Justin

This is an example of a good story told poorly; what could have been a fascinating examination of the cultural dissonance between the Igbo tribe and English Imperialism is stunted by curt, short prose that stymies emotional investment. It is so interesting to see both sides have a point, have flaws, and Okonkwo - the protagonist of the novel - be a woman beater, child murderer, and still be a sympathetic character. There is no doubt that the ideas presented are enticing to discuss, but the discussion aspect is perhaps more interesting than reading it itself. There are no qualms with the story but rather how it is presented, with the content being glossed over or told so quickly that it doesn't allow for the reader to truly take in the depth of what the story is trying to convey.

More interesting to discuss than to read.

There is some controversy around this book surrounding the misinformation - but much of it is harmless, just leaps that Walker took for research. Such as his suggestion that lack of sleep causes cancer - which there is no evidence for that (but the point is that it is bad for your health).

But as an OT student, I knew most of the information already. There was very little new information, except at the end with anecdotes, and perhaps the political messages at the end calling for work reform. It is well written enough that the familiar information is enjoyable to read again, but this book does not go deep enough into the science for my liking. It talks more about the implications and results of the science of sleep rather than the neurological reasons. Too much theory for my liking.

I have done it - I have finally done it.

After somehow avoiding anything associated with the wizarding world -avoiding the books, the movies, having my only exposure being the iconography and the retconning controversy - I decided to read the books for the very first time, and faster than I usually read a book: I laughed, I re-read passages because I was so impressed with the prose, I was amazed with the detail of the world, I loved the characters, and I am one of the few in the world that can honestly say that I cried at the end.

Suffice to say, I loved Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. From the very first chapter, where Rowling hones in her inner Dahl and writes in such a bizarre and playful way, introducing us to the world through the eyes of a bigoted muggle - she gives the story a sense of wonder. She leaves details out, and that is due to the hurrying way she wrote this chapter, but it is with the ellipses of detail that makes the reader so intrigued with what is happening; it works so much better than starting off with the second chapter. Knowing that somehow Harry's life will change and he is destined to get out of his miserable home life is an excellent use of dramatic irony - it continues to make the reader want to know “what's next?”

That makes the reveal and Harry's adventures at Hogwarts that much more satisfying. Hogwarts itself is such an amazing setting so full of vibrancy and life that it becomes a character in the story; I wanted to know every detail of the place. It makes the general lack of plot for the first half more excusable, because you are so invested in the world that Rowling builds - you WANT the general lack of plot to keep going, to see what else Hogwarts has in store. But Rowling doesn't skimp out on characters in service for worldbuilding; it is as if she doesn't know how to make a boring character. Even from the briefest of cameos, there is always a sense of charm for each of each and every one of them - each distinct in their role in the story. The main trio themselves are likable - but become amazing in their selfless acts in the second half of the book. Even in the giant cast of unique characters and magic, they manage to be distinct in spite of that and I cannot wait to continue along their adventure.

So, in the span of five days (could have even been less if I wasn't so lazy) I became a fan of Harry Potter. I want to get every book in the series, don the scarlet robes and declare myself a part of team Gryffindor and hop onto a broomstick and play Quidditch. The book is just so full of imagination and wonder that I can't possibly see how can she top this - but knowing the reputation of the subsequent books in the series, I can't wait to see her do just that.

This must be one of the most important books I've ever read; every sentence in this book felt so profound, as if I had to have a new perspective on life. Yes this man was thoroughly gifted (if him being a well read neurosurgeon with great emotional intelligence didn't say otherwise), but this book is more about how one could face death with integrity - even in the worst days of his own life, it could be filled with so much beauty and tenderness.

As a fan of the first volume of the series, which took me by surprise considering the (in my opinion) lackluster start - I was anticipating reading this, preparing myself for the wildly imaginative macabre world Gaiman crafts. And on that front he delivers, expanding the scope of the world.

But where the story faulters is Rose, the teenage girl who happens to be the vortex to the dream world. She was much too passive to be an interesting character, and the story suffers because of her lack of compelling traits. She loves her brother, but it only serves as motivation rather than something essential to her (which is seriously brushed off by the end). It is such a disappointing follow-up considering the great character in the previous volume.

The story is so dense with its ideas that it becomes cluttered. And while the story does somehow wrap up in a satisfying way, it has its highs and lows in getting there - suffering from a meandering story and inconsistent pacing.

