Could have been half the length, but I also appreciated that almost no claim was ever made without justification from one or many real world data sources and studies.
Feels like an overall weaker collection than Gaimans first two short story books. But I really enjoyed The Truth is a Cave in the Black Mountains and also Black Dog.
Way better than Starless Sea. Morganstern's dreamlike imagination is on full display, but the plot has enough substance to actually keep you engaged beyond the haunting environments.
Makes me want to read more, but isn't too satisfying on its own. I feel like 3 novellas packaged together might feel better. This is essentially premise/backstory and left me wanting way more of the interior challenge of being secretly sapient.
A quick-paced thriller that does a fine job of putting you yourself into the mind of "what would I do in this situation?" However, it's incredibly frustrating that our protagonists don't ask more questions of their captors despite being together for multiple days. I understand not wanting to talk a lot right away out of panic and fear, but the reality of their situation is that they spend dozens of hours with their captors (who are willing to explain themselves and try to multiple times) without asking specific, obvious questions about the nature of all of the captors' visions/feelings/missions. It felt like they weren't doing the obvious thing of talking through the scenario just because the story was meant to be mysterious.
Nonoffensive, and in a limited way inspiring about the ideal of self-actualization and self-assuredness, but extremely narrow-minded with a laughably cartoonish world that feels like a strawman world set up specifically to make Roark look like a noble, misunderstood victim. That makes it hard to take the philosophy seriously because it makes no attempt to examine its own claims with any nuance.
Like what might the person look like with the ideal ego but without Roark's literally flawless hyper-competence? What if Roark loved the work for work's sake, put it all into a building, and monumentally erred, like a building collapsing or it in real life flowing more awkwardly than he realized? It seems so easy to claim that a philosophy is correct and good when the only person acting under that philosophy is a genius visionary who can make literally no mistake in his work, even seemingly never struggling at all.
Glad I read it, because Ayn Rand is a meaningful part of the western "canon" but I can't say the philosophical content is more compelling than a Ted Talk on the value of self-actualization.
Like most non-fiction self-help books, it probably could have been condensed to a 20 minute TED talk. That being said, there's some great, actionable insight front loaded here.
Really enjoyed this, even if it meandered a bit. Finished strong. Circe is written very compellingly and complexly. I wouldn't be surprised if I re-read this some day.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
Alice In Wonderland vibes, and a bit too disorienting for me to really enjoy. I'm still unclear what the antagonist's deal was, and I retrospect I can't really even pinpoint any choices or goals of the main character. So much of the plot was just based around learning the lore of the world, but it felt ungrounded, stakeless, and arbitrary.