Take a photo of a barcode or cover
thepurplebookwyrm's reviews
1071 reviews
Neuromancer by William Gibson
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75
Full video review: https://youtu.be/o0tEaWyayvc.
Summary review:
This was just fine. It is unfortunate that I read Neuromancer over too long of a stretch of time, because my mental health and executive function took a serious nose dive in June, and maintaining focus or the will to keep reading was very difficult. Still, I’m pretty certain I would’ve found it just fine had I read it under better external circumstances.
I basically sort classics into two broad categories: classics that serve as historical documents and help us appreciate the evolution of this or that branch of literature; and classics that retain their artistry, their capacity to engage the reader’s heart, and/or mind throughout time. Neuromancer, for me, is an example of the former. It was innovative, genre-defining, yes… at least from a world-building point of view, but there wasn’t all that much for me to chew on theming-wise. The characters were a bit whatever for me, as was the plot… especially given I’ve watched a fair bit of Cyberpunk: 2077 on stream, given I’ve seen The Matrix trilogy, the two Blade-Runners, etc… And the ending was also just… eh aight, whatever! To me too, which isn’t great.
For me, this was an alright 5.5/10, but no more. It has its place in the history of SFF literature , and its world-building "aesthetic vibes" were reasonably engaging, but that’s about it. I would thus only recommend this one if you’re interested in exploring landmarks or 'time-marks', as it were, of the genre or rather sub-genre – not on its own story-telling merits, if that makes sense.
Summary review:
This was just fine. It is unfortunate that I read Neuromancer over too long of a stretch of time, because my mental health and executive function took a serious nose dive in June, and maintaining focus or the will to keep reading was very difficult. Still, I’m pretty certain I would’ve found it just fine had I read it under better external circumstances.
I basically sort classics into two broad categories: classics that serve as historical documents and help us appreciate the evolution of this or that branch of literature; and classics that retain their artistry, their capacity to engage the reader’s heart, and/or mind throughout time. Neuromancer, for me, is an example of the former. It was innovative, genre-defining, yes… at least from a world-building point of view, but there wasn’t all that much for me to chew on theming-wise. The characters were a bit whatever for me, as was the plot… especially given I’ve watched a fair bit of Cyberpunk: 2077 on stream, given I’ve seen The Matrix trilogy, the two Blade-Runners, etc… And the ending was also just… eh aight, whatever! To me too, which isn’t great.
For me, this was an alright 5.5/10, but no more. It has its place in the history of SFF literature , and its world-building "aesthetic vibes" were reasonably engaging, but that’s about it. I would thus only recommend this one if you’re interested in exploring landmarks or 'time-marks', as it were, of the genre or rather sub-genre – not on its own story-telling merits, if that makes sense.
The Egyptian Myths: A Guide to the Ancient Gods and Legends by Garry J. Shaw
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
Positives:
- Very clear, tripartite structure:
--> Creation of the Universe/Cosmogony, Realm of Life/Divine Rule, The Afterlife
- Features information about major and minor deities both
- Goes into different cosmological accounts (one of which I'd never even heard of!)
- Gives a detailed account of the deceased soul's journey through the Duat (Egyptian Afterlife)
==> This all means I learned a bunch of brand-new stuff about Ancient Egyptian mythology, theology and culture! 😄
Negatives:
- The information was a little too dense at times...
- Which means it would have benefitted from being spread out more, into a couple of additional parts (and not just the three mentioned above)
- Additional and more singular focus should've been given to some of the deities mentioned in the book, and their aetiology as well
- I appreciate the sheer amount of information given about Ancient Egyptian theology, but given its rather dense presentation, it felt a little muddled and thus confusing in places.
Overall: good to very good reference – 7.5/10.
- Very clear, tripartite structure:
--> Creation of the Universe/Cosmogony, Realm of Life/Divine Rule, The Afterlife
- Features information about major and minor deities both
- Goes into different cosmological accounts (one of which I'd never even heard of!)