I enjoyed this volume, but my hype for volume 3 of this series has waned a bit. Unfortunate, because the art and creativity behind this is awesome.

A little disappointed in this - aside from a few entertaining scenes, it doesn't seem like this is a classic that is well worth reading again (which apparently, Twain himself agrees vastly preferring the sequel which is more fondly remembered). It's pretty aimless as to reflect the tedium of every day life in a southern town, but it's not exactly the most entertaining - even with the spin of the children's POV. The subplots are entertaining enough, but it just feels like a series of vignettes with an overarching plot thrown in. There is however an interesting villain that they throw in, but there's not much development in that regard.

It's just good.

A few years back, I picked up Invincible even knowing the caveat of how slow this started. But I dropped it even without completing it due to how frustrated I got and now, re-reading this after watching through the amazing first season of the show, I still see why I dropped it and I don't blame myself for doing so.

But only if I got to issues 10-13, where things got to pick up, and then I would have at least mustered the interest to continue because this book starts off rough: Mark Grayson begins to get his powers and thus is now lectured by his father - the most powerful superhero in the world, the famed Viltrumite: Omni-Man.

It is an all too familiar set-up because it is. For a superhero deconstruction, it leans heavily on the tropes of a young superhero getting their powers for much too long without varying it up. It sacrifices what little amount of pages it has for dry humor instead of developing the plot, almost as if it doesn't take itself too seriously. We've seen this done ad infinitum in Spider-Man: it wasn't new then and certainly it has played out now to the point that I dropped it.

It also rushes by the plot too fast. When the big moment happens, it almost doesn't seem like it makes much of an impact due to how fast it goes. Whether that is due to the strength of the writing or the constraints of the pages it all feels rushed. It doesn't seem like Kirkman knows what to do with it because things continue as normal, maintaining the campy tone of coming of age superhero despite something sinister going on. It could have leaned into this factor (like the show does) but it seemingly ignores and downplays the impact, even rushing past moments that I expected to have longer impact but it just doesn't. So many opportunities to build the world and explore the character's emotions - but it just doesn't. The story lacks the emotional depth it has become known for.


Reading this again, it becomes clear to me that the show is the superior version of this story: making changes that improve upon how the horror is, shuffling the order of events to play up the horror and drama, and giving depth to characters that were barely mentioned in the story. As I was reading it, I could not help but unfavorably compare it to the adaption that does nearly every single aspect better, brought to tenfold with the brilliant voice work and animation from the crew. It elevates the story that I once dismissed as being standard fare into something else entirely.


To conclude, this story is fine. It is all too familiar until the very end where it all makes sense, but takes all too long to get there without much substance leading to it. So much of it feels dated, following trends in humor that feel dated. However, I'm reading through the second ultimate collection and it seems that Kirkman acknowledges his mistakes and improves upon everything. So let's hope that things get better.

All these short stories are so full of imagination and questions for humanity. When the weak link is the titular story (a story that is beloved by nearly everyone, so I may be the odd man out here) - and even then that is great, the collection is quality.

Anyways here are my reviews on each story:

Babylon - HOLY COW. That was an awesome story. Even though it was a familiar Biblical story, the way it was told was so fascinating and tense. Brought life to a familiar tale. 10/10

Understanding - Like Flowers for Algernon, but on crack with supervillains. It was good - just a bit too long and loses the novelty of a normal man becoming smarter and gets too absurd. I don't know if it was supposed to be funny or not, and I also don't know what the message was. But it was fun. 8/10


Division by 0 - yeah... probably the worst story so far. Lovecraftian Math that drives someone insane? It had some interesting moments of empathy for someone losing their sanity, but overall, this was just not that interesting. Good ending though. 5/10

Story of Your Life: the movie adaptation is ever so slightly better. So much of this story was just bogged down with describing the logistics and the sequences of the child were a bit too long. It's just good. Don't know why this is the story that got the most attention, but I still enjoy the concept. 7/10”

72 Letters - This was a good story, it is just dense enough that the concept is intriguing but it works well as a thriller too. Awesome ending. 8/10 (Evolution of Human Science - makes for good flavor text for an entire world, but it's a 5 minute short story elaborating on a concept from the previous story. Basically an epilogue)

