Take a photo of a barcode or cover
competencefantasy's Reviews (912)
It is what it says in the title. This is a highly detailed description of a particular siege. Everything in it is to serve this particular goal. The protagonist has a little arc about coming into leadership, and everyone else has characterization that is competently done but limited to what a commander would want to know. I'm still not sure if I think the plot was going anywhere beyond faction 2 wants to take a strategic point and faction 1 wants to keep it. The prose is tasty, but very military and to the point. The descriptions for the preparation for and then execution of the battle are the entire book.
I think the quality here is very high. The book is certain to be someone's cup of tea, but it wasn't mine. I found myself wishing for some more complicated interpersonal dynamics, a more involved plot, or some literary themes. It was just a little too much of the military elements compared to everything else for me. However, I'm well aware that's just a matter of personal taste.
I think the quality here is very high. The book is certain to be someone's cup of tea, but it wasn't mine. I found myself wishing for some more complicated interpersonal dynamics, a more involved plot, or some literary themes. It was just a little too much of the military elements compared to everything else for me. However, I'm well aware that's just a matter of personal taste.
This book neatly encapsulates a lot of problems I have with classic sci-fi. It is so well written, beautiful in its world building detail,full of interesting themes. However it really suffers in my eyes from how much it's a product of its time. It has that nuclear anxiety, post apocalyptic, retroactively anachronistic technologies feeling to it. That's just not for me, I'm afraid.
If it weren't for the racism...
When it comes to prose, Tarzan of the Apes ages well. It's highly readable, reasonably entertaining, and conceptually interesting. The question of nature versus nurture and how a blank slate human being would interact with and understand society holds up to this day. Sadly, the answer the story gives to this question does not. For example, Tarzan quickly picks up the concept of race and develops the idea that he is in a superior one, arguably with more ease than he picked up the concept of species! The interactions between Tarzan and a local tribe are cringe inducing as the well-born white man without any societal programming is consistently played up as smarter and more ingenious than the entire society he interacts with. Here too, the language finally shows its age. It may be a bit unfair to judge Tarzan by standards that do not belong to its time, but as a student of science I found it interesting to observe how concepts that we often consider logical and scientific (genetics versus environment) can get tied up in our imagination with sociological ones (race, gender). Much like a Disney cartoon that long after its creation offends with its overt racism, Tarzan is interesting not because we can now perceive it as offensive but because it typifies a world view that did not.
When it comes to prose, Tarzan of the Apes ages well. It's highly readable, reasonably entertaining, and conceptually interesting. The question of nature versus nurture and how a blank slate human being would interact with and understand society holds up to this day. Sadly, the answer the story gives to this question does not. For example, Tarzan quickly picks up the concept of race and develops the idea that he is in a superior one, arguably with more ease than he picked up the concept of species! The interactions between Tarzan and a local tribe are cringe inducing as the well-born white man without any societal programming is consistently played up as smarter and more ingenious than the entire society he interacts with. Here too, the language finally shows its age. It may be a bit unfair to judge Tarzan by standards that do not belong to its time, but as a student of science I found it interesting to observe how concepts that we often consider logical and scientific (genetics versus environment) can get tied up in our imagination with sociological ones (race, gender). Much like a Disney cartoon that long after its creation offends with its overt racism, Tarzan is interesting not because we can now perceive it as offensive but because it typifies a world view that did not.
Second read through 2023: I think my own mind may have been doing most of the word here. I found it more tedious than lyrical this time
This was absolutely beautiful.
First off, full disclaimer. I didn't read this for school. I think that has a lot to do with my reaction to it, as I think belaboring the metaphors would likely ruin it for me.
Also, some of my appreciation for this book may come from the way it speaks to my own current big fish struggles (I'm a graduate student), so take this with a grain of salt if you lack pointlessness in your life right now.
However, what strikes me the most about this work is its humanity. The characters, though they are in some ways kept unspecific to further the allegory, have a deep core of empathy to them that makes them feel very real. There is something deeply personal about this story that I admire deeply.
This was my first Hemingway, and I am eager to sample more.
This was absolutely beautiful.
First off, full disclaimer. I didn't read this for school. I think that has a lot to do with my reaction to it, as I think belaboring the metaphors would likely ruin it for me.
Also, some of my appreciation for this book may come from the way it speaks to my own current big fish struggles (I'm a graduate student), so take this with a grain of salt if you lack pointlessness in your life right now.
However, what strikes me the most about this work is its humanity. The characters, though they are in some ways kept unspecific to further the allegory, have a deep core of empathy to them that makes them feel very real. There is something deeply personal about this story that I admire deeply.
This was my first Hemingway, and I am eager to sample more.
The ideas of race and gender don't hold up but the theme of childhood does.
I found it an interesting exercise to read so closely after Tarzan. Both suffer from prominent antiquated attitudes and stereotypes. However Peter Pan fares a little better because those attitudes are less integral to the themes of the work. One imagines (and finds with some of the adaptations) that the most offensive attributes can be worked around, excised somewhat if not completely, without disrupting the power of the story.
The central theme of childhood comes across strongly and skillful. There's a nostalgic feel to reading this as an adult, as though the narration can return you to a younger age. There's a lot to reflect on, from the value, or lack of value, of maturity to the nature of imagination.
It's just a shame to be so often distracted by stereotypes and slurs.