- Gives a detailed account of the deceased soul's journey through the Duat (Egyptian Afterlife)
==> This all means I learned a bunch of brand-new stuff about Ancient Egyptian mythology, theology and culture! 😄
Negatives:
- The information was a little too dense at times...
- Which means it would have benefitted from being spread out more, into a couple of additional parts (and not just the three mentioned above)
- Additional and more singular focus should've been given to some of the deities mentioned in the book, and their aetiology as well
- I appreciate the sheer amount of information given about Ancient Egyptian theology, but given its rather dense presentation, it felt a little muddled and thus confusing in places.
Overall: good to very good reference – 7.5/10.
The Greek and Roman Myths: A Guide to the Classical Stories by Philip Matyszak
informative
relaxing
medium-paced
3.75
Positives:
- Easy-to-follow structure
- Deities-centric presentation
- Points out specific elements of cultural legacy in the West
- Presents several heroic quests (including Atalanta's!) using the same base template
Negatives:
- Much more about the Greek than the Roman side of things
- Etruscan influence barely mentioned in relation to Roman mythology/theology
- Some deities deserved a bigger section
- A teensy bit more information about the aetiology of certain deities and myths would've been appreciated
Overall: good reference – 7.5/10.
- Easy-to-follow structure
- Deities-centric presentation
- Points out specific elements of cultural legacy in the West
- Presents several heroic quests (including Atalanta's!) using the same base template
Negatives:
- Much more about the Greek than the Roman side of things
- Etruscan influence barely mentioned in relation to Roman mythology/theology
- Some deities deserved a bigger section
- A teensy bit more information about the aetiology of certain deities and myths would've been appreciated
Overall: good reference – 7.5/10.
The Kaiju Preservation Society by John Scalzi
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
relaxing
medium-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
3.75
The Kaiju Preservation Society is exactly what I (more or less) expected it to be: self-aware entertainment for SFF nerds. Just like it says on the tin, the story features an NGO tasked with the study and ecological preservation of Kaiju, and centres on a cast of nerdy characters – with or without STEM degrees.
The plot isn't revolutionary in the slightest, the "theming" isn't there to turn any heads either, as that is clearly not the point. The characters are simply what the story needed them to be and the world-building... Well, I mean, this book isn't trying to convince the reader its ginormous beasties are the most plausible things ever, right – even the scientists in the story are kinda like "yeah, suuuure, that makes sense I guess?!" about their titanic charges. But, despite the fact I only very rarely read for sheer entertainment value, I loved this wild, alt-biology-fuelled ride, the many laffs it gave me, and the multitude of cheeky SFF references it threw my way. I see what you did there, and I approve! 😁
In terms of honouring "SFF nerd culture" and featuring silly "SFF humour", I was reminded of China Miéville's Kraken and Lev Grossman's The Magicians. However, if I legitimately had to pitch this book in terms of other works of fiction, I would more readily turn to cinema and argue The Kaiju Preservation Society felt like a cross between Pacific Rim (or Godzilla, or Cloverfield, I guess, though the memey aspects make me favour Michael Bay), Tropic Thunder (one my favourite movie comedies of all time) and The Big Bang Theory . Y'all make of that what you will, of course, but still I have to ask: how in the hell has this book not been optioned for movie rights yet?! 🤯
The plot isn't revolutionary in the slightest, the "theming" isn't there to turn any heads either, as that is clearly not the point. The characters are simply what the story needed them to be and the world-building... Well, I mean, this book isn't trying to convince the reader its ginormous beasties are the most plausible things ever, right – even the scientists in the story are kinda like "yeah, suuuure, that makes sense I guess?!" about their titanic charges. But, despite the fact I only very rarely read for sheer entertainment value, I loved this wild, alt-biology-fuelled ride, the many laffs it gave me, and the multitude of cheeky SFF references it threw my way. I see what you did there, and I approve! 😁
In terms of honouring "SFF nerd culture" and featuring silly "SFF humour", I was reminded of China Miéville's Kraken and Lev Grossman's The Magicians. However, if I legitimately had to pitch this book in terms of other works of fiction, I would more readily turn to cinema and argue The Kaiju Preservation Society felt like a cross between Pacific Rim (or Godzilla, or Cloverfield, I guess, though the memey aspects make me favour Michael Bay), Tropic Thunder (one my favourite movie comedies of all time) and The Big Bang Theory . Y'all make of that what you will, of course, but still I have to ask: how in the hell has this book not been optioned for movie rights yet?! 🤯
The Annals of the Terf Wars and Other Writing by Jane Clare Jones
Well, I'm autistic... so no I don't need to hang out in rooms full of people and make eye contact with a lot of humans to be happy. In fact, that's pretty much my idea of Hell, sue me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But yeah, this was otherwise a stellar read I would highly recommend!