Hell is the Absence of God - 10/10. Scientifically accurate religious miracles and still maintaining the mysteries of religion? Amazing stuff. This is personally my favorite story thus far and probably one of my favorite stories of all time. Just all around really interesting in how miracles would have implications in the real world and how complex it would be to deal with them

Liking What You See - really interesting concept and it's mostly just a giant “What If?” if people developed a way to remove the brain's ability to see attractiveness. And while it's light on story, it's up to you to think if this is a dystopia or a utopian technology that will dramatically improve society. 9/10

This is not a poorly written book, but one that is just simply “not for me”. It is just written so plainly, without divulging into the depth of the character that it makes for a dry reading. Everything is so surface level that it saps away from any emotional investment from the character aside from his relentlessness in catching a fish.

This is my second and probably last attempt at reading Hemingway; his style does not fit my personal taste. I understand that this is all a part of the ice berg theory, where so much content is left vague and left for the reader to figure out, but it does not make for an enjoyable read.

Oh 90s comic book art. Overly detailed and sexualized. You'll know a comic is from the 90s once you see it.

I've heard that Nightwing was supposed to be a superior hero to Batman. After reading this, I still don't see it. I'm willing to attribute the lackluster quality to its age however as it falls into many familiar tropes that I'm tired of seeing, but made worse by trying to make this seem like the most cool and dangerous thing as the 90s loves to exemplify.

However, I am interested in seeing more of the setting. There are many things that in concept could work really well, just here were not executed as well as it should have been. It goes out of its way to distinguish itself from the Batman mythos by only having small appearances from Drake (Robin III) and Wayne as an integral part of the story without overstaying their welcome. If I do have to commend this for something, I appreciate it trying to be its own thing without resorting to needless fanservice. Maybe it improves later on - but I'm not interested in continuing this series specifically. Perhaps I will become a Nightwing fan later on in my life.

Brilliant play, where it starts off as just a mere domestic drama about grief and the weird relationship of a man going after his brother's fiancée after he passes; it is almost innocent enough where I expected it to merely be about just that. But Miller then begins to twist the knife before stabbing me repeatedly by the end. I was floored by the audacity of the play to kick me while I was down and not have it feel gratuitous.

Honestly sort of hated reading this initially; its heavy emphasis on parentheticals and slapstick that seem to be better acted out than to be read. It's a bit weird, confusing as to what it is even trying to do, and the dialogue runs in circles. But upon further analysis and reading this, my appreciation for it has increased with its surprising philosophical depth that derives from just two people waiting for someone who doesn't exist. Beckett purposely made this as absurd as possible, intending for the audience to be so confused as to what they're even supposed to feel in the moment. Nothing in the play makes sense, and it is almost impossible to make any sense as to what is happening - if even anything has happened at all.

Still, it doesn't make for the most entertaining read as I just felt like I was missing out on all the fun stuff. Slapstick isn't nearly as funny in my head than to see other people do it themselves on stage.

Normally I give books I dislike the benefit of the doubt when they have such a high rating; maybe I'm not astute enough in the literary sense or maybe I just have not reached the age yet when I can assess something critically when I don't like it. I am human. I am prone to error. My opinions may not have enough nuance, especially when they disagree with the general consensus that Starship Troopers is actually a good book. A great one. A literary classic even.

But believe me when I say it: this is THE worst book I have ever read. Period.

And unless I deliberately go out of my way to find a book that is worse than this, this book will remain to be one of the most unpleasant, condescending, and agonizing experiences I have ever had with a book. This book is pure militaristic propaganda and going in with knowledge around the debate of whether this was actually a satire or not should have been more than enough to signal me to avoid this book.

I usually never finish books I don't like. Life is too short for that but I decided to stick with it to really justify my opinion. My attention waned and I don't feel like I got all the nuance due to my mind glazing over words, sentences, and sometimes paragraphs - but this time around I was a masochist.

To avoid the book's politics is to avoid this book entirely. This book was written in response to Heinlein objecting against Eisenhower's decision to cease testing on nuclear weapons in 1959 and coinciding with Heinlein's health related discharge from the military, not allowing him to see combat he decided to make sure he got a taste of it by writing about it, making sure to infuse his politics within it and make this pro-recruitment propaganda that the US Army came around to recommend years later.

This book follows the story of a young soldier in the future (“Johnnie”) as he goes from a reluctant man who yearns to join the military despite facing disapproval at home to a super competent military officer in the face of an endless war against evil bugs invading their planet.

