Once again, a book has fallen victim to not meeting Abby's extremely high expectations, and it's not the book's fault.

I picked up The Space Between Worlds because I thought it was a multiverse murder mystery and it sounded super cool. As it turns out, I just assumed it was a murder mystery based on the description and then got mad when it wasn't, so my opinion on this book isn't completely fair and I'm going to try to be as unbiased as I can because of that.
I haven't really read multiverse books before, so I was a bit scared going into it but the worldbuilding was actually fairly easy to follow. There are infinite universes, yes, but only 380 or so are similar enough to Earth 0 to be traveled to, and only if a person is dead in the universe they want to visit. The book mainly takes place in Earth 0 and Earth 175 (although there is backstory in 22). Most of Cara's other selves are dead and I assumed she would be trying to figure out why, but instead, it was mostly political rivalries and corruption within the company. The story had potential and the worldbuilding was cool, but it felt very slow to me and I also found the ending to be unsatisfying. The problems are sort of resolved, but it just felt like a lot of build-up for something that never came.
I also had mixed feelings about the characters. Cara is a very stubborn main character and I thought her backstory was very neat, but I didn't love her personality at times. As a "sorta" love interest, I found Dell to be a bit bland just because she was so aloof and we didn't get a reason until almost 30 pages from the end. There were also 8 different "Niks": Two Senior Niks, three Nik Niks, and 3 Adraniks (except one has a different name). Admittedly, I think the Adranik and Nik Nik dynamics between each universe were probably my favorite part because there was a fair amount of tension behind each introduction to a new character because I had no idea if I could trust them or not.
I think that The Space Between Worlds is a neat sci-fi book, but personally, I don't know if it was for me.
3.5/5

How do you know you've read a book too many times? When you look at the sentences in other languages and know exactly what they say because you remember google translating them the last time you read it.

In my defense, this is my third time (I think?) reading The Knowing. As a companion novel to The Forgetting, it focuses on the aftermath of society realizing they don't have to forget anymore...meaning they now NEVER forget.
The story takes place on another planet where people either forget everything every 12 years or they remember everything and are forced to relive their most horrific memories frequently. Samara is one of the Knowing, and she seeks a way to Forget the memories that haunt her. Beckett has just arrived on a new planet with the intent of exploring it. There's a fair amount of adventure, plenty of politics and betrayals, and just a tinge of romance. The beginning and the end are fairly fast-paced, although the middle can admittedly drag at times. However, the last 50 or so pages are incredibly fast-paced and I was on the edge of my seat because somehow I managed to forget how it ended.
The characters are relatively intriguing as well. The practical uses of Samara's memories intrigued me the most (she can tell time and temperature perfectly), and I thought her interactions with Beckett were neat, too. I liked Beckett mostly because of his interest in anthropology, and his sense of humor was good as well. Jill kind of got on my nerves from the beginning and I need to know how old Nathan is because I picture him as like 12...and he's clearly not. The other characters - specifically the Knowing like Reddix - were also interesting, but they weren't the focus of the story.
Fans of The Forgetting will enjoy the easter eggs in The Knowing, but it also functions as an interesting sci-fi story about healing from the past.

4/5

counting this towards my reading goal because I read basically cover to cover and that's a lot of pages

"'My name is Celaena Sardothien,' she whispered, 'and I will not be afraid.'"

Call me heartless, but The Assassin's Blade did not make me cry. Did it hurt? Yes. Is it my third time reading it? Also, yes (and I can't remember if I cried the last two times, but seeing as one of them was at Disney, I don't think I did). However, I intend to reread the entire Throne of Glass series, so there will be tears to come...
This book contains five novellas from Celaena's POV prior to the events of Throne of Glass, and I know it's supposed to be, like, fourth in terms of reading order but because I've read it before, I didn't care. For being a bunch of novels, the story manages to pack a bunch of emotional punches while simultaneously revealing so many easter eggs. It's definitely a worthwhile read for that alone.
I don't have much to say about the characters, either. Celaena will always be way stronger than Feyre (although I am over the trope of characters not realizing their love interest is in love with them). I think Sam is good as far as love interests go, and that's all I'm going to say because if you read it, you can probably guess what I'm feeling. I hate Arobynn and pretty much every other character in this book. Yrene is fine, and so is Illias, but all of the other characters can die, and I wouldn't care.
The Assassin's Blade is the emotionally damaging prequel to the Throne of Glass series, and I definitely recommend getting the pocket-size versions of the books so you can carry it around with you and be sad in public.

4/5

"Give me children, or else I die."