dark
funny
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.75
Jane Clare Jones' book is a collection of elaborated upon tweets, essays, academic presentations and one... satirical play is it? About, well, gender-critical/radical/socialist feminism, its theoretical underpinnings and activist ramifications... and the misogynistic, homophobic and authoritarian alt-left clusterfuck we're in right now with regards to gender identity ideology. This clusterfuck has been developing over the past... 10 years or so-ish (with roots extending further back) and Jones goes into the history and whys of this development as well.
I loved the way Jones presented her, and a lot of fellow gender-critical feminists', arguments and really vibed with her style and sense of humour. She is intellectually rigorous throughout, but makes all of her points accessible. She is certainly pissed, and flabbergasted, like so many of us, but still manages to inject a lot of dark humour in her writing.
Jones is specifically trained/educated in French post-structuralist feminism and goes into what that means exactly, and how this relates to other branches of the post-modern philosophical tradition. This was absolutely fascinating, not to mention enlightening, to me. A lot of stuff makes a lot more sense to me now with regards to contemporary queer theory and academic "fuck-wittery". Judith Butler, the "empress" of queer theorists and gender identity ideologues, is torn to shreds – or rather her philosophical twaddle is torn to shreds – by Jones, but justifiably so as far as I'm concerned.
This was very nearly a 10/10 slam dunk read for me, so what's that -0.5 to -1 about you may ask? Eh, nothing that major ultimately, just slight divergences of thought and a desire for nuance, on my part, I felt was lacking from the overall analysis. To wit:
- I just think the Humanities and STEM need to cross-pollinate a bit more. Not that Jones displayed a truly bothersome lack of familiarity with the finer points of biology, mind you, but there were just a couple of specks here and there where I thought to myself "well, but ackshually...". Like the fact isogamous sexual reproduction is a thing; that sex hormones really shouldn't be bandied about the way they are by most people, it seems, because endocrinology really do be complex. Or that whilst yes, there does seem to have been a correlation between the emergence of agriculture and that of patriarchy, I believe the evidence points to a "necessary but not sufficient condition" type of deal for the relation (okay, that stuff is more anthropology I guess, so not the hardest of STEMy stuff either, fine).
- I really can't with the French philosophers, generally, for the simple reason 'them bishes got really drunk on psychoanalytic bullshit, and I'm not about that. And Jones identifies, somewhat, with that specific tradition, and thus adhere to what she calls "difference feminism", if I understood that correctly. Now, this does not, in fact, entail gender essentialism, which she articulates very clearly herself in a few of her essays or developed Twitter posts, but there was a certain point where I was nonetheless bothered by the naming of it. Because we all know people run away with the word difference to mean "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus". Though admittedly, this is more a PR problem than anything else. I'm also not quite fully on board with the idea that Patriarchy actually posits women... don't exist. I'm, once gain, pretty sure I understood what Jones actually meant when she developed that concept – extrapolated from French post-structuralist feminism – but it nonetheless sounds freaking off to me. There surely must be a better way of conveying the idea behind that jank-as-fuck phrasing.