But really, the premise for this book may as well be cited for false advertising. This book never needed to be science fiction in fact. Aside from fighting a future war with powered armor, this book barely has anything to do with high tech. You would expect some grand epic space battle - but getting to that point is an excuse to spend over 70-80 pages (or basically half) dedicated to boot camp and how it operates.

Not necessarily a bad thing, boot camp is the best part of the movie Full Metal Jacket. So you would assume that this would build character and give depth to worldbuilding, my criticisms of this be damned. But that's the thing: it doesn't. So much of the book is dedicated to the day to day routine of boot camp; the importance of the food and being able to sleep in any condition. Or marching. Or hearing about how officers try to justify their cruel punishment is not a violation of the 8th Amendment and how they are forced to whip their men when they don't want to.

Much of this is just an excuse for the author to go on tirades as to how veterans should be the only people eligible to vote and participate in democracy and hold a job. Much of this is an excuse for the author to explore false conflict as Johnnie struggles to continue and dedicates an entire chapter (!) to thinking about the pros and cons of being a soldier. Society collapsed because parents didn't punish their children enough, not because of a massive energy crisis, political corruption, or an economic recession. No, because this generation is bad unlike the previous generation which had no problems whatsoever.

There are no characters in this book, there are simply mouthpieces to espouse propaganda. They go on speeches, monologues, and soliloquies about how great it is to be in the military and why we should cower and quake before soldiers and let them run the government. We can't forget about how a lot of it is just talking about how the military is organized into platoons and squads, just a whole lot of exposition and false conflict that leads to more exposition.

The protagonist isn't this cool everyman we relate to and see him become strong, we see him instead do guard duty and eat dinner. We hear about the cool stuff rather than see it. His character arc into macho man isn't given the depth it needed because surprise! - it's not given enough time.

If there is some merit to it being science fiction, it's that the enemy is a bunch of faceless bugs without a motive. Sounds like Heinlein's trying to purposely dehumanize the enemy and make them out to be monsters. Because war is always justified when you cannot reason with the enemy!

This is a book in the way that you could put two pieces of bread together and call it a sandwich. This is just a collection of words together that was vetted by the US Military to enlist with the occasional reference to space thrown in so you don't realize you're reading a 250 page pamphlet.

Capote finds humanity in such a senseless, cruel tragedy of a quadruple homicide of a family in an otherwise innocuous small town in America. From exploring the different perspectives involved in the case - the police, the people, and the perpetrators -he not only weaves a compelling narrative of a seemingly impossible task of capturing murderers with almost no clues, but manages to engender empathy for everyone involved: the criminals included.

Without sensationalizing or glorifying their actions, Capote gives insight into how they came to be through carefully researched documentation and interviews. It is not a way of engendering sympathy for these men, as for every ‘sympathetic' trait Capote includes, he is quick to remind the reader of their depravity - but it is his way of asking the reader to understand what made these men act the way they are, whether it was a stroke of bad luck or the way they are. It is through the inclusion of juxtaposing traits and tragic history that plague these men, that Capote only offers a complex question that has a subjective answer unique to the reader. Are these men born of sin or are in need of guidance? Capote takes no sides, but gives only the facts needed to understand the question asked.

The prose in this novel is so masterful, immersing me in the story almost forgetting that these were not fictional people in a fictional world; filling the environment with so much detail, giving many individuals personalities to flesh out the community that was rocked by such a horrific disaster. The most minute of details are given notice by Capote, with prose that weaves in exposition masterfully within the story. His research is evident, but his passion for the story even more so, as the story pours with detail without feeling overabundant.

Isn't life disappointing?

In Orson Welles' movie Citizen Kane, it opens up with a broad overview of the central main character Charles Foster Kane and the grandiose life that he lived - from birth to death, he lived in a mansion, with a life of notable achievements that has cemented his place in history. This entire sequence spoils all the events of the story, giving a broad overview of the events of a man we have yet to meet with only the knowledge that the “public” would already know. Yet, the movie soon jumps backwards in time - ready to give the same information again, but this time with tender nuance that now paints that information in a different light. What once seemed to be a great life, now becomes something that's lonely and pitiable once we truly see it for a second time. It's not the broad accomplishments in a man's life that defines his greatness - it is the tiny details that now turn his life into a tragedy.