Just a few notes before I actually start some semblance of a "review": I read this book on my own accord (not for a class). This is the first "classic" I've read on my own. Therefore, I almost certainly missed a bunch of themes and nuances, and I apologize if something went over my head. Additionally, I thought my decision to read this on my own time would make me enjoy it more (as I have a tendency to initially dislike books that were assigned to me), but honestly, the experience was about the same; it just felt less academic, and my annotations - which I will include below - aren't very intelligent.

So, The Handmaid's Tale itself. I chose this as my first "on my own" classic to read, given the current circumstances involving reproductive rights for women, and while I am satisfied with it, I will admit that I think has fallen into the trap of Abby's Extremely High Expectations. And, as it seems to be with most classics I read, I like the concepts but not the execution.

"One detaches oneself. One describes."

This quote right here sums up the narration style for the novel, and something I struggled with. Almost the entire story is a series of observations, some of which have what I perceived to be little meaning in relation to the story as a whole. Do I understand why? Yes. Complacency is one of the themes of the novel, and by observing rather than analyzing or acting, Offred is protecting herself. She says at one point, "If it’s a story I’m telling, then I have control over the ending. Then there will be an ending, to the story, and real life will come after it. I can pick up where I left off." The narration is the only thing in this world that Offred has control of, and I really like that idea. While it's an interesting concept, it's not a super interesting read and the narration style was part of the reason I had to require myself to read a certain page amount each day.
That being said, I really did enjoy the themes and messages that this book expressed, especially regarding bodily autonomy. I'll include some of the quotes I bookmarked below:

"There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from."

"We were a society dying, said Aunt Lydia, of too much choice."

"Maybe none of this is about control. Maybe it isn’t really about who can own whom, who can do what to whom and get away with it, even as far as death. Maybe it isn’t about who can sit and who has to kneel or stand or lie down, legs spread open. Maybe it’s about who can do what to whom and be forgiven for it. Never tell me it amounts to the same thing."

"We are two-legged wombs, that’s all: sacred vessels, ambulatory chalices."

"You are a transitional generation, said Aunt Lydia. It is the hardest for you. We know the sacrifices you are being expected to make."

I won't ramble on for much longer, as I know there's nothing about this book I could say that hasn't already been said. This is one of the few classics I've read that I have relatively few issues with, and, especially in our current age, I think it deserves the recognition it gets.
I'm not going to give The Handmaid's Tale a number rating, as I feel like it's not fair to rate books of this kind for how much (or little) I enjoyed them, but all I'll say is that it's one of the few classics that I hope to reread some day.
Link to Libby Annotations

If I hear the pink sunset compared to cat vomit one more time, I am going to scream.

In my experience, the YA dystopias and sci-fis of the early 2000s are hit-or-miss for me; I either love them or hate them. Unfortunately for Uglies...it kind of fell flat for me. Maybe my expectations were too high, and I expected more social commentary than "ugly and intelligent good, vapid and pretty bad." Maybe I just didn't vibe with this book. All I'm saying is it's not a series I'm eager to finish.
The storyline is pretty simple and follows a lot of familiar tropes from the genre. Tally is an ugly, waiting for the day she turns 16 so she can be pretty and party all the time instead of doing...whatever it is uglies are supposed to do in their free time? Her new friend Shay invites her to join a rebellion, Tally says nope, and then suddenly the government is like, "hey, actually you're going to go spy on this rebellion for us because it makes sense to send a 16-year-old girl out into the woods with some spaghetti and a hoverboard." There was a fair amount of action in the last 25% of the book, but it wasn't enough to make up for Tally's annoying inner monologue. And as much as I like the implications of the ending, it doesn't erase the second-hand embarrassment I got when Tally just kept digging herself into a deeper hold.
I also didn't really like any of the characters, and I think it might have been the fault of the worldbuilding. When your setting requires your characters to either be stupid and hot or ugly and "morally-correct," it doesn't give a lot of room for interesting characters. I found David to be bland, Shay to be obnoxiously petty, and the rest of the cast to be equally two-dimensional. And, as I said before, Tally's inner monologue drove me nuts because her sense of morals is "wrong" until it gets changed in less than a minute, and that's literally the only character development she has. I think it would've been more interesting if the pretties actually engaged in interactions with the uglies so we could see the dynamics mix.
Uglies is an early YA dystopian novel about a world where beauty is the only thing that matters and a girl's journey in self-acceptance.

3/5

"This is what happens when you hurry through a maze: the faster you go, the worse you are entangled"(115).

House of Leaves is one of those books that a) I feel like I can't rate accurately because I'm an angry person full of pettiness and b) I feel like I can't properly review because I'm not nearly smart enough to understand half of the details.
That being said, I will still be offering my unwanted and mostly uninformed thoughts on this book.