- Finally, I thought Jones' very last essay was the weakest of the collection. I mostly agree with its general idea: that trans-humanism, aka mind-body dualism on steroids and crack combined, as an answer to humans raping the Earth (and thus nuking our own likelihood of surviving on it in the long-term), is pretty fucked in the head, let's be real. Especially given most of it is being pushed by techbros (and we all know how dodgy they can be). But the oh-so-slightly generationally-slanted mild Internet-bashing was a tad meh, and a smidge ironic given the author's own usage of Twitter. Yes yes, we're all familiar with the "touch grass" meme, alright? We get it. But the Internet can also, actually, foster human connection, especially for people like me so... Ease up aight? Just because I meet friends and/or partners online doesn't mean I, or anyone else, is on board with becoming a cyborg. I've read, watched, and played enough science-fiction to find the idea of a singularity-embracing cyberpunk dystopia thoroughly off-putting. And one can in fact be authentic on the Internet as well. Last I checked, not everyone uses filters on Instagram or YouTube – in fact my own video quality is pretty freaking basic and I'm perfectly content with that.
Additionally, the author's own take on metaphysics and sharply dualistic religion and/or philosophy is, well, her own, and tangential to broader gender-critical feminism in my opinion. I think a lot of that stuff is a lot more relevant when considering the later Greco-Roman world and Christendom, specifically, but not necessarily other pagan traditions, male-dominated or not. I'm not a transcendence junkie myself but I still find value in the mystical traditions of several religions that aren't exclusively rooted in a purely materialistic appreciation of existence. But, of course, to each their own there.
I loved the way Jones presented her, and a lot of fellow gender-critical feminists', arguments and really vibed with her style and sense of humour. She is intellectually rigorous throughout, but makes all of her points accessible. She is certainly pissed, and flabbergasted, like so many of us, but still manages to inject a lot of dark humour in her writing.
Jones is specifically trained/educated in French post-structuralist feminism and goes into what that means exactly, and how this relates to other branches of the post-modern philosophical tradition. This was absolutely fascinating, not to mention enlightening, to me. A lot of stuff makes a lot more sense to me now with regards to contemporary queer theory and academic "fuck-wittery". Judith Butler, the "empress" of queer theorists and gender identity ideologues, is torn to shreds – or rather her philosophical twaddle is torn to shreds – by Jones, but justifiably so as far as I'm concerned.
This was very nearly a 10/10 slam dunk read for me, so what's that -0.5 to -1 about you may ask? Eh, nothing that major ultimately, just slight divergences of thought and a desire for nuance, on my part, I felt was lacking from the overall analysis. To wit:
- I just think the Humanities and STEM need to cross-pollinate a bit more. Not that Jones displayed a truly bothersome lack of familiarity with the finer points of biology, mind you, but there were just a couple of specks here and there where I thought to myself "well, but ackshually...". Like the fact isogamous sexual reproduction is a thing; that sex hormones really shouldn't be bandied about the way they are by most people, it seems, because endocrinology really do be complex. Or that whilst yes, there does seem to have been a correlation between the emergence of agriculture and that of patriarchy, I believe the evidence points to a "necessary but not sufficient condition" type of deal for the relation (okay, that stuff is more anthropology I guess, so not the hardest of STEMy stuff either, fine).
- I really can't with the French philosophers, generally, for the simple reason 'them bishes got really drunk on psychoanalytic bullshit, and I'm not about that. And Jones identifies, somewhat, with that specific tradition, and thus adhere to what she calls "difference feminism", if I understood that correctly. Now, this does not, in fact, entail gender essentialism, which she articulates very clearly herself in a few of her essays or developed Twitter posts, but there was a certain point where I was nonetheless bothered by the naming of it. Because we all know people run away with the word difference to mean "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus". Though admittedly, this is more a PR problem than anything else. I'm also not quite fully on board with the idea that Patriarchy actually posits women... don't exist. I'm, once gain, pretty sure I understood what Jones actually meant when she developed that concept – extrapolated from French post-structuralist feminism – but it nonetheless sounds freaking off to me. There surely must be a better way of conveying the idea behind that jank-as-fuck phrasing.
