I wanted to like this book, I really did. At the beginning of the year, I thoroughly enjoyed KSR's Red Mars — five stars!!
Granted, maybe I just wasn'I wanted to like this book, I really did. At the beginning of the year, I thoroughly enjoyed KSR's Red Mars — five stars!!
Granted, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this book, but I'm not sure I ever would have been "in the mood" for this kind of story.
New York 2140 felt like the "smarter" (warmer) version of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" / an educational/fictional attempt at futurecasting what life would be like in NYC after major climate change.
A nonfiction book speculating on life in the future after climate change would have been much more palatable in my opinion.
This book felt like homework, and not the good kind. Like a wacky teacher trying too hard to be "hip." I couldn't care about any of the characters, and the "story" didn't really go anywhere. It was like an attempt at Seinfeld-ing a book, a book about nothing — minus the humor and fun.
I take it back, this book was most definitely a book about something. You might as well have been clubbed over the head with "THE REPERCUSSIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE!"
In summary, this book is basically like sitting in front of a terrarium you've violently shaken up and watching all the little creatures trying to adapt and survive. Not too exciting, excruciating in detail, and not much in terms of plot.
Should have been 300 pages, max—it might have been decent with literally HALF the content....more
As a big fan of Ryan Holiday, I jumped into the book a little prematurely after seeing it on this list: If You Only Read A Few Books In 2018, Read TheAs a big fan of Ryan Holiday, I jumped into the book a little prematurely after seeing it on this list: If You Only Read A Few Books In 2018, Read These. Even if I had read more reviews before starting, I'm not sure I would have been prepared for the drudgery and sermonizing that awaited.
One might say reading this book is a "character building experience"—as it is long, dry, and painful. In all fairness, the opening and closing of the book were not bad. It's the middle of the book, made up of eight chapters of exhaustive and rambling biographies that was most difficult to get through.
Although the Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Eliot, Augustine, and Michel de Montaigne portions were fairly interesting, they still tended to involve rather inane elements that seemed unnecessary. Many of the "brief" biographical sketches were so long winded, they simply felt like they were taking up space. Brooks discusses the personal weaknesses of 14 individuals from history, how they dealt with moral issues, and the guidelines they strove (or failed) to live by.
Attempting to illustrate his points through the lens of past lives seems like a cop out to me. At least half as many people could have been scrutinized. Why not just state your points, Brooks? Why beat these personal narratives to death and muddle the message?
Speaking of beatings, reading this book felt akin to some form of self-flagellation. Each mini biography, 100 lashes with a barbed morality meter. Save yourself misery and read the intro and the conclusion, which wraps things up with 15 numbered points for a condensed summary.
The Guardian called this book "a smug search for the roots of good nature" that gets hopelessly lost along the way and I have to agree. It meanders around and through religious elements, questions of character, and morality in a way that can feel preachy and judgmental.
Suffering is much discussed, but for me, it was my own that inspired the 2 star rating. Here's a taste of Dorothy Day's section:
"Day was unusual, maybe even perverse, in that she sometimes seemed to seek out suffering as a road to depth. She probably observed, as we all do, that people we call deep have almost always endured a season of suffering, or several such seasons. But she seemed to seek out those seasons, and to avoid some of the normal pleasures of life that would have brought simple earthly happiness. She often sought out occasions for moral heroism, occasions to serve others in acts of enduring hardship.
For most of us, there is nothing intrinsically noble about suffering. Just as failure is sometimes just failure (and not your path to becoming the next Steve Jobs), suffering is sometimes just destructive, to be exited or medicated as quickly as possible. When it is not connected to some larger purpose beyond itself, suffering strings or annihilates people. When it is not understood as a piece of a larger process, it leads to doubt, nihilism, and despair.
But some people can connect their suffering to some greater design. They place their suffering in solidarity with all the others who have suffered. These people are clearly ennobled by it. It is not the suffering itself that makes all the difference, but the way it is experienced ...
The first big thing suffering does is it drags you deeper into yourself. The theologian Paul Tillich wrote that people who endure suffering are taken beneath the routine busyness of life and find they are not who they believed themselves to be. The pain involved in, say, composing a great piece of music of the grief of having lost a loved one smashes through a floor they thought was the bottom floor of their soul, revealing a cavity below, and then it smashes through that floor, revealing another cavity, and so on and so on. The person in pain descends to unknown ground.
