Scan barcode
realalexmartin's reviews
284 reviews
You Were Never Really Here by Jonathan Ames
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
4.0
Solid novella but why’d it end there 😭😭😭
Stories of Your Life and Others by Ted Chiang
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
For the most part, this was a disappointing read. I've heard incredible things about both Chiang as an author and this particular collection of short stories, but truthfully, I found many of them weak in character and with plots bordering on contrived. I did consider going through each of the stories one-by-one, but really, many of my issues were the same across the board, bar maybe two of the stories. These stories were "Tower of Babylon" and "Story of Your Life". These two stories were incredibly different yet they both achieved something that I think is necessary for short story writing, and that's understanding and successfully executing the scope of the story.
The short story only has a limited amount of pages it can use, so it needs to be in control of its scope to account for radical variables that can undo the logic of a story world as it interacts with the logic of the reader. This is especially true for speculative fiction. In novels, the author has the space and time to 'settle' the reader, ensure they are immersed into the world - this new world - using every new and old generic indicator. This is so much harder to do when you are ultimately only writing 40-60 pages within these worlds, which is why it's impressive when it's done successfully.
Admittedly, "Tower" had a bit of a head start when it comes to its world building and control of its scope as it was based on the original biblical myth. In the adaptation process, however, Chiang hyper-focuses on one persons perspective and outlines their journey and goalposts from the beginning. This allows the reader to build the necessary narrative expectations that is needed for Chiang to actively immerse the reader as they read. I thought the exploration of myth and the literal interpretations of the original mythological world to be fascinating, and the story never felt like it dragged, nor did it feel cut short. Again, this was a highlight for me.
For "Story", Chiang shows quite a bit of restraint in his scope, opting to limit the reader to a first-person perspective. This allows for the story to remain tight, focusing less on how the plot is affecting the world at large and more on how it affects the main character. With this, Chiang creates an incredibly strong emotional-backbone for the story that perfectly harmonises with the more technical and scientific aspects of the plot. I came out of this story with a profound understanding of how communication and interpretation interact with each other, something that I feel would've been lost if the story only focused on the arrival and extended stay of the Aliens. This story was my favourite of the bunch.
As for the rest of the stories, I found many of their premises or characters to be lacking. "Understand" started off okay, but devolved into what I can only describe as a 'battle of the nerds', with a plot that just spiralled out of control and a highly disappointing ending. "The Evolution of Human Science" was, quite frankly, a waste of paper. It was a three-page preamble to nothing, highly disappointing. "Hell is the Absence of God" was okay, but the premise felt a bit too contrived for my personal taste. "Liking What You See" was probably the worst of the bunch. It felt like a bad Black Mirror episode (I don't like Black Mirror) devised by a reddit user who was scorned one too many times by a woman wearing make-up. It completely undercuts its own premise by it simply not understanding that every person has a completely different understanding of what baseline beauty is. Its scope, which seems to be 'beauty' in general, is too large, meaning it can be easily contradicted by the readers own logic and interpretation of the issue. This is what I meant by large and uncontrolled scopes inviting "radical variables"; there's too much space for contradictory questioning by the reader to ensure clarity of meaning by the author. This story frustrated me on so many levels, and it did not help that it overstays its welcome by about 25 pages and the plot fizzles out to nothing. Rather than finishing the collection off with a bang, Chiang finishes it with a cloud of dirt hanging lowly in the air.
I've separated out two final stories: "Division by Zero" and "Seventy-Two Letters". Both of these had some technical merit I appreciated, the writing was mostly clean and their premises were mostly interesting. My issues largely stemmed from the fact that they were both buckling under the weight of their own technical and scientific exposition. "Division" set itself the impossible task of explaining the philosophy of mathematics to a general readership while also using it to actively tell its story. "Letters" spent pages and pages setting up its particular branch of nomenclature, with one scene in particular involving two characters explaining (at an academic-level) the intricacies of this (fantastical) version of nomenclature. My problem does not stem from me not understanding what they were saying - my problem is that the scope of both of these 'fields of study' were far larger than the story could handle, thus, it was far too large for the reader to be expected to handle. Both of these attempts at exposition served to further the plot, but failed to further the story.
I wanted to love this book, I really did, but I couldn't help but feel let down. I am no less curious to see what Chiang does when he writes in a longer form. Maybe his skills and imagination flourishes when he gives himself more pages to 'settle' us into.