So...what is House of Leaves actually about? The best way I can explain it is a film analysis with two sets of annotations...all on a film that doesn't exist, which brings me to the first thing I wanted to talk about: the framing narratives.
At its heart, this book is a story of a family that moves into a haunted house. However, this story is delivered in the form of a highly intellectual film analysis. And this film analysis is annotated by a man named Johnny, plus a set of "editors" who seem to be practically nonexistent. The book also has the possibility of adding a fifth(?) frame with you, the reader, should you choose to annotate or place yourself into the book (which I'll get to later).
In essence, it's confusing. It's meant to be a maze because the house that the book revolves around is a maze. It's full of dead ends and red herrings and twists and turns (literally forcing you to flip the book upside down). The film the analysis is based on does not exist, even in the context of the books. Both the editors and Johnny claim that Zampono (the man who supposedly wrote the analysis) made the whole thing up and quoted people who had never even heard of the film in the first place. Basically: nothing is real.

The Plot(s)
I'd like to devote the first main part of this review to the "plots" that the book follows.
In the middle of everything is the story about the haunted house and the family that lives there. Navidson, Karen, and their children move into a house that is measurably bigger on the inside than the outside, and it seems to shift in response to the family. I found this to be the most intriguing aspect of the book, and I surprisingly found myself caring for the characters somewhere along the line. This was probably the most "horror-y" part of the book, but the story itself didn't scare me (the implications and my own imagination did). While I've seen a few complaints about the ending, I honestly didn't mind it that much because I was just glad to be done with the book.
The next layer is Zampono's intellectually dense film analysis. Look, I've read flat-out research for school before. I've read analyses of books that are drier than the Sahara. But this book? It gave a new definition to "dry." I know it's the point. I know the book is supposed to make you feel bored. But for the love of all things holy...could the sections devoted to physics and building materials and random other tangents be any shorter? Please?
Past Zampono is Johnny, who is reading and annotating the film analysis because he wants to publish it? His annotations, however, are mostly details regarding his sexual exploits. It wasn't as dry as Zampono, but it was equally unenjoyable. I have to admit, about 150 pages in, I googled whether or not I was reading the book the right way and discovered that a handful of people say it's okay to skim Johnny's parts. So I did. Sorry, not sorry; I don't need to read about strippers and someone's mental breakdowns for 500 pages. I don't care that it adds to the story. I care that I finish and don't end up in the grippy sock home.

Format and How I Chose to Read the Book
I've seen formatting somewhat similar to this book before, which I'll talk about later, but I just wanted to explain quickly the method I chose to read this book.
When I first started House of Leaves, I was innocent, naive, and didn't expect to be so frustrated by the stupid book. I tried to read it in the way I believed was the "intended" way. Or, in other words, I tried to brute force my way through it by reading everything. That didn't last very long. I got bored. I got mad. I googled the answers like the not-critical thinker I am.
Apparently, it's sort of a choose-your-own-adventure. You pick what to read and how to read it. I read all of the main analysis, skimming through the footnotes that appeared to be citations and other irrelevant notes. I skimmed Johnny's stories because they apparently weren't super essential for the surface-level reading of the book. I wish I had chosen to annotate or devote more time to this book, but I went into it expecting a slightly dense read and not something that felt like schoolwork.
And, look, I did do some critical thinking. I tried to find meaning, and I know that, like any maze, there are dozens of paths and interpretations in the book. There probably aren't wrong answers. That being said, I probably found a way to misread this, so I'm only going to briefly mention my theories/thoughts.
#1) I don't know how to explain it, but it feels like the book is trying to blend the line between fiction and reality. In most books, it's easy to separate the two, but this one felt different. The film is fake to Johnny, just as Johnny's story is fake to us (the reader). But what if it wasn't? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but while reading, I asked myself if the film was maybe real in some sense (I obviously know it isn't). I don't know, it just felt like the book was intruding on my life in a way, which brings me to my other thoughts.
#2) The book isn't just a maze; it's a physical "thing" that parallels various objects in the story. The house is a mysterious puzzle to Navidson; the film is a puzzle to Zampono; the analysis is a puzzle to Johnny; and now, the book is a puzzle to us. Just as exploring the house becomes Navidson's obsession, analyzing the film becomes Zampono's obsession, and understanding the analysis becomes Johnny's obsession; this book is an obsession on its own, especially if the reader chooses to annotate, thus adding another layer to the narrative.
#3) This one is the most illogical, but I feel like, in addition to this book being an obsession, it brings out the worst traits in everyone. Navidson's obsession with the house leads him to isolate himself from his family and follow his own narcissism. Zampono's obsession with the film leads him to create a dense, nearly unreadable analysis to satiate his curiosity and build his ego. Johnny's obsession with the analysis makes him unstable and insane. Similarly, the book itself made me angry, stubborn, frustrated, and a dozen other negative things. It's just a hunk of pages, and maybe I'm reading too far into it, but it brought out the worst in me, too.
Please take all of these thoughts with a grain of salt. Someone else probably said them before me and they're probably somehow wrong, but it's just my ideas.