- Finally, I thought Jones' very last essay was the weakest of the collection. I mostly agree with its general idea: that trans-humanism, aka mind-body dualism on steroids and crack combined, as an answer to humans raping the Earth (and thus nuking our own likelihood of surviving on it in the long-term), is pretty fucked in the head, let's be real. Especially given most of it is being pushed by techbros (and we all know how dodgy they can be). But the oh-so-slightly generationally-slanted mild Internet-bashing was a tad meh, and a smidge ironic given the author's own usage of Twitter. Yes yes, we're all familiar with the "touch grass" meme, alright? We get it. But the Internet can also, actually, foster human connection, especially for people like me so... Ease up aight? Just because I meet friends and/or partners online doesn't mean I, or anyone else, is on board with becoming a cyborg. I've read, watched, and played enough science-fiction to find the idea of a singularity-embracing cyberpunk dystopia thoroughly off-putting. And one can in fact be authentic on the Internet as well. Last I checked, not everyone uses filters on Instagram or YouTube – in fact my own video quality is pretty freaking basic and I'm perfectly content with that.
Additionally, the author's own take on metaphysics and sharply dualistic religion and/or philosophy is, well, her own, and tangential to broader gender-critical feminism in my opinion. I think a lot of that stuff is a lot more relevant when considering the later Greco-Roman world and Christendom, specifically, but not necessarily other pagan traditions, male-dominated or not. I'm not a transcendence junkie myself but I still find value in the mystical traditions of several religions that aren't exclusively rooted in a purely materialistic appreciation of existence. But, of course, to each their own there.
We want real rooms filled with real human laughter and the buzz of real human energy. We want to hear each other’s voices and look each other in the eye. We want to touch each other.
Well, I'm autistic... so no I don't need to hang out in rooms full of people and make eye contact with a lot of humans to be happy. In fact, that's pretty much my idea of Hell, sue me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But yeah, this was otherwise a stellar read I would highly recommend!
The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany
adventurous
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.0
Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter opens up in the land of Erl, with a council of elders petitioning their lord to bring magic into their territory. This, they believe, will bring them much needed notoriety – will put them "on the map", so to speak – and the lord in question grants their request by sending his son and heir, Alveric, off to Elfland to bring back and marry its princess, Lirazel.
This was an odd one. I mostly decided to read this because Lord Dunsany was a great source of inspiration for good ole Loveycraft, especially when the latter started writing speculative fiction. So, you know, when he wrote about the non cosmic horror-monstery bits of the "otherworldly". And Dunsany's tale certainly deals with the aforementioned "otherworldly", here incarnated by the parallel dimension of Elfland. It, I'm going to assume without having done any research to confirm or infirm said assumption, is loosely based on the Celtic or post-Celtico-British concept of Elfland, or the Realm of Faerie as the English would've called it (Elfland being more of an Early Modern Scottish designation if I recall my recently expanded history correctly – thanks to Mr Hutton and Ms Dashu for that).
However, Lord Dunsany certainly put his own spin on it. His Elfland felt a tad empty and, for lack of a better expression, "artistically frozen" at times. There are fantastical creatures besides the King and his daughter Lirazel, but this magical land felt a smidge sterile at times. It only really came alive when it was compared to living things such as song, or the play of light upon water and organic surfaces. Or when it was compared to dreams... and the lost memories and emotions of our own world, liltingly referred to as "the fields we know" in the story.
This "both/and" compare and contrast between our world and Elfland weaves in a delicate thread of theming on the magic inherent in life itself – something I appreciated and certainly respected. Though it needs be remarked that the world-building, as such, isn't watertight by any stretch of the imagination. I'm still not exactly sure what Elfland really was, to be honest. Christianity seems to exist but it's called "Christom", and there are a couple of off-key references to the real, real world, including a tangent involving the gifting of a unicorn horn to the Pope in the 16th century. Alright. So... is Erl supposed to be in England? Well, you tell me, because I honestly don't know. Thematically, there's also a very strong "be careful what you wish for" motif at the heart of the story, and it is the main provider of narrative tension... in a story that otherwise doesn't have much plot to speak of.
