Well if you're going to keep having them free on Audible, I'm going to keep reading them.
Although we are two for two with faith-less priests apparently attempting to build heaven on earth through good works alone so, you know, at least we've got some themes here.
Also some magic stuff in the background, which—on the one hand, WHY, but on the other hand, why not?
Actually, a lot of this book feels like it could be summed up with that sentence. Not in a bad way, just in a "this book is completely unaware that people don't usually write episodic love stories". 
Also I wasn't entirely expecting to read a 2014 defense of heretical church movements, but here we are. The love story was fine, but it was by far the least interesting part of the book.
This would have been a four, but was docked a star for how it handled Aelf, the non-speaking character.

I had totally meant to finish this earlier, but then my class happened and then the 15 other things I needed to do happened and, all in all, I obviously finished it on Yom Kippur.

Super-interesting. I landed in the rationalist/soloveitchikian modern orthodox jewish world without any older observant relatives so my knowledge of tkhines is particularly small, but it was fascinating to listen to Weissler discuss these texts and, wonder of wonders, talk about their meaning for her as a jewish woman not just reading them but thinking about her own spirituality.

*hangs head in utter shame* Would you believe me if I said I had forgotten how Christian this book is?
Because out of the silent planet was weird, but it's a specific kind of exploratory weird - Lewis is playing out Crescas's basic argument that a god who is good and delights in god's creatures would not confine intelligence to this one little ball of rock.
In Perelandra, he embarks on a project deeply familiar to Narnia readers and recreates the conditions of the fall. And what he does with it is WILD.
If OOTSP is me thinking "oh, we're not all that different", Perelandra is "Oh YES we are."
On the other hand, sucker-punching satan feels very Jewish.
Also it's delightful to revisit this book after 16 years, knowing what I know about Lewis and particularly his relationship with myths and mythology.

I think, though, that my reread of the Space Trilogy ends here. Like Highlander, some sequels are not speakable

So I was terrible at keeping up with my ratings and so here is my reward: not knowing when i finished this beyond "September".
And not having anything useful to say about it. Fox does her romances well and the quarter turn to the fantastic, as GGK would call it, was fun even if odd. Definitely enough to make me want to read Fox again. 

I think this book suffered from me trying to read it while on the burnt-out side of crispy and so it took ages for it to finally catch and hold my attention. 
I did really like it once it did, though, and both the mysteries and the characters really came to life.

I saw about half of this book coming and was very satisfied with that half and the other half I did NOT see coming and was also deeply satisfied with it.

Going along with my "how do you even rate theory", this book was absolutely fascinating, both in what it successfully does, in what it thinks it's doing and doesn't, and in what it has no interest in doing.
Frymer-Kensky's argument is two-fold:
1) Paganism was still patriarchy and goddesses is not the same as agency so you can't rediscover God's wife and think you've found egalitarianism.
2) While Tanakh upholds patriarchal structures, the women of tanakh are neither models nor stereotypes of femininity.
I feel like she's a little too willing to let some things slide, but overall makes a very intriguing and compelling case. She's also absolutely uninterested in justifying or condemning the text, which means she'll just analyze things like Pilegesh B'Giv'ah and then go on without feeling the need to opine that it's bad. Which is so odd to me even though I understand why she, as a critic of what the text is doing, doesn't feel obligated to comment when she agrees with the moral position the text is taking.

It's like the entire list of above questions were formulated for a book so totally unlike this one because whatever the heck it is Lewis thinks he is doing with this book, it's...idk, Tolkien would probably hate it. I kinda love it, weird as it is.

This book was such a delight and, like, the food metaphors for its a feast and tasty and, all true, but I think the absolute joy that Twitty takes in everything he does, even when its a joy tempered by pain or a joy in the face of everything, comes through so strongly in this book.
(Also I really wish the ratings for pace were "rare, medium, and well done" but I digress.)
The tashlich was my favorite, though.

I can't even talk about this book anymore, it's too formative.
And I've read all the pieces of it multiple times, but it's not a class if you aren't doing chazarah for it.