John Williams' novel Stoner is perhaps the opposite of this - opening up describing William Stoner, a man who left no tangible mark on the world after his death and no notable accomplishments to remember him with, whose students did not hold him in high regard and who the faculty seldom spoke of. He never rose above the rank of assistant professor and wrote a singular book - perhaps forgotten by now by the many others, lost in the annals of time. Perhaps many would say his life was a failure - and perhaps many would ask, why is this our protagonist? He is not a man with a sad backstory that contrasts and humbles him, nor is he a man of great figure that we want to become. He is simply a man; a man who aspired for very little, but failed in the end; a man who stayed in one place his whole life until his death. There is very little distinguishing this man from any other man I would pass on a street and not give a second thought to. Perhaps, that is Stoner's greatest strength: it lies within the fact that it is a true reflection of life, without deluding itself into something grander, and not despairing itself into something less. Stoner is a love letter to an unremarkable, boring life - one that is as rich as any life can be.

Despite its dedication to reflecting life, it does not compromise its readability; is able to ride the fine line between verisimilitude and entertainment, somehow making the most mundane of events and observations feel almost like an epic. It achieves this through such excellent prose that does not beg to be looked at; it is bereft of fancy vocabulary and instead opts to make these sentences flow in such long sentences, with such natural rhythm. Beautiful in a way that is invisible - like a guiding hand that turns your head to see something you otherwise would have missed - and devastating in the way that there is a constant through line of tragedy that is never mentioned.

Despite tragedy striking, life simply goes on. Throughout Stoner, there is a sense of cautious optimism in the face of unplaced grief and melancholy. It is never unrelenting to the point it is overly depressing, but it is just real enough that it is never truly resolved. Just as it is in life, sometimes it is best to move on. It may not be fair or right, but it is just how the world is: a series of events, apathetic to how one might feel in the end. It captures so many of the tiny little hurts and disappointments of life, with the sparse moments of happiness that are perhaps fleeting. Never have I read a book that captures what it's like to be flirting with the idea of suicide that comes from mundanity or the realization of their replaceability without entering the realm of clinical depression. It is a pain that is relatable because it is a thought that enters everyone's minds. But it also makes the beauty in this book that more profound, juxtaposed with the quiet misery. Life is a balance of both - an entirely human experience, grounded in one man.

William Stoner is deceptively a simple character - one that may be passive and just a vessel to see through the world. He is instead a man of quiet resilience and stoicism that he becomes almost heroic in spite of tragedy. He has his faults and consistently makes mistakes that are of naivety or impulsivity, but above all he maintains his identity, never letting the world around him strip him of his identity and passions. He is a good man - full of love that is mishandled and thwarted - who lives in a world that is concerned with grander things. Equally fascinating is the troubled marriage between him and Edith - an unstated, passively crumbling nature that causes them both much strife. There is an unspoken tragedy of circumstance as to how it happens. Is it a relationship carried on by apathy and unstopped inertia? Or perhaps it is the many successful blows of unrequited actions that culminate in lost love? Many of the other characters are brought to life with so few words - each given an entire implicit backstory, full of depth that has yet to be explored. Even the antagonists feel so real - they are not evil, just people that do not like Stoner for relatable reasons. Just like life.

This is the kind of book that has to be read to be experienced - there is no way I could sell someone on the premise that this incredibly niche genre and setting could be something so profound where not much of note happens, but Stoner is beautiful, able to weave the words to make something that feels almost life-changing in how authentic it is. It is one of those times where I wish a book was longer; it is not often that I read a passage and scramble for a highlighter after re-reading it many times over just to make sure what I was reading was as great as I thought it was, only for it to be actually that good. It somehow makes the mundanity of life so thrilling - keeping me on the edge of my seat for petty disagreements- and so well paced that so many pages go by that I really didn't know how much time has passed. Even though it does not provide the answer as to what the true meaning of life is, it makes me appreciate what life could be.


My only gripe is that it uses the phrase “had had” and “that that” almost as if Williams goes out of his way to do so. >:(

It starts off with a bang and ends off with a whimper, with such an incoherent and terrible story line that doesn't know what to do with itself. Even to an unfamiliar reader, the portrayal of Batman just feels...wrong. Nearly every character interaction aside from the Joker just feels so shoe horned into a mess of a story; it bends over backwards trying to include as many Batman references as it can in the madhouse, but it ends up being ridiculously convoluted without any payoff.