Which means yes, The King of Elfland's Daughter is fairly boring in places. This is not helped, at all, by the fact it is written with an overwrought (or too flowery, purple, use whichever word you prefer) prose style that over-indulges in unnecessarily long and lyrical descriptions. And given the very nature of Elfland as a place or concept, devoid of Time, it felt at times as if I was reading the elaborate description of a painting, not a story as such.
Still, I'll give a point for the fact that, as stories written in the 1920s go, this one felt different. Daring even, in a way. You have, for instance, a witch character who isn't portrayed as being evil – she's kinda neat actually! 😄 One scene shows a playful troll having a good time with pigeons – which was kinda cute. Lirazel, the princess of Elfland, is given a small measure of agency and keeps to her elfin ways despite the lamentations of her husband. And the very premise of a bunch of elders living in – I think – a Christian cultural context convening to petition their lord for an import of magic is, itself, a bit different, especially once again given the time period during which this story was written.
All in all, this means it was just neat enough to read this as someone interested, not only in SFF stories themselves, but in SFF literature and its evolution as a broader topic. And it is along those considerations that I would recommend it, or not. 😉
PS: I do think the story had a near-perfectly fitting conclusion as well.
Not cool hunting those unicorns though... 🥺
This was an odd one. I mostly decided to read this because Lord Dunsany was a great source of inspiration for good ole Loveycraft, especially when the latter started writing speculative fiction. So, you know, when he wrote about the non cosmic horror-monstery bits of the "otherworldly". And Dunsany's tale certainly deals with the aforementioned "otherworldly", here incarnated by the parallel dimension of Elfland. It, I'm going to assume without having done any research to confirm or infirm said assumption, is loosely based on the Celtic or post-Celtico-British concept of Elfland, or the Realm of Faerie as the English would've called it (Elfland being more of an Early Modern Scottish designation if I recall my recently expanded history correctly – thanks to Mr Hutton and Ms Dashu for that).
However, Lord Dunsany certainly put his own spin on it. His Elfland felt a tad empty and, for lack of a better expression, "artistically frozen" at times. There are fantastical creatures besides the King and his daughter Lirazel, but this magical land felt a smidge sterile at times. It only really came alive when it was compared to living things such as song, or the play of light upon water and organic surfaces. Or when it was compared to dreams... and the lost memories and emotions of our own world, liltingly referred to as "the fields we know" in the story.
This "both/and" compare and contrast between our world and Elfland weaves in a delicate thread of theming on the magic inherent in life itself – something I appreciated and certainly respected. Though it needs be remarked that the world-building, as such, isn't watertight by any stretch of the imagination. I'm still not exactly sure what Elfland really was, to be honest. Christianity seems to exist but it's called "Christom", and there are a couple of off-key references to the real, real world, including a tangent involving the gifting of a unicorn horn to the Pope in the 16th century. Alright. So... is Erl supposed to be in England? Well, you tell me, because I honestly don't know. Thematically, there's also a very strong "be careful what you wish for" motif at the heart of the story, and it is the main provider of narrative tension... in a story that otherwise doesn't have much plot to speak of.
Which means yes, The King of Elfland's Daughter is fairly boring in places. This is not helped, at all, by the fact it is written with an overwrought (or too flowery, purple, use whichever word you prefer) prose style that over-indulges in unnecessarily long and lyrical descriptions. And given the very nature of Elfland as a place or concept, devoid of Time, it felt at times as if I was reading the elaborate description of a painting, not a story as such.
Still, I'll give a point for the fact that, as stories written in the 1920s go, this one felt different. Daring even, in a way. You have, for instance, a witch character who isn't portrayed as being evil – she's kinda neat actually! 😄 One scene shows a playful troll having a good time with pigeons – which was kinda cute. Lirazel, the princess of Elfland, is given a small measure of agency and keeps to her elfin ways despite the lamentations of her husband. And the very premise of a bunch of elders living in – I think – a Christian cultural context convening to petition their lord for an import of magic is, itself, a bit different, especially once again given the time period during which this story was written.