The short story only has a limited amount of pages it can use, so it needs to be in control of its scope to account for radical variables that can undo the logic of a story world as it interacts with the logic of the reader. This is especially true for speculative fiction. In novels, the author has the space and time to 'settle' the reader, ensure they are immersed into the world - this new world - using every new and old generic indicator. This is so much harder to do when you are ultimately only writing 40-60 pages within these worlds, which is why it's impressive when it's done successfully.
Admittedly, "Tower" had a bit of a head start when it comes to its world building and control of its scope as it was based on the original biblical myth. In the adaptation process, however, Chiang hyper-focuses on one persons perspective and outlines their journey and goalposts from the beginning. This allows the reader to build the necessary narrative expectations that is needed for Chiang to actively immerse the reader as they read. I thought the exploration of myth and the literal interpretations of the original mythological world to be fascinating, and the story never felt like it dragged, nor did it feel cut short. Again, this was a highlight for me.
For "Story", Chiang shows quite a bit of restraint in his scope, opting to limit the reader to a first-person perspective. This allows for the story to remain tight, focusing less on how the plot is affecting the world at large and more on how it affects the main character. With this, Chiang creates an incredibly strong emotional-backbone for the story that perfectly harmonises with the more technical and scientific aspects of the plot. I came out of this story with a profound understanding of how communication and interpretation interact with each other, something that I feel would've been lost if the story only focused on the arrival and extended stay of the Aliens. This story was my favourite of the bunch.
As for the rest of the stories, I found many of their premises or characters to be lacking. "Understand" started off okay, but devolved into what I can only describe as a 'battle of the nerds', with a plot that just spiralled out of control and a highly disappointing ending. "The Evolution of Human Science" was, quite frankly, a waste of paper. It was a three-page preamble to nothing, highly disappointing. "Hell is the Absence of God" was okay, but the premise felt a bit too contrived for my personal taste. "Liking What You See" was probably the worst of the bunch. It felt like a bad Black Mirror episode (I don't like Black Mirror) devised by a reddit user who was scorned one too many times by a woman wearing make-up. It completely undercuts its own premise by it simply not understanding that every person has a completely different understanding of what baseline beauty is. Its scope, which seems to be 'beauty' in general, is too large, meaning it can be easily contradicted by the readers own logic and interpretation of the issue. This is what I meant by large and uncontrolled scopes inviting "radical variables"; there's too much space for contradictory questioning by the reader to ensure clarity of meaning by the author. This story frustrated me on so many levels, and it did not help that it overstays its welcome by about 25 pages and the plot fizzles out to nothing. Rather than finishing the collection off with a bang, Chiang finishes it with a cloud of dirt hanging lowly in the air.
I've separated out two final stories: "Division by Zero" and "Seventy-Two Letters". Both of these had some technical merit I appreciated, the writing was mostly clean and their premises were mostly interesting. My issues largely stemmed from the fact that they were both buckling under the weight of their own technical and scientific exposition. "Division" set itself the impossible task of explaining the philosophy of mathematics to a general readership while also using it to actively tell its story. "Letters" spent pages and pages setting up its particular branch of nomenclature, with one scene in particular involving two characters explaining (at an academic-level) the intricacies of this (fantastical) version of nomenclature. My problem does not stem from me not understanding what they were saying - my problem is that the scope of both of these 'fields of study' were far larger than the story could handle, thus, it was far too large for the reader to be expected to handle. Both of these attempts at exposition served to further the plot, but failed to further the story.
I wanted to love this book, I really did, but I couldn't help but feel let down. I am no less curious to see what Chiang does when he writes in a longer form. Maybe his skills and imagination flourishes when he gives himself more pages to 'settle' us into.
Flawless by Elsie Silver
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
Nothing of note nor anything rather appealing.
White Nights by Fyodor Dostoevsky
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
4.0
I get the hype
Just Friends: On the Joy, Power and Influence of Friendship by Gyan Yankovich
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
3.0
I went into this book not knowing much about the author or her intentions with what she wanted to say, I simply knew the title and assumed that this would be a deep dive into the complexities of platonic relationships. I cannot confidently say that this is what I read.
