I really like the world, a few of the side characters, and a few of the twists. It does feel like some first time author stuff going on, possibly—the first book in particular has some weird stuff with women-women interactions around shaming. There’s no real stakes and the two main characters actually bug me sometimes...But they’re quick reads and pretty fun. It’s an endearing series that obviously means well. Mostly I see this as the foundation for setting up the series I really, really love: Six of Crows duology.

2.5 rounded up

This was tough to rate because the first third of it I liked quite a lot. It wasn’t what I expected at all and was very interesting and did some cool worldbuilding.

But then, once the excitement has settled, it’s back to a brand new love story I truly did not care about. Liked the new character, who I already knew from Six of Crows duology and King of Scars, and why I’m finishing this series despite being the least interesting instalment of the Grishaverse. This was long enough that my review would have been two stars, but for the last 2 chapters or so, when shit starts going again.

I don’t know where things would go from here, it’s genuinely an interesting question to me, so I bumped up my rating. I really don’t like that it basically used the same cycle from the first book... but also admit I want to know how it ends, especially given that I know some of it from reading other series that continually piqued my interest as to what happened.

The trap is loneliness

Surprisingly satisfying subversion of a classic tale. Really liked this.

Having read the two prequels... which you’re supposed to read last, but my library put first, a bunch of this was telegraphed already for me. Because this was published first it was a bit jarring going into something that sounds very dated when discussing science and technology. Terminology and hand waving ‘gadgets’ and things like that. And here I thought the prequels feel outdated with this stuff sometimes!

I did appreciate this clips along much better than the prequels, which are much, much slower. I liked the pacing of this way more. It’s still an interesting concept. It’s pretty clever plot wise. I just seem to grind against Asimov’s writing style and the fact that much of this is dialogue annunciated that problem for me. It was never a chore, but I was also never very invested, either.

The story hinging on like good = positive genetic traits felt super regressive and just poorly executed so that it was far more boring of a story compared to the previous two books. Though the prose are better overall. Still... you could see where she was going with it, value wise, and I think maybe where science was at at the time didn’t help her arguments. The ending feels all the more contrived because of it.

First two books felt very creative and progressive in its non-handhold content and ideas. I think I would have liked them more had I been younger. Third one felt pretty off the beaten and strays into problematic territory, though clearly has good intentions. Worth a read still, though. Quick and consumable, cerebral and often lands characterization.

A good time. Is it weird I’m surprised this is a children’s book? Feels like the concepts are more interesting and complex than others, especially for the 60s? I’m impressed.

The prose aren’t my favourite, probably down to appealing to young readers, and prose are a huge factor in my enjoyment. But I ended up sticking with it and enjoyed it anyways. Certainly blows the first HP book out of the water by comparison. Trusts the reader much more; better prose better plot better characterization. I can see why it’s so popular. I hadn’t ever heard of it before as a kid and wish I had.

I’m reading the trilogy, so will continue you on. A nice bonus from reading the trilogy is when I review the individual books I can look through all editions and choose the picture I like the best

Continues to be this weird-in-good-way mix of science and religion. I think when I was a kid and had a higher tolerance for religious themes and overtness, I’d have really been into this. Even still it’s interesting and I like the dynamics between the kids and at the attempt at embedding something of the author in the text. I’d much rather a book be about something then not, even if it’s got a pinch too much religion. I couldn’t handle Narnia at all, so this is much better than that at least, imo.

Holy crap. What a fantastic concept. Think Daisy Jones and the Six and The Final Revival of Opal and Nev, but a bit different in structure. Told from the point of view of the daughter of a polarizing photographer who struggles with her sense of self, motherhood, and the pull of her undying, first love: art; the arrangements of the narration bounce between multiple perspectives. Interviews, journal entries, and recollections of the “author” herself paint a picture that so often do not coalesce half as well as fictions like this one. Or even nonfiction memoirs, really.

But it’s especially difficult to make everything feel authentic because nonfiction that this masquerades as have to find an arc in a real life person, and can be really tricky to nail, imo. In this, because it’s fiction, it may be easier to draw the arc but you also have to craft it from multiple perspectives in such a way as to make the person feel “real”. Most of the time I shake my head reading memoirs and biographies because they are so rose coloured or biased in extreme ways. Numerous Jim Morrison ones come to mind, basically all of them, but the most recent one published last year also have that problem. So I just find it both such an interesting idea to take an oral history and kitbash it, while all of it being fiction, and an accomplishment.

I can’t go into too many non spoiler details as to why this feels authentic but the ending especially feels genuine in such a way that, in reality, I wonder if a non fiction story would get away with it, in the sense that the publisher would be okay with it. The dynamic between each character feels like any other family, and it has gorgeous prose. Had I been more smart I’d have snapped a few photos for quotes. It’s perfectly balanced and I’d go so far as to put it in my all time favourite shelf, along with, maybe, modern classics. Surprised this didn’t get more attention, to be honest.

I listened to the audiobook as well as read it, and once again these oral history types with full casts demonstrate the strength of audiobooks. Arguably the best way to consume them, although in this particular case, there are just such gorgeous prose you’d be left out there, too.

Started this because I’ve been watching Big Sky, which is based on this series, apparently. The show has been a really pleasant surprise. It’s way more inclusive than I expected and had some really fun twists. The show starts off at book 2 of this, so this is a prequel, I figured - only not really because two characters were in this book. I guess that means the show may remix the books into its own thing, kind of like The Magicians. I LOVE when shows do this instead of retreading everything exactly, but I’ll see when I start book 2 how much that holds.

Anyway, in terms of the book:
Met my expectations. A couple fun twists. Good narration. Serviceable prose, but still felt a bit like commercial fiction. Nothing wrong with that but I’m definitely a reader that gets a lot out of theme and prose, so it’s fairly hard for commercial fiction to hit my sweet spot. 3 stars, for me, is exactly what you’d expect out of a book, so everything worked for me, I found it a fast read and satisfying enough. It would have been more interesting if the plotting foreshadowed one particular twist better. There’s a few contrivances that feel like an effort to do so, but don’t quite land. But I plan on starting the second all the same.