I found it an interesting exercise to read so closely after Tarzan. Both suffer from prominent antiquated attitudes and stereotypes. However Peter Pan fares a little better because those attitudes are less integral to the themes of the work. One imagines (and finds with some of the adaptations) that the most offensive attributes can be worked around, excised somewhat if not completely, without disrupting the power of the story.
The central theme of childhood comes across strongly and skillful. There's a nostalgic feel to reading this as an adult, as though the narration can return you to a younger age. There's a lot to reflect on, from the value, or lack of value, of maturity to the nature of imagination.
It's just a shame to be so often distracted by stereotypes and slurs.
If you're thinking of reading this book but have limited experience with the time period in question, here's what you need to do. First take a short course on 11th century Scotland or the whole British Isles if you're feeling ambitious. Find and learn off the entire extended family of king Canute. Get hold of a good map of 11th century Europe and give it a good look over. Optionally learn off the major religious factions of the day and the names of the relevant popes. Then, congratulations, you're all set to enjoy King Hereafter.
This is a difficult one for me to review because I like to assess historical fiction on whether it says something interesting about the events or people it's fictionalizing. King Hereafter definitely does that. The issue is that it has such an accessibility problem you might never know.
The premise for the story is that Macbeth of Moray, the historical character behind Shakespeare's play, and Thorfinn the Mighty, another powerful person at that time, were not different people but instead the pagan and christian names for the same man. Dunnett uses this premise to make a lot of interesting points about identity, religion, cultural change etc.
However, if you read the above paragraph and didn't know why those two men being the same person would be interesting, Dunnett isn't about to help you out. There is an enormous amount of detail included, which lends the book weight and veracity, but it can be difficult to tell what is going to turn out to be important and what is merely the 20th proper noun on the page. Additionally, Dunnett writes with a heavy writing style with many very long sentences with too many clauses. The individual sentences are very well done, but it a row they make a sort of drone-like rhythm that could have used more variation. Together, these create an overall pacing in the book that lurches with each section, first going into a dreadfully slow exposition where everyone's land holdings, financial and military situations, marriage alliances, and personal allegiances have to be enumerated with detail that makes one long for a professor standing at the blackboard drawing on a map in colored chalk. Then, as the actual events play out, the pace picks up.
This is a difficult one for me to review because I like to assess historical fiction on whether it says something interesting about the events or people it's fictionalizing. King Hereafter definitely does that. The issue is that it has such an accessibility problem you might never know.
The premise for the story is that Macbeth of Moray, the historical character behind Shakespeare's play, and Thorfinn the Mighty, another powerful person at that time, were not different people but instead the pagan and christian names for the same man. Dunnett uses this premise to make a lot of interesting points about identity, religion, cultural change etc.
However, if you read the above paragraph and didn't know why those two men being the same person would be interesting, Dunnett isn't about to help you out. There is an enormous amount of detail included, which lends the book weight and veracity, but it can be difficult to tell what is going to turn out to be important and what is merely the 20th proper noun on the page. Additionally, Dunnett writes with a heavy writing style with many very long sentences with too many clauses. The individual sentences are very well done, but it a row they make a sort of drone-like rhythm that could have used more variation. Together, these create an overall pacing in the book that lurches with each section, first going into a dreadfully slow exposition where everyone's land holdings, financial and military situations, marriage alliances, and personal allegiances have to be enumerated with detail that makes one long for a professor standing at the blackboard drawing on a map in colored chalk. Then, as the actual events play out, the pace picks up.
This classic is much more readable than I remember it being in high school. Overall, I think it still holds up. The themes are well-executed and largely timeless.
However there are a few things that I want to take some time to consider more deeply, not necessarily as negatives, but because they do affect my reading of the book in the modern day. The first is that while Dickens clearly sympathizes with the people of France who were driven to revolution, he chose a (albeit disavowed) aristocrat as his protagonist and revolutionaries as his antagonist. This seems to speak a bit to his audience as while as how it can be difficult, even with good intentions, to write about these historical events in a way that avoid the risks of extending fear of the specific terror to anything one metaphorically links to them. The other is that to my modern eyes it seems clear that Sydney Carton is clinically depressed. This brings about some disturbing implications about how and when the book judges his life to have meaning and/or worth, especially when compared to his double's.
However there are a few things that I want to take some time to consider more deeply, not necessarily as negatives, but because they do affect my reading of the book in the modern day. The first is that while Dickens clearly sympathizes with the people of France who were driven to revolution, he chose a (albeit disavowed) aristocrat as his protagonist and revolutionaries as his antagonist. This seems to speak a bit to his audience as while as how it can be difficult, even with good intentions, to write about these historical events in a way that avoid the risks of extending fear of the specific terror to anything one metaphorically links to them. The other is that to my modern eyes it seems clear that Sydney Carton is clinically depressed. This brings about some disturbing implications about how and when the book judges his life to have meaning and/or worth, especially when compared to his double's.
I have a feeling that I don't really get this particular book. It is absurd to an extreme degree, with an overall ambience that feels like Alice in Wonderland crossed with 1984 and a Becket play. However, though I feel a little diminished to admit this, I just have no idea where it is going. There are definitely themes, for example individualism, reality, the nature of human relationships, fear of death, and the nature of social niceties. I suspect that the more I labor over the attempt to find meaning, the more I will like it. If nothing else it serves as an excellent template to project one's own existential crisis on. However, I find that a problem I often have with the absurd is especially magnified here. I can never quite decide whether the aspects I like are actually contained somewhere in the text or subtext, or if I'm giving the book undue credit for thoughts I happened to have on my own while trying to figure out what in the illogical world was even going on.