While it’s true that the book does discuss friendship, I would say it cast the net wide rather than deep, and this is where most of my issues lay. Yankovich relies on numerous anecdotal sources to inform her book, and while this isn’t objectively a bad thing (in the case of discussing friendship, it’d be impossible to not consider these perspectives) it does mean that the book turns towards a “self-help” type narrative over a critical discussion. At times, Yankovich seems to be giving/regurgitating advice on how to keep or make friends in the modern world, especially as adults. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, especially considering how popular the disaster of a book ‘How To Win Friends & Influence People’ is (a critique of this book would’ve actually made Yankovich’s work a bit more intriguing by the by) but this isn’t how the book sells itself. It sells itself as a study of how friendship is perceived in society, arguing for a reevaluation and further appreciation for platonic relationships. This argument cannot be made or won through interpersonal advice.
To give credit where credit is due, Yankovich does engage with many academic or academic-adjacent texts that do, at times, bolster her argument. But again, she casts her net wide, teetering just below the surface, and the book never truly falls into deep analysis and complex persuasion. I think one thing that is truly missing from the book is a critical analysis in how friendship is depicted and written about in art and other cultural mediums. In his essay “The Good of Friendship”, Alexander Nehamas discusses how difficult it is to represent friendship within art without leaning too far into romantic or familial tropes, pondering on how to sit comfortably within the ambiguity of friendship. I can see Yankovich benefitting from a similar type of analysis, especially towards the latter half of her book, with a analytical focus on why platonic relationships are difficult to represent in art naturally leading to a greater discussion on the perception of platonic relationships in society. But the discussion never seems to run this deep, and the lack of critical analysis disallows for this book to confidently argue its point.
The chapter on grief and loss in friendship was the highlight of the book. It had a perfect combination of anecdotal and critical sources, with a focus on the real-world emotional impacts society’s lesser opinion on platonic relationships has. This is where the book’s argument was at its strongest, and where I felt a persuasive convergence of emotional and analytical writing that went beyond self-help. I am also conscious that the intense emotional core of this chapter could also be colouring my perception of the chapter, but perhaps this is what I was craving for the entire book. As I found the text to be lacking depth, the inclusion of a chapter with an intense emotional core seems to make up for that lack while simultaneously highlighting the severity of this lack. Every other chapter seems to be working with a weaker core, or thesis, disjointing my investment to Yankovich’s argument. The chapter on grief stuck out because of its strong core, even though the strength of its core was not necessarily in its thesis, but its emotional impact. Had the book had a consistently stronger core, be it emotional or theoretical, I would not have felt the same sense of lack as I did while reading this book.
All in all, this book is for those who wish to know more about themselves and their personal relationship with capital ‘f’ Friendship. No more, no less.
While it’s true that the book does discuss friendship, I would say it cast the net wide rather than deep, and this is where most of my issues lay. Yankovich relies on numerous anecdotal sources to inform her book, and while this isn’t objectively a bad thing (in the case of discussing friendship, it’d be impossible to not consider these perspectives) it does mean that the book turns towards a “self-help” type narrative over a critical discussion. At times, Yankovich seems to be giving/regurgitating advice on how to keep or make friends in the modern world, especially as adults. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, especially considering how popular the disaster of a book ‘How To Win Friends & Influence People’ is (a critique of this book would’ve actually made Yankovich’s work a bit more intriguing by the by) but this isn’t how the book sells itself. It sells itself as a study of how friendship is perceived in society, arguing for a reevaluation and further appreciation for platonic relationships. This argument cannot be made or won through interpersonal advice.
To give credit where credit is due, Yankovich does engage with many academic or academic-adjacent texts that do, at times, bolster her argument. But again, she casts her net wide, teetering just below the surface, and the book never truly falls into deep analysis and complex persuasion. I think one thing that is truly missing from the book is a critical analysis in how friendship is depicted and written about in art and other cultural mediums. In his essay “The Good of Friendship”, Alexander Nehamas discusses how difficult it is to represent friendship within art without leaning too far into romantic or familial tropes, pondering on how to sit comfortably within the ambiguity of friendship. I can see Yankovich benefitting from a similar type of analysis, especially towards the latter half of her book, with a analytical focus on why platonic relationships are difficult to represent in art naturally leading to a greater discussion on the perception of platonic relationships in society. But the discussion never seems to run this deep, and the lack of critical analysis disallows for this book to confidently argue its point.