But the art is great; it captures the grotesque imagery as well as putting the reader into the POV of insanity, with such garish colors that are hand painted. It does go overboard at points, where it becomes so macabre that it borders on self parody - but the art remains consistently good.

Still, this was not the comic book I wanted to read after my hiatus. Disappointing at the very least.

I'm not one to discredit entertainment made for children so quickly, but needless to say I was a bit disappointed with the world renowned classic The Little Prince. Maybe I'm a cynic or an overly analytic reader, but to say that I got more than mild enjoyment from this book would be a lie.

The book starts off projecting what it's going to be like for the next 80 pages, of how growing up sucks and that creativity dies with it. Not a bad message, but it is the book's hill to die on with almost every page of the book repeating that same message. There is no nuance to it or any reason stated that adults become this way, they just do. Almost the entire beginning of the book is just dedicated to the prince going to different planets that represent the worst parts of adulthood in a disparaging way. Which is representative of the book's worst problem: its structure, which lends to awkward pacing problems that even with its small amount of pages - still goes on for far too long at some points.

The book does however stick its landing with its other (much stronger ending) about making something (or someone) meaningful, which lends itself to such a strong, poetic ending.

I'm probably not the target audience for this, but I just didn't find the magic in The Little Prince like everyone else on earth did. Maybe I do belong on the planet of those who have forever lost their imagination.

It's a great story told in a dated manner, but still a very engaging read. Through the lens of today, I have problems with the parts that are just merely summarized and the Greek chorus - but at its core, the story of a vengeful goddess (who is never seen) playing with the lives of her subservient men, shines through.

The concept and the story are so good, it's just that Lovecraft gets lost in these lurid descriptions that it slows the story down. Especially in the third chapter where it is incredibly difficult to read due to his decision to make it nigh incomprehensible dialogue from a drunk.

His writing style isn't for me, so much so that after reading the Wikipedia plot summary to clarify some points my appreciation for the story shot up. It got to his points quickly, and actually left much more of an impact on me than the actual story did.

Go figure.

It could just be a case of me being unable to appreciate Lovecraft's style as much as others. It could be me just being stupid and taking multiple days to finish a short novella.

The book was originally written as a screenplay, evident in McCarthy's restrained prose allowing for action and story to take center stage. The story itself is basic, stripping down the genre conventions down to its basic tropes and its archetypes (the psychopath after the money, the old cop, and the action survivor) but playing them straight, deconstructing them by taking them to their logical extreme when placed in a real world. It depicts senseless violence and nihilism so bleak and extreme that it becomes a critique of the genre as a whole. No matter what their intentions may be, they cannot escape their fates. Anybody could die, and McCarthy finds a way to balance the macabre as to not make it gratuitous; every death means something upon analyzing the text. There is more nuance to the story than what appears on the surface; every character acts as a symbol commenting on McCarthy's worldview of society.

What really stood out to me was the way that McCarthy wrote: seldom any run-on sentences, with as little as punctuation as he can fit. It does make for slightly confusing reading as when it pertains to dialogue, but it works as for what he is going for: restraint. It imbues a sense of urgency to every sentence, as he starts incredibly late in the story - within pages of introducing Moss, he finds the money that everyone is after; Chigurh immediately is committing murder; Bell, though the slowest, finds the crime almost as soon as the plot happens. It calls for a style that enhances the urgency of the plot, no time should be made to distract with prose or descriptions of scenery. The style of minimalist sentences enhances the suspense, making use of dramatic irony and relying on only bits of information given.

However, my only complaint pertains to something outside the book: the adaptation, in which in my own personal case, I believe does it better. The movie is doggedly faithful to the book, translating seamlessly to the medium without much compromise. But what the Coens excise from the book actually serves it better, less being more. Especially true in the ending, where the book just drags that while the film wraps up as neatly as it could.

In my experience of watching the film first, I couldn't help but compare throughout my reading; I should judge it by its own merits, but my brain is a jerk like that. It only slightly lessened my enjoyment. No Country for Old Men is still a masterpiece nonetheless, brilliant in its subtle critique of the world and being a masterclass in suspense.

Repulsive.


