Take a photo of a barcode or cover
nerdyreferencelibrarian89's Reviews (1.18k)
This book was a disappointment. It had come highly recommended, and has won several book awards; however, I don't think it was up to snuff.
If you don't want to read my whole review here is the book in a nutshell: Romanovs= good but out of touch, Revolution = bad
The author writes a beautifully detailed narrative following the life of Nicholas Romanov and his children. She attempts to offset the wealth of details of the royal family with snippets of everyday peoples' lives in Russia. This is, I think an attempt to acknowledge the real failings of the Romanov dynasty, and the frightening everyday conditions Russian peasants and workers lived thru, but I think she fails. She doesn't pull away from the negatives of Nicholas' reign, but seems to gloss over them by spending more time describing the isolated life of the royal family.
The author seems completely enthralled and infatuated with the royal family. She will one moment she describes horrifically pogroms, encouraged by Nicholas, however, this is offset by detailed description of a loving house hold, likable if spoiled children. The author spent a great deal of time setting up Nicholas almost as a tragic historic character, mentioning his childhood failed to contain training on ruling the country. This seems to gloss over the atrocities that his rule committed.
It really bothered me that Fleming tried to set up the Romanovs as these tragic historic figures, while the villains in the book are those behind the revolution. This seems to ignore the hundreds of thousands starving due to inept and uncaring rule by the Romanovs. In addition, Flemming describes at length as more and more of the royal family's niceties are taken away by revolutionaries, when they are forced to eat on rations, not have china, lose several servants, and the way she describes this makes this seem like horrible treatment. IF Flemming had spent more time describing worker's living conditions, the tax system the Romanovs had, or any of their treatment of everyday people these small consequences of their actions wouldn't seem sympathetic at all.
The book ends discussing how after the Romanovs were killed the Russian people were no better off under Communist rule, and it would only get worse under Stalin. Flemming then moves into discussion about how the Romanovs were declared minor saints by the Orthodox church.
These seem very, very odd notes to end on. First of all, it fails to acknowledge that during the 1930s Russia was in fact much, MUCH better off then under Nicholas. Now once Stalin took over much of this would change. In addition, while discussing the Romanovs being saints, Flemming fails to acknowledge the major atrocities the Romanovs committed. Instead she states that Russia was just as bad if not worse off under their new rule, AND that the Romanovs were later sainted.... riiiight...
Overall extremely disappointing. I do not know how Flemming can view the royal family with such sympathy, when those royals lived isolated in ridiculous amounts of wealth and luxury, while their people starved and died.
If you don't want to read my whole review here is the book in a nutshell: Romanovs= good but out of touch, Revolution = bad
The author writes a beautifully detailed narrative following the life of Nicholas Romanov and his children. She attempts to offset the wealth of details of the royal family with snippets of everyday peoples' lives in Russia. This is, I think an attempt to acknowledge the real failings of the Romanov dynasty, and the frightening everyday conditions Russian peasants and workers lived thru, but I think she fails. She doesn't pull away from the negatives of Nicholas' reign, but seems to gloss over them by spending more time describing the isolated life of the royal family.
The author seems completely enthralled and infatuated with the royal family. She will one moment she describes horrifically pogroms, encouraged by Nicholas, however, this is offset by detailed description of a loving house hold, likable if spoiled children. The author spent a great deal of time setting up Nicholas almost as a tragic historic character, mentioning his childhood failed to contain training on ruling the country. This seems to gloss over the atrocities that his rule committed.
It really bothered me that Fleming tried to set up the Romanovs as these tragic historic figures, while the villains in the book are those behind the revolution. This seems to ignore the hundreds of thousands starving due to inept and uncaring rule by the Romanovs. In addition, Flemming describes at length as more and more of the royal family's niceties are taken away by revolutionaries, when they are forced to eat on rations, not have china, lose several servants, and the way she describes this makes this seem like horrible treatment. IF Flemming had spent more time describing worker's living conditions, the tax system the Romanovs had, or any of their treatment of everyday people these small consequences of their actions wouldn't seem sympathetic at all.
The book ends discussing how after the Romanovs were killed the Russian people were no better off under Communist rule, and it would only get worse under Stalin. Flemming then moves into discussion about how the Romanovs were declared minor saints by the Orthodox church.
These seem very, very odd notes to end on. First of all, it fails to acknowledge that during the 1930s Russia was in fact much, MUCH better off then under Nicholas. Now once Stalin took over much of this would change. In addition, while discussing the Romanovs being saints, Flemming fails to acknowledge the major atrocities the Romanovs committed. Instead she states that Russia was just as bad if not worse off under their new rule, AND that the Romanovs were later sainted.... riiiight...
Overall extremely disappointing. I do not know how Flemming can view the royal family with such sympathy, when those royals lived isolated in ridiculous amounts of wealth and luxury, while their people starved and died.
Initially I really enjoyed this book, it flowed well, the text was interesting and informative, without being too long, great selling points for the preteen and teen audience it is written for. I also loved the graphic layout of the book.
The problem comes from the rules, there are too many, they are often worded awkwardly and pretty repetitive. I think the rules were a nice way to introduce quotes from famous successful people, however, after having finished the book only a few rules stuck in my mind.