All in all, this means it was just neat enough to read this as someone interested, not only in SFF stories themselves, but in SFF literature and its evolution as a broader topic. And it is along those considerations that I would recommend it, or not. 😉
PS: I do think the story had a near-perfectly fitting conclusion as well.
Not cool hunting those unicorns though... 🥺
Beautiful World, Where Are You by Sally Rooney
emotional
hopeful
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
Lo and behold, it happened again!
Sally Rooney's third novel features yet another quartet of emotionally entangled souls trying to figure their thoughts and feelings out, in isolation and with regards to each other. This shit shouldn't work for me... but it somehow does!
This time around, the story is told through two female points of view, Alice and Eileen's, best friends from University who are now in their early thirties (the characters are a teensy bit older in this one). The narrative alternates between long emails they write to one another, and "live action" chapters that follow each woman and the intimate relationship she develops with one of the two male characters: Felix, a man Alice meets on Tinder, and Simon, a slightly older friend Eileen has known since they were both children.
I appreciate the obvious maturation Rooney's writing style has undergone since <i>Conversations with Friends</i> and <i>Normal People</i>, and the greater depth of thought and introspection she gave her female characters here. This was really nicely illustrated by their "epistolary" chapters, and whilst I didn't always agree with said characters, I enjoyed engaging with their thoughts and feelings about contemporary society.
On the negative side of things, there was a rather info-dumpy "character backstory" chapter at the beginning of the novel that could've been smoothed out. I also didn't particularly vibe with a certain aspect of the story's ending, and this soured it a smidge for me - which is all the more disappointing given I think the endings to Rooney's two previous novels are essentially perfect (if bittersweetly ambiguous in the case of <i>Normal People</i>).
And there's just nothing for it: outside of Marianne (and even then I have a similar though lesser qualm with her), I don't really understand <b>why</b> Rooney's female protagonists are so... depressed? Existentially melancholic? Otherwise mentally unwell? Where is Frances', Eileen's or Alice's deeper trauma, or clearly established history of mental vulnerability? Or, fuck it, I'll say it outright: neurodivergence? 'Cause like I'll happily die on the hill of reading Marianne as autistic-coded, but I have also seen readers, here and there, make a tentative case for some or all of Rooney's female characters being neurodivergent. And I'm not <i>quite</i> as convinced, to be perfectly honest, though I'll grant they're clearly not "normies", sure. The thing is: a hard-to-define <i><u<something</u></i> just feels missing here, or perhaps <u>not sufficiently committed to</u>, in all of their psychological make-ups and backstories, for me to truly relate to their inner pain and struggle with life, love and the pursuit of happiness.
Still, there is indeed a lot for me to relate with, in the way these characters try and make sense of friendship, "romantic" love, and sexual intimacy. I didn't always agree with the precise conclusions they eventually reached, but I related to the <u>struggle</u> itself; to the very fact of not being able to simply understand, and thus follow, the standard narratives society presents us with regards to these things without at least questioning them, or pushing against their boundaries. There's also something about the way Rooney writes sex/love-making scenes that cuts straight to my poor broken heart – the emphasis on consent is also really, deeply appreciated.
So yeah, once again, I read a fair chunk of this book with tears running down my face, and it left me emotionally bruised overall. Congratu-fucking-lations, I guess!
PS: ever wonder if some cosmic entity is reading our life story as a book and screaming at us when we do dumb shit in relationships, just like we do when we read about characters in a novel doing dumb shit in relationships? 😂
Sally Rooney's third novel features yet another quartet of emotionally entangled souls trying to figure their thoughts and feelings out, in isolation and with regards to each other. This shit shouldn't work for me... but it somehow does!
This time around, the story is told through two female points of view, Alice and Eileen's, best friends from University who are now in their early thirties (the characters are a teensy bit older in this one). The narrative alternates between long emails they write to one another, and "live action" chapters that follow each woman and the intimate relationship she develops with one of the two male characters: Felix, a man Alice meets on Tinder, and Simon, a slightly older friend Eileen has known since they were both children.