Deconstruction of the superhero genre by making them snobbish or even vile is not a new concept, something that is being done ad infinitum in this current age of superhero media. But Garth Ennis takes this concepts and tries way too hard to be a new voice in the age of superhero deconstruction at its own detriment. I understand what Ennis was trying to do by making the superheroes as disgusting as possible but he practices no restraint in showing at least a little bit of humanity in it. Most of the content in the book could have been written by a middle schooler and I would have believed you as nearly every single page has reference or full display of sex, drugs, and violence without nuance. It is indulgent in the guise of being a deconstruction of the superhero genre and barely qualifies as an attempt. Regardless of the in-universe justification, everyone is an awful human being who gets off on being as awful as they can, and the story revels in the disgusting edginess and has the gall to be smug about it.


Ennis has been vocal about his distaste for superheroes and that is fine, and naturally it would bring into fruition a series that deconstructs the essence of superheroes. But it is not an excuse to have every single character be awful, where the only sympathetic people are the manipulated victims of superheroes, and spout these awful things. I get that content in a story is not the author endorsing their views, but the line blurs when even the sympathetic people scoff at homosexuality and play it as bad as sexual assault and pedophilia. Or when sexual assault is played as a joke. Maybe if there was a shed of humanity like a foil character that was actually a decent person that wasn't walked all over for it, this story would at least have some credibility. But as for now, this story doesn't mean to explore what it would be like if top superheroes were evil; it exists to be as offensive as it can be.

There is more to this story than being a self-indulgent bitter and edgy echo chamber, but it becomes hard to see that when every single line of dialogue mires itself in such moral filth. It is possible to have a genre deconstruction without resorting to avoiding any attempt at pathos. I get it what he's trying to do - but the end result is repulsive.

Anyways, I've heard the TV show changes up a lot from the books so I'll be gladly watching that.

The Golden Compass fails to build off the momentum it once had; a once promising fantasy adventure that leads with the impression of a sordid and macabre journey across an icy landscape fails to become anything more than a dollar store brand of it. Full of fantastical concepts that are failed to be sufficiently explained, the world within the novel is shallow and half baked, with concepts that don't make sense coupled with a story that lacks a creative flare to it.

The most prominent concept in the book are creatures called Daemons, who are extensions of a human being that follow them around. However, a concept of a companion is stretched so thin without significant explanation as to how they operate within society, the emphasis that Pullman places on them is baffling. These creatures speak and have human like traits, but lack any resemblance of a personality; it is impossible to gain sympathy for these things because Pullman barely talks about them. They should be significantly overpowered, with the animals of children being able to shapeshift into anything - that is almost never used. Their importance is contrived and forced because Pullman makes no attempt to make them interesting. Pantalaimon, the protagonist's Daemon, is useless - there is not a single point in the novel where I can say that he comforts her in any significant way, and yet we are told about their bonding, but never feel it emotionally. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the plot literally didn't revolve around this asinine concept, expecting us to be horrified around the revelation of what the villains to them - only they explain the ramifications within the same paragraph.

What do Daemons even do? It shouldn't be hard to write them like dogs or some other pet that entertains them. Or maybe they can act as a guardian since they can shape shift? But they should give the humans a significant advantage if the importance on them is so great that they become horrified when they see a human without them. They are an unearned emotional focal point that lacks the depth of one. You leave the book knowing almost just as much as you did entering it.

Perhaps with the emphasis that Pullman placed on Daemons, he perhaps forgot to create an interesting world. The most we get is a couple locations - which is fine - but the world lacks character. The most depth we get about the world is through Oxford, where we see a sharp class divide and gypsies living in the lower half - but we quickly leave that area before anything interesting happens, and instead we go on an adventure in such a boring area - ice tundras full of talking bears and witches. Each location is bereft of any interesting history, and the world is not believable enough for it to be excused. It is surface level: not described in great detail, just there to serve the plot.

None of the characters particularly stood out to me. Lyra is a decent enough protagonist, but has almost no depth besides going after her uncle. Every character has a goal, but not much of a motivation as to why - creating a flat character as a result. There are instances of interesting characterization, such as Chapter 18 where the action finally slows down and they talk about the world and themselves, but overall Pullman continues the narrative without attempting to make the characters interesting. No character arcs or flaws - just people going through the motions of an adventure.

