual people, some academic research and interspersed with bits of Chen's own experience. But she also doesn't baby us. Chapter 2 in particular is a massive info-dump, I suspect to get through the 'educating' part so she could get onto the more interesting discussions, so I can imagine if you're completely new to this stuff it might be a bit of a jargon overload. Could have done with a glossary I think, so I'd recommend having a pen and paper out for that chapter in particular! Otherwise, it wasn't among the best nonfiction writing I've ever read, but honestly I think a big part of that is that I like my nonfiction to be underpinned by a lot of underlying research... which is understandably thin on the ground in this case.
Content Warnings
Minor: Ableism, Rape, Sexual violence, Acephobia/Arophobia
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Glad I finally got round to reading this. I tried to read it when I was fairly young and got as far as the council dude being persuaded to take over lying in front of the bulldozer, at which point I thought "what the hell is this bollocks?" and gave up. I then saw the TV adaptation of it, and obviously it's a book people make a lot of references to so I ended up knowing pretty much everything that happens before I read it. So I was better prepared for the madness and the wacky humour, and I really enjoyed it. You must just have to have such a random imagination to come up with something like this and it was good fun (partly because I really don't). I'm particularly attached to the depressed robot.
Bleak House by Charles Dickens
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
This is a teensy bit unhinged. Someone SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTS. There was this little defensive preface Dickens wrote claiming it was entirely realistic and banging on about all the evidence of other cases of spontaneous combustion. Obviously I then spent the first part of the book waiting to see who it would be 😂
Other than that, there was the classic brilliant writing, dry Dickens wit and set of comic characters. I do like how the characters seem to span the entire class spectrum and show how they all interact. As usual, a lot of the characters have specific traits exaggerated, but when you write that way you're walking a fine line with the believability of your characters and I did feel that line was crossed in a few places in this. It seemed like the main villain was supposed to be the courts themselves and the way they seduce people and destroy their lives for false hope etc., but honestly I was too preoccupied with Mr Skimpole to feel much antagonism towards the courts. He was the most abhorrent awful character and I hated him with a passion, and it just made no sense to me that the main characters who were mostly sensible, reasonable people continued to keep him around them. Eventually they started to see some reason but he was so intensely awful right from the start that their initial fond amusement was utterly baffling to me.
Other than that, there was the classic brilliant writing, dry Dickens wit and set of comic characters. I do like how the characters seem to span the entire class spectrum and show how they all interact. As usual, a lot of the characters have specific traits exaggerated, but when you write that way you're walking a fine line with the believability of your characters and I did feel that line was crossed in a few places in this. It seemed like the main villain was supposed to be the courts themselves and the way they seduce people and destroy their lives for false hope etc., but honestly I was too preoccupied with Mr Skimpole to feel much antagonism towards the courts. He was the most abhorrent awful character and I hated him with a passion, and it just made no sense to me that the main characters who were mostly sensible, reasonable people continued to keep him around them. Eventually they started to see some reason but he was so intensely awful right from the start that their initial fond amusement was utterly baffling to me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death, Death of parent
A Deadly Education by Naomi Novik
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Ah this was good fun. Not much particularly original - had a very similar set-up and vibe to Carry On, but with a bit of Hunger Games thrown in. It really reads like a kids book to me, but I can't see anything to indicate it's supposed to be, and there's even a quote on the front describing it as "dark". Anyway, given that it was recommended to me in a conversation about "trashy but enjoyable fantasy", I'd say it was exactly what I was hoping for.
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
This sort of crept up on me - took me a while to get into the writing and weirdly I think something about the setting was a bit off-putting for me, but then as the second half went on I had this creeping realisation that it was absolutely brilliant. I'm tempted to reread it immediately and pay more attention to some of the details, because I suspect the knowledge of what's to come would make for a substantially different reading experience.
Honestly it's a book that begs to be studied and I'm not sure how to do it justice without writing a full-on essay. The title is perfect - Edna is basically sleepwalking through her life but then awakens to her own personhood and agency and starts making decisions for herself. The incomprehension and confrontation that this change evokes is a beautiful illustration of just how narrow the constraints were on 'acceptable' womanhood. It's heartbreaking because for a very short period of time she starts to experience the pure joy of being properly 'awake' and then almost immediately has to come to terms with the fact that no one else understands, and if everyone else is still beholden to the societal rules (she now sees through) and tries to enforce them on her then her newfound freedom is just an illusion anyway. At least, that's my take on it. Pretty sure I need to read some other reviews of this and then re-read it.
Honestly it's a book that begs to be studied and I'm not sure how to do it justice without writing a full-on essay. The title is perfect - Edna is basically sleepwalking through her life but then awakens to her own personhood and agency and starts making decisions for herself. The incomprehension and confrontation that this change evokes is a beautiful illustration of just how narrow the constraints were on 'acceptable' womanhood. It's heartbreaking because for a very short period of time she starts to experience the pure joy of being properly 'awake' and then almost immediately has to come to terms with the fact that no one else understands, and if everyone else is still beholden to the societal rules (she now sees through) and tries to enforce them on her then her newfound freedom is just an illusion anyway. At least, that's my take on it. Pretty sure I need to read some other reviews of this and then re-read it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide
Moderate: Sexism
Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
This is a very tricky one to review.