Final Thoughts
If you'll indulge my ramblings for a little longer, I'd like to conclude my opinions on this book.
Did I enjoy reading it? No. I hated every second of it. Was I happy that I finished it? Yes. Like any puzzle, I was happy I "solved" it. Would I recommend it? It depends, I guess.
The thing that draws many readers to House of Leaves is its uniqueness. However, I've seen many of its unique elements in other books that I enjoyed much more. Looking for unique physical formatting with upside-down words and pictures? Try the Illuminae Files by Jay Kristoff and Amie Kaufman. In the mood for a classic with framing narratives? The most obvious choice is Frankenstein. Want a book where you feel like a character? The Spear Cuts Through Water literally makes you one without the cringy-ness. For some reason you're looking for a book with footnotes? The Ruin of Kings has plenty, plus four interweaving narratives. The only thing this book offered that I hadn't necessarily seen before was the idea of a "maze" symbolized through the pacing, but I'm sure there are options out there.

To summarize all of this for you: I didn't really enjoy House of Leaves. I could be missing something. Maybe I'll reread it someday when I'm less of a snob. But, as of right now, it wasn't really a book for me, and for that reason (among others), I do not feel qualified to rate this book.

Okay, so Abby might have a new favorite fairytale retelling series.

Look, my cousin has been begging me to read Cinder for years, but I didn't actually add it to my TBR until I saw the author post art of the love interests from her series, and I am only slightly ashamed to admit that I chose to read this because of pretty pictures. That being said, I am once again learning that my cousin may or may not know my book tastes better than I do because I read this in less than 24 hours.
Essentially, the story is a Cinderella retelling but with androids, cyborgs, and evil moon colonists with mind control. Cinder is a cyborg and a mechanic, and after meeting Prince Kai in the market one day, she becomes embroiled in politics, plagues, and an evil queen's plot for world domination. While it follows the familiar "girl goes to the ball" pattern, I was surprised at how many subplots could fit into one story. There are plagues, robots, princely politics, and fast pacing to keep me occupied. I found the plot twists to be a bit predictable, but given this reads as younger YA, I forgave that (because I would not have seen it coming a few years ago). I'm also a bit mad at the ending because I didn't realize the series would continue Cinder's story and was expecting more closure.
I thought the cast of this book was very enjoyable to read about. Peony being a "nice" stepsister was unexpected, and I liked Iko as the family's android, too. I still have mixed feelings about the doctor. I really liked Kai (because I've always been a fan of princes with morals who just want to be green flags), although I wish we got to see more of Levana's manipulation of him, considering she has the power to; she just never really did. Cinder is an intriguing protagonist, given she knows about as much about her backstory as the reader does, and I thought her stubborn personality, mixed with her technological knowledge, was unique for a "Cinderella" character.
Cinder is the first book in a sci-fi series of fairytale retellings that promises action, intrigue, and characters you'll root for from beginning to end.

4.25/5

"She was Aelin Ashryver-Galathynius - and she would not be afraid."

Heir of Fire is the third installation in the Throne of Glass series, and going into it, I remembered literally 1 semblance of a scene and then misremembered the ending (leaving me emotionally unprepared). While it isn't my favorite book in the series, the last 10% is what made me continue to read the first time I read this series.
The reason I'm still not a huge fan of this book is because I'm not really a Rowan/Celaena fangirl...I found their scenes to be slower than everyone else's, and of the POVs, I dreaded theirs the most. That being said, I feel like not much happened in this book as a whole. Until the last 30% or so, the characters are mostly just slowly working towards their little goals, and it's not really all that interesting. I almost rated it lower than Crown of Midnight, but the ending spared it from that fate because it hurts so much.
As I said before, Rowan and Celaena are my least favorite of the characters. I think it might just be that I have an issue with main characters in half the books I read, but I wasn't drawn to them and their dynamics for the first half of the book. Aedion also annoyed me for a while, and I still think he's kinda bland. Manon, Abraxos, and the Thirteen are some of my favorites just because of their vibes and that they're not hyper-focused on romance, at least for this book. Dorian and Sorscha were my favorites in this, and Dorian is definitely better upon a reread? I don't know why or how. I'm also still a Chaol apologist, sorry not sorry. He's literally the meme about "you say you want complex characters, but you didn't try to understand him."
Even though Heir of Fire isn't my favorite book in the series, I think it sets up well for book 4 (which was my favorite the last time I read it), and I'm glad Celaena finally picked a love interest.