I enjoyed the book, and think I will recommend it to teen readers; however, I don't think it is as good as it could have been. The real star of the book is the graphic layout.
The problem comes from the rules, there are too many, they are often worded awkwardly and pretty repetitive. I think the rules were a nice way to introduce quotes from famous successful people, however, after having finished the book only a few rules stuck in my mind.
I enjoyed the book, and think I will recommend it to teen readers; however, I don't think it is as good as it could have been. The real star of the book is the graphic layout.
I wanted to love this book. I read the majority of it in one night.
At first I was really enjoying it, I thought the characters and their flirty relationship was cute. I loved that the main character was both diverse and seemed to represent her disability well.
However, as the book continued I started to noticed several problematic issues.
Warning SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
A central part of the narrative is living vs being alive. This is a great narrative; however, the author uses the central barrier to be the main characters illness. The author also seems to argue that "living" on the edge for a few days is worth risking not being alive for well ever. I get the argument live life to its fullest; however, it is extremely problematic to take an disability rarely depicted and basically argue "throw caution to the winds and live, even if only for two days, because that is better then living out a whole lifetime safely."
How would this make someone with the disease feel, was something I continually wondered about. Aren't there ways around this, without well dying for two days abroad?
In the back of my mind I suspected there would be a big reveal near the end of the book, and surprise there was. The main character, turns out was not actually sick, so we get a cliche mentally ill mother making the daughter believe she was. So our hero gets to live relatively free from her disease, since she never had it, and be happy. I was so mad about this, I saw it coming the second I started the book, but was hoping it wouldn't happen. Again what does this say to people who actually have this disease...
This led me to wonder hmm how much research did Yoon do, this is what I found:
"Well, exactly. How much research did you have to do on Maddy’s disease and all of the medical aspects involved with that?
So I did do a lot of research, but it’s not like a medical book. I didn’t enough research to know enough about it to know what she could and could not touch, the sort of practical things, but the book is really about living and not being sick, so all of the medical stuff doesn’t really come into great detail. It’s about what it means to be alive versus living."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/camryn-garrett/chat-with-everything-ever_b_8072968.html
Essentially Yoon did some basic medical research... what about talking and interacting with someone with this actual disease? What about asking them their thoughts on the twist?
This is made even worse, because Yoon is someone pushing for (admirably ) more diverse books; however, she seems unable to see how her very book is going against that desire, by erasing the real struggles and needs people living with disability have.
Overall I was extremely disappointed. I wanted to love this book, I loved the start, I liked the style, it was very hard to put down, but then all these issues with it pop up :/. I gave it 2 stars for the enjoyment I had reading it, but I do not think I will be recommending it to people.
For a second opinion, check out this review http://disabilityinkidlit.com/2015/09/04/review-everything-everything-by-nicola-yoon/
At first I was really enjoying it, I thought the characters and their flirty relationship was cute. I loved that the main character was both diverse and seemed to represent her disability well.
However, as the book continued I started to noticed several problematic issues.
Warning SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
A central part of the narrative is living vs being alive. This is a great narrative; however, the author uses the central barrier to be the main characters illness. The author also seems to argue that "living" on the edge for a few days is worth risking not being alive for well ever. I get the argument live life to its fullest; however, it is extremely problematic to take an disability rarely depicted and basically argue "throw caution to the winds and live, even if only for two days, because that is better then living out a whole lifetime safely."
How would this make someone with the disease feel, was something I continually wondered about. Aren't there ways around this, without well dying for two days abroad?
In the back of my mind I suspected there would be a big reveal near the end of the book, and surprise there was. The main character, turns out was not actually sick, so we get a cliche mentally ill mother making the daughter believe she was. So our hero gets to live relatively free from her disease, since she never had it, and be happy. I was so mad about this, I saw it coming the second I started the book, but was hoping it wouldn't happen. Again what does this say to people who actually have this disease...
This led me to wonder hmm how much research did Yoon do, this is what I found:
"Well, exactly. How much research did you have to do on Maddy’s disease and all of the medical aspects involved with that?
So I did do a lot of research, but it’s not like a medical book. I didn’t enough research to know enough about it to know what she could and could not touch, the sort of practical things, but the book is really about living and not being sick, so all of the medical stuff doesn’t really come into great detail. It’s about what it means to be alive versus living."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/camryn-garrett/chat-with-everything-ever_b_8072968.html
Essentially Yoon did some basic medical research... what about talking and interacting with someone with this actual disease? What about asking them their thoughts on the twist?
This is made even worse, because Yoon is someone pushing for (admirably ) more diverse books; however, she seems unable to see how her very book is going against that desire, by erasing the real struggles and needs people living with disability have.
Overall I was extremely disappointed. I wanted to love this book, I loved the start, I liked the style, it was very hard to put down, but then all these issues with it pop up :/. I gave it 2 stars for the enjoyment I had reading it, but I do not think I will be recommending it to people.
For a second opinion, check out this review http://disabilityinkidlit.com/2015/09/04/review-everything-everything-by-nicola-yoon/
Honestly, I couldn't finish this, would not suggest it. It was a novel concept, and I thought it might keep the momentum going, but half way thru and I just don't care.
The plot stalled and other then the gnome and orc I don't really care for the characters.
The plot stalled and other then the gnome and orc I don't really care for the characters.