I appreciate the obvious maturation Rooney's writing style has undergone since <i>Conversations with Friends</i> and <i>Normal People</i>, and the greater depth of thought and introspection she gave her female characters here. This was really nicely illustrated by their "epistolary" chapters, and whilst I didn't always agree with said characters, I enjoyed engaging with their thoughts and feelings about contemporary society.
On the negative side of things, there was a rather info-dumpy "character backstory" chapter at the beginning of the novel that could've been smoothed out. I also didn't particularly vibe with a certain aspect of the story's ending, and this soured it a smidge for me - which is all the more disappointing given I think the endings to Rooney's two previous novels are essentially perfect (if bittersweetly ambiguous in the case of <i>Normal People</i>).
And there's just nothing for it: outside of Marianne (and even then I have a similar though lesser qualm with her), I don't really understand <b>why</b> Rooney's female protagonists are so... depressed? Existentially melancholic? Otherwise mentally unwell? Where is Frances', Eileen's or Alice's deeper trauma, or clearly established history of mental vulnerability? Or, fuck it, I'll say it outright: neurodivergence? 'Cause like I'll happily die on the hill of reading Marianne as autistic-coded, but I have also seen readers, here and there, make a tentative case for some or all of Rooney's female characters being neurodivergent. And I'm not <i>quite</i> as convinced, to be perfectly honest, though I'll grant they're clearly not "normies", sure. The thing is: a hard-to-define <i><u<something</u></i> just feels missing here, or perhaps <u>not sufficiently committed to</u>, in all of their psychological make-ups and backstories, for me to truly relate to their inner pain and struggle with life, love and the pursuit of happiness.
Still, there is indeed a lot for me to relate with, in the way these characters try and make sense of friendship, "romantic" love, and sexual intimacy. I didn't always agree with the precise conclusions they eventually reached, but I related to the <u>struggle</u> itself; to the very fact of not being able to simply understand, and thus follow, the standard narratives society presents us with regards to these things without at least questioning them, or pushing against their boundaries. There's also something about the way Rooney writes sex/love-making scenes that cuts straight to my poor broken heart – the emphasis on consent is also really, deeply appreciated.
So yeah, once again, I read a fair chunk of this book with tears running down my face, and it left me emotionally bruised overall. Congratu-fucking-lations, I guess!
PS: ever wonder if some cosmic entity is reading our life story as a book and screaming at us when we do dumb shit in relationships, just like we do when we read about characters in a novel doing dumb shit in relationships? 😂
Lore Olympus: Volume One by Rachel Smythe
emotional
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
relaxing
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.25
Lore Olympus is a comic retelling, somewhat set in the present – or, at least, an urban environment – of the Hades and Persephone story within broader Greek mythology... and this first volume was perfectly enjoyable! The retelling leans primarily into cutesy, cheeky, and decently funny vibes – with a matching art style. There wasn't much in terms of emotional depth or theming, but I think there is potential there, given the slightly darker areas the story goes into at times. Either way, I think this comic series and I will get along just fine! 🙂
Saga, Vol. 10 by Brian K. Vaughan
adventurous
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
Yes, I still thoroughly enjoy this series, but just like with Monstress, I think I'm now going to wait until it is fully completed before I binge-read it all in one go.
PS:I'm kinda shocked Marko is like... Dead dead, dayum. 😭
PS:
Monstress, Volume 7: Devourer by Marjorie Liu
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.5
Much needed progression in the world-building/deep lore, new sites, character backstories, strong imagery and emotionally impactful moments centred on found family, trauma, sacrifice and loyalty.
Given the richness, or density, of this comic series, and given it is, well, a comic book series – which means each volume can be consumed in a short couple of hours – however, having to wait a year for each new bind-up is really becoming an issue for me. I'm strongly tempted to just temporarily DNF the series until it's completed and then just binge-read the entirety it. 🤔
Given the richness, or density, of this comic series, and given it is, well, a comic book series – which means each volume can be consumed in a short couple of hours – however, having to wait a year for each new bind-up is really becoming an issue for me. I'm strongly tempted to just temporarily DNF the series until it's completed and then just binge-read the entirety it. 🤔