The Golden Compass is an undercooked fantasy that fails to deliver on both ends on what makes an entertaining epic: a solid story and a solid world. The flaws present in the first act become more apparent as the story descends in quality from the first third of the book, failing to deliver on anything it promised. And no, I will not read any other entry if that was obvious already.

What I expected to be a biting satire on American culture leading to the rise of fascism despite the laws preventing such, I instead got a toothless novel that aged poorly for the right reasons - because unlike what the title has you believe, I don't think it can happen here.

Buzz Windrip takes hold of the American consciousness as he rises to the ranks of being a serious candidate for President - except that he's brash, biogoted, and a blatant fascist, but that is not enough to deter support for him. Eventually that lands him a job as President to which he quickly abuses his power and descends America into a totalitarian state.

Ultimately - it does not feel like it has much to say. Sure, it could happen here - but what is here? What makes America stand out from the other countries that have befallen into fascism? Sinclair does not define America as a unique country or dive deep into American culture as exceptional, but instead as just a country that yearns for change. It doesn't feel unique - just a country that is ultimately apathetic to what happens while a dictator spouts unrealistic things to garner support, much to the pleasure of the cult of personality that surrounds him.

Sinclair focuses too much on the consequences of his election rather than the how and why a fascist was elected. A good chunk of the beginning did this, giving the voters a voice and seeing as to why someone like him would be appealing and ignoring the fascistic tendencies in rhetoric and policy because America is a unique country, but it doesn't sustain the energy throughout the rest of the book. It escalates much too quickly - from a country in discontent in the Great Depression to a country tearing itself apart as detractors are placed in camps by their own citizens. I'm not saying that displaying the evils of fascism is wrong, but it's just not an interesting concept to explore anymore - and what ages the book the most since it focuses exactly on that.

To the book's credit, it is impressive to see how much he got right with how fascists would react much before anti-fascist literature would take hold - but it no longer makes for an interesting read when other books have done it better. What could have set this book apart was exploring if America could fall victim to this - but it doesn't make me believe it even could. If it explored how it distorts American ideals more and how it would be fascism dressed as red, white, and blue then it would be interesting; instead, we get a generic rebel against the dystopian government adventure.

I wish we got something that would explore the political ramifications of a fascist by including more of Windrip who serves as almost an implied character aside from a few chapters from his point of view. I would have loved to see how exactly he would erode the democratic process, but the author just seems to handwave how it happens. I expected him to be the villain and for the few chapters he was present, I thought he was an interesting one: racist and misogynistic, blatant in his intentions, and yet getting to be elected. I'm not asking for a moment where it puts the good guy against the bad, just moments where perhaps the big bad could show why he's doing these awful things. Or how he bypasses the Constitution. It was a missed opportunity to show a more sinister side of him rather than having his presence be so distant form the book's main events.

Unfortunately, none of the characters are interesting enough to also warrant interest. Aside from a few moments, they all fall into familiar archetypes and are far from captivating to fill the vacuum of personality that Windrip leaves.

So overall - I'm disappointed. I love the ideas that this book postulates, but there isn't enough to make this the seminal classic I was expecting. I do not regret reading it because it acts as an interesting time capsule for seeing the rise of fascism pre-dating the world knowing how awful Nazis would be, but I just don't think the book says anything too interesting now, and what it does say isn't fully explored. Far from an awful book, but it is middling in how it handles its subject matter.

For a book that I expected to be an interesting commentary on today's political landscape, it was merely something that didn't have much to say at all.

Wang Lung may go down as one of the most interesting characters I've read thus far in fiction. He goes from a despicable anti-hero, to a caring patriarch with some progressive values, to just a downright villain. He is flawed, but whether that is within him or molded by Chinese society is debatable.

Every single character is given so much depth and goes through so much change throughout this decade-spanning story, how much they change is quite remarkable.

The prose is so elegant and the scope of the story is so vast - detailing a man's life as he rises from poverty to raise a family in an unfair society. Even in the most mundane moments of his life are treated with such care. It felt like a predecessor to East of Eden - a generation spanning familial epic, but with more nuance and less allegory.

Amazing work

Aside from the colorful artwork, there isn't much that makes this book stand out from other superhero stories. It's all too familiar even to someone who is relatively new to the DC Universe: Mad Hatter is kidnapping people, Mr. Freeze (without a tragic backstory) dials up the evil by holding blood hostage, and Two Face is acting evil again. None of these stories are bad