The chapter on grief and loss in friendship was the highlight of the book. It had a perfect combination of anecdotal and critical sources, with a focus on the real-world emotional impacts society’s lesser opinion on platonic relationships has. This is where the book’s argument was at its strongest, and where I felt a persuasive convergence of emotional and analytical writing that went beyond self-help. I am also conscious that the intense emotional core of this chapter could also be colouring my perception of the chapter, but perhaps this is what I was craving for the entire book. As I found the text to be lacking depth, the inclusion of a chapter with an intense emotional core seems to make up for that lack while simultaneously highlighting the severity of this lack. Every other chapter seems to be working with a weaker core, or thesis, disjointing my investment to Yankovich’s argument. The chapter on grief stuck out because of its strong core, even though the strength of its core was not necessarily in its thesis, but its emotional impact. Had the book had a consistently stronger core, be it emotional or theoretical, I would not have felt the same sense of lack as I did while reading this book.
All in all, this book is for those who wish to know more about themselves and their personal relationship with capital ‘f’ Friendship. No more, no less.
That Time I Got Drunk and Saved a Demon by Kimberly Lemming
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
3.75
The Inseparables by Simone de Beauvoir
challenging
emotional
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? Yes
4.5
I’m usually a bit sceptical of novels published posthumously, but this one is a true exception. I understand why Beauvoir might’ve wanted to keep this one to herself, be it too painful, too private, or even just not good enough (in her eyes) to share, but it’s truly such a magical little story that I am glad it was found and published.
H of H Playbook by Anne Carson
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
fast-paced
4.75
This is a masterful adaptation. By converging time so Ancient Greece and 21st Century North America intersect, Carson creates a world that is both unearthly and familiar at the same time. As a book itself, it is closer to art than just a novel, allowing for colour and shape to influence the impact of their accompanying words. Carson knows this story inside and out - reading this book is like watching Michelangelo work with marble.
I’ve seen a few other reviews mention Autobiography of Red and Red Doc>, and while, yes, you can see this as a spiritual third book in that series, it’s important to note that Autobiography and Red are adapted from a different source than H of H. For a true companion, I’d recommend reading Anne Carson’s Grief Lessons, particularly the introductory essay to the book, the introductory essay to her translation of Euripides’ Herakles, and of course her translation of Herakles itself.
On that note, I would not start here if you are new to Anne Carson’s work, it’s just a bit too avant-garde to be totally accessible. If you aren’t new to Anne Carson, this is required reading.
I’ve seen a few other reviews mention Autobiography of Red and Red Doc>, and while, yes, you can see this as a spiritual third book in that series, it’s important to note that Autobiography and Red are adapted from a different source than H of H. For a true companion, I’d recommend reading Anne Carson’s Grief Lessons, particularly the introductory essay to the book, the introductory essay to her translation of Euripides’ Herakles, and of course her translation of Herakles itself.
On that note, I would not start here if you are new to Anne Carson’s work, it’s just a bit too avant-garde to be totally accessible. If you aren’t new to Anne Carson, this is required reading.
Study for Obedience by Sarah Bernstein
challenging
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
This is an odd little book. It’s very rare to find a book that has an unreliable narrator quite like this one, especially because I’m still unsure if she actually is reliable or not. The story seems to take place within the subtext of the novel, like a gauze over the reader’s eyes. There’s details you can suppose, for example, the atmosphere of the novel is undeniably inspired by paganism and the occult, but it’s hard to say whether either of them actually exist within the novels world. There are no obvious generic fantasy indicators. but these details aren’t obvious, and perhaps purposely so. I do think, however, the lack of answers makes the novel all the more better, as it makes the reading experience, specifically what a reader would glean from the text, a lot more individualised. I also wish to mention that the atmosphere is unfaltering; a truly haunting air about this world, and an energy I just couldn’t quite shake. Loved it.
I guess my biggest qualm would be the writing style. While it does match the character, and for this I appreciate, the sentences were sometimes just a bit too long and I found my eyes glazing over a bit.
Overall, I’m glad I picked this up and I’m curious to see what else this author has done.
I guess my biggest qualm would be the writing style. While it does match the character, and for this I appreciate, the sentences were sometimes just a bit too long and I found my eyes glazing over a bit.
Overall, I’m glad I picked this up and I’m curious to see what else this author has done.