Suffering opens up ancient places of pain that had been hidden. It exposes frightening experiences that had been repressed, shameful wrongs that had been committed. It spurs some people to painfully and carefully examine the basement of their own soul. But it also presents the pleasurable sensation that one is getting closer to the truth. The pleasure in suffering is that you feel you are getting beneath the superficial and approaching the fundamental. It creates what modern psychologists call "depressive realism," and ability to see things exactly the way they are. It shatters the comforting rationalizations and pat narratives we tell ourselves as part of our way of simplifying ourselves for the world."
And so on and so on.
You get the drift. Honestly, this book was mostly about suffering and it did make me consider and question the depths of my own suffering in a new, and esoteric way.
_____
Quotes like this one:
"In the process of subordinating ourselves to the institutions we inhabit, we become who we are. The customs of the institution structure the soul, making it easier to be good. They guide behavior gently along certain time-tested lines. By practicing the customs of an institution, we are not alone; we are admitted into a community that transcends time."
... stoke my inner rebel and strike me as conservative non-progressive dogma. Interested in hearing other's take on this book....more
1) Genetically modified, 53-year-old vampire in the body of a young, amnesiac girl. 2) Octavia Butler, because,Reasons why I was excited for this book:
1) Genetically modified, 53-year-old vampire in the body of a young, amnesiac girl. 2) Octavia Butler, because, she's awesome. 3) My first experience reading about a black vampire.
Reasons why this book was a disappointment:
1) The POV is a young, amnesiac girl who never "remembers." (It got old, fast.) 2) According to my book club, several of Butler's other books are *much* better. 3) The most radical thing about the book was the "underage" sex.
Usually, I'm down for a tastefully written steam-scene, but the sex in this books was ... squicky. Yes, I know she was *really* 53 years old inside the body of a young girl (12-ish) ... but Wright (the man she sleeps with) ... he seemed pretty unfazed by it. Okay, Shori (the vampire "girl") has typical vampire powers to convince, but STILL ... It just seemed like it was scandalous for the sake of being scandalous, or maybe Butler had some kind of cougar fantasy?
This was the last book Butler wrote before her death, at age 58. Several women in my book club who are big fans of Octavia's feel that this book is so unlike her other work, and have really talked up Kindred and Parable of the Sower. Perhaps her declining health had some impact on her writing? I will give Butler another chance in the future, however, I do not see myself reading any more teenage-vampire dramas if I can possibly help it.
The Good:
Vampires in the book have mutually beneficial relationships with "symbionts" which I thought was *almost* kind of sweet at times, once you get past the age difference creepiness.
Shori's dark skin is the result of genetic modification to make her more resistant to daylight, which enables her to move about more freely than all of the other white-skinned vampires. This makes so much sense, I can't believe this isn't more common in vampire fiction.
Butler has an economy of words that can be elegantly simple and precise.
The Bad:
Simple prose, combined with a persistently amnesiac narrator, invoked frustration, mild irritation, and a YA-type feel.
The book started out decently enough: I was intrigued, and drawn in. As the book continued, it felt like watching a train wreck. The last 1/3 was painful ... ly dull, with a bunch of new (unnecessary) characters thrown in at the end which diluted the plot.
The court case. The last chunk of the book was a chore to get through. Vampire court proceedings— because vampires have rules too. It reminded me of one of the Twilight movies (I didn't read the books), but minus the action. Lots of talking, rules, and vampire history. Snooze fest.
— Read it if you're interested. I didn't hate this book, but I also can't see myself recommending it to anyone....more
Yet speckled with beautiful snippets of artful prose, scattered like diamonOne Word Review: Lugubrious
————
Also:
Painful! Cringeworthy, and irritating—
Yet speckled with beautiful snippets of artful prose, scattered like diamonds among the backcountry twang and sadness.
Clear similarities with Light in August, which I initially read because it's (supposedly) one of Stephen King's top 10 favorite books. Echos of Faulkner's distinct hillbilly twang can also be seen in King's Drunken Fireworks, which I also hated.
Questions:
Am I too young to appreciate this book?
Am I a snowflake?
Or does racism and misogyny get a pass because it “was a different time” back in 1930?
If it’s offensive, does that make it good because of the ability to evict reactions and call attention to the issue(s)?...more
{ Test, measure, pivot + case studies. } Book in a nutshell. No concrete methodology and elementary advice -- possibly a good book if you're totally c{ Test, measure, pivot + case studies. } Book in a nutshell. No concrete methodology and elementary advice -- possibly a good book if you're totally clueless and haven't actually started a business yet. ...more
[2021 Update: Not sure I've hated any other book quite as much as this one aside from maybe The Alchemist. When I see people praising it, it low key m[2021 Update: Not sure I've hated any other book quite as much as this one aside from maybe The Alchemist. When I see people praising it, it low key makes my blood boil. Probably says more about me than them though. Just too much "enlightened theology bro" for me.]
***Update: My most hated book of 2017. One year later, it still irritates me whenever I see it on lists like, “10 Life-Changing Tips From The Best Nonfiction Books.” ...more
Rating: 1.5 stars (1/2 for pure entertainment, like a train wreck)
As a female entrepreneur, I initially liked the idea of a book about a #GirlBoss eveRating: 1.5 stars (1/2 for pure entertainment, like a train wreck)
As a female entrepreneur, I initially liked the idea of a book about a #GirlBoss even if I wasn't sold on the title. Unfamiliar with the Nasty Gal brand, I had seen the hype around the book (Goodreads Best Business Books 2014) and am always on board for strong females discussing their success.
The first part of the book drew me in, and was relatively entertaining. I was surprised to learn the first thing Sophia Amoruso sold online was stolen (she used to steal a lot), and that she was once a dumpster diving freegan. She also believes in magic and planting wishes in her life via sigils and passwords.
It didn’t take long to realize this was not going to be the kind of book with any strong takeaways. The writing style heralds Mad Libs for blockbuster books, and the “advice” is irritatingly basic and inane (geared for millennial girls): “Be a nice person at work . . . If you are a total terror to work with, no one will want to keep you around,” “Life is short. Don’t be lazy,” “Being a girl is fun,” etc. Any time the word “ain’t” is used particularly makes my skin crawl, it seemed like she was talking to tween airheads, or was perpetuating one herself (“And the top of the chain ain’t gonna like it.”). The ditsy, magically successful fashion lady.
After she passed the “rags” portion of her story and got started on the “riches” ($250-million-plus), Amoruso started to come off, as a friend put it: "sounding like a condescending know-it-all.” This portion was difficult to get through, but was peppered with other female success snippets that broke up the pomposity.
Yes, it is a Cinderella story with social media, fashion, and monetary success—but at the end of the day, it’s just a marginally interesting, braggadocious tale. Post #GirlBoss (2014), Nasty Gal suffered layoffs, lawsuits, disgruntled employees, and Amoruso stepped down from CEO in 2015. She also was dropped from Forbes' Richest Self-Made Women when Nasty Gal filed for bankruptcy in 2016. It's not all bad news for Amoruso, she is producing an adaptation of #GirlBoss for Netflix in 2017.
Reading this, I felt at times I was being Punk’d. My favorite part was the end, and I would never recommend this book to anyone.
* Still, props to Amoruso for being a successful (no matter for how long) female entrepreneur. It was a bold move to write this book, and if you want to be rich, you've got to be a bitch.
“Bad bitches are taking over the world.” — #GirlBoss...more
Again, overhyped. Read it with way too high hopes, found it pretty cheesy, super fable-y, morals down your throat. A lot of common sense stuff, maybe Again, overhyped. Read it with way too high hopes, found it pretty cheesy, super fable-y, morals down your throat. A lot of common sense stuff, maybe good for kids 10-13.
Kind of sweet if you look at the big picture. Otherwise, meh....more
Another book I didn't understand the hype about ... Found it disgusting, irritating, and a bummer of a chore. But I finished it. Another book I didn't understand the hype about ... Found it disgusting, irritating, and a bummer of a chore. But I finished it. ...more
Loading...