3.75/5
Link to Libby Annotations

I forgot how angsty and annoying Keefe is in this one...

Here are my notes on Neverseen, and note that there might be spoilers for this book and others in the series:
- (5) Dex's feet are smaller than Fitz's ... it's not relevant at all, but it's a thing
- (9) Alden really sent out a 6-year-old boy into the human world to search for some obscure 4(?) year old girl
- (43) Not Sophie stopping to talk about Hitler
- (56) "...and I'm sure you've heard how valuable Alvar has been to the Council" ... who's gonna tell 'em?
- (99) I hope Sophie realizes she isn't special for reading the entire encyclopedia by age 6 because I read two entire animal encyclopedias by the same age
- (124) How many tires did it take Keefe to take the oath? He never says, but he claims he got a message, so I assume he got it eventually unless he lied
- (146) So if cognates are, like, basically married in a sense, does that imply that Quinlin was third-wheeling with Alden and Della? Or was Della the third wheel?
- (198) Why would a Psionpath be dangerous?
- (221) Gisela couldn't have recruited Jolie because she only joined the Neverseen after she got pregnant with Keefe (15 years ago), and Jolie died/got recruited 17 years ago ... so it would've had to be Umber or some other secret woman
- (234) Why did Gisela want Keefe to be a Conjurer?
- (242) I'm starting a deep voice counter because so far, Keefe, Gethen, and Tiergan all have deep voices from what I remember, so here: Timkin is #1
- (303) So if Forkle had been Sir Astin all along, has he always played the role of a star teacher guy? Literally why?
- (314) I'm surprised that the Neverseen hasn't recruited a Beguiler yet because that could be SUPER powerful ... although I wonder if that and mesmerizing even work on Sophie because she's probably too special for that
- (317) Terik and Alina were the only two mentioned to help sedate Prentice, so either one of them could have applied that sopradine ... I have my suspicions of Terik because he tries to be so close to Sophie, but Alina would be so cool on the Neverseen
- (318) Why is Terik so sweaty at the prisoner exchange? Because he was carrying Prentice (who Tiergan holds like a baby, by the way), or maybe because he knows he did something wrong?
- (356) Deep Voice #2: Wylie (it's also intense)
- The theory about the Elvin world being a dystopia seems more and more true because they have the ability to help all the humans and they withhold it because of some old grudge
- (374) Also love how Dex's inception day is in 3 weeks, and someone better celebrate it or else (update: no one noticed or cared)
- (394) So Ruy was in Ambi, meaning he's indecisive and also thinks outside the box
- (470) Keefe probably just hates Tam because he reminds him of himself
- (474) Tam = fruity (implies Sophie isn't his "type")
- (481) Sophie notes that Terik looks ashamed of not knowing how this plague started, and she assumes it's because he and the Council knew, but what if it's actually because he's evil
- (492) Ruy's parents were the ones to turn him in to the Council; he got expelled at level 4 (14) right after he manifested; he is considered "irredeemable"
- (495) Blur apparently knows some technology stuff
- (515) Why can't anyone leap to Slurps and Burps ... because in book 1 Edaline and Sophie had to walk, and now they're walking again
- (532) I can't imagine that Vociferators are in high demand ... what good does someone who can make loud, ugly sounds do?
- (540) Terik shouts, "This is madness" at Fintan.. could he be playing good, or maybe he's genuinely confused as to why Fintan is revealing himself (if he's not familiar with the Neverseen's plans)
- (552) Ruy was still going to Exillium when he was part of the Neverseen (he was a part of it when Keefe was 5 or 6)
- (562) Not Alvar pretending not to know who Ruy is
- (571) Not Alvar flat-out teasing Forkle about how he knows where their hideout is
- (579) Why DID Lady Cadence loan Sophie her markchain?
- (596) Why was Dimitar just sitting in his throne room waiting for them?
- (621) Alvar was the youngest EVER to enlist in the Neverseen ... and he also throws Ruy under the bus here!
- (660) Alvar is worried about Ruy being alone at the hideout and doesn't want to be late
- (672) Is Magnate Leto Forkle's true form? Because he undoes his ruckleberries to turn into him