There wasn't a huge amount of plot to speak of. The premise was essentially just a good catalyst to expose and illustrate a bunch of tricky issues related to how we define womanhood and what the trans perspective has to add. Of course, a lot of it revolved around motherhood in particular. This meant that mostly this book consisted of long passages of abstract discussion of gender and the trans community. Some of it was in discussions between characters but a lot of it was just characters' long internal monologues. This runs the risk of being irritatingly preachy and veering into 'well if it's got no plot and is pretty much just a bunch of essays about transness and motherhood, then why not just make it that and ditch the pretence of being a novel at all?' territory for me. Obviously I can't really speak to its authenticity, but for what my opinion is worth I think it managed to avoid that irritating preachiness because it was actually believable. I was convinced that these characters would actually spend that much time thinking and talking about gender, and that they were realistic representations of (a part of) the trans community. Basically it felt like a realistic portrayal, aimed at an LGBT+ audience rather than 'educating' a cis audience etc.
Unfortunately, the character who didn't quite seem realistic was Katrina, upon whom what little plot there was hinged. I thought her initial assessment - that Ames just wanted to use her as a vessel for a child for his ex - was a valid and entirely justified interpretation of what he was asking, and this was just never satisfactorily refuted. Then she had a chat with her mum and just like that changed her mind and decided she was actually ok with the idea of bringing up a child with a woman she had never met! Then, when she finds out Reese had been having sex with her friend's husband, she flips out. But not really because of the morality of sleeping with a married man, oh no, it's because he had HIV!?! Honestly I think I must have missed something here because I genuinely don't understand why that would bother her. She's supposed to be all educated about HIV because her friend had talked to her about it a lot, so she would know he was undetectable, and it's not like she was sleeping with Reese. Was it some fear of somehow passing it on to the child? So confused.
Another issue I had is that the whole book is just dripping with misogyny. A lot of it is internalised, which I kind of get. There's the whole weird bit where Reese manages to find it gender-affirming to be hit and made to feel small by a man, which is awful but I understand. On the other hand, utter disdain and contempt for cis women is a constant feature and is not really excusable. It's clear Reese is supposed to be deeply flawed, and she herself acknowledges in some places that she has underestimated them or hadn't thought of some element or other, i.e. I don't think the author is actually endorsing that viewpoint. However, it's very jarring given the kind of enlightened, thoughtful way the characters approach pretty much everything else, and so much of the way cis women were portrayed reminded me of exactly the way arsehole misogynistic men talk about women that I don't think it can all be explained away by "it's from the perspective of a flawed character". Torrey Peters could really do better here.
There wasn't a huge amount of plot to speak of. The premise was essentially just a good catalyst to expose and illustrate a bunch of tricky issues related to how we define womanhood and what the trans perspective has to add. Of course, a lot of it revolved around motherhood in particular. This meant that mostly this book consisted of long passages of abstract discussion of gender and the trans community. Some of it was in discussions between characters but a lot of it was just characters' long internal monologues. This runs the risk of being irritatingly preachy and veering into 'well if it's got no plot and is pretty much just a bunch of essays about transness and motherhood, then why not just make it that and ditch the pretence of being a novel at all?' territory for me. Obviously I can't really speak to its authenticity, but for what my opinion is worth I think it managed to avoid that irritating preachiness because it was actually believable. I was convinced that these characters would actually spend that much time thinking and talking about gender, and that they were realistic representations of (a part of) the trans community. Basically it felt like a realistic portrayal, aimed at an LGBT+ audience rather than 'educating' a cis audience etc.
Unfortunately, the character who didn't quite seem realistic was Katrina, upon whom what little plot there was hinged. I thought her initial assessment - that Ames just wanted to use her as a vessel for a child for his ex - was a valid and entirely justified interpretation of what he was asking, and this was just never satisfactorily refuted. Then she had a chat with her mum and just like that changed her mind and decided she was actually ok with the idea of bringing up a child with a woman she had never met! Then, when she finds out Reese had been having sex with her friend's husband, she flips out. But not really because of the morality of sleeping with a married man, oh no, it's because he had HIV!?! Honestly I think I must have missed something here because I genuinely don't understand why that would bother her. She's supposed to be all educated about HIV because her friend had talked to her about it a lot, so she would know he was undetectable, and it's not like she was sleeping with Reese. Was it some fear of somehow passing it on to the child? So confused.
Another issue I had is that the whole book is just dripping with misogyny. A lot of it is internalised, which I kind of get. There's the whole weird bit where Reese manages to find it gender-affirming to be hit and made to feel small by a man, which is awful but I understand. On the other hand, utter disdain and contempt for cis women is a constant feature and is not really excusable. It's clear Reese is supposed to be deeply flawed, and she herself acknowledges in some places that she has underestimated them or hadn't thought of some element or other, i.e. I don't think the author is actually endorsing that viewpoint. However, it's very jarring given the kind of enlightened, thoughtful way the characters approach pretty much everything else, and so much of the way cis women were portrayed reminded me of exactly the way arsehole misogynistic men talk about women that I don't think it can all be explained away by "it's from the perspective of a flawed character". Torrey Peters could really do better here.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Homophobia, Toxic relationship, Transphobia, Violence
Moderate: Suicide
Athelstan (Penguin Monarchs): The Making of England by Tom Holland
funny
informative
fast-paced
3.5
Not so much the story of Athelstan as of his creation of England. Cool to learn some history I literally knew nothing about and the writing was really good - "Men who had thought by means of sorcery to take on the form and ferocity of a wolf pack now themselves wetted lupine jaws" is one of my new favourite sentences ever.
I had this book hyped up to me a lot and whilst I did enjoy it, I don't think it lived up to the hype.
I had this book hyped up to me a lot and whilst I did enjoy it, I don't think it lived up to the hype.
Content Warnings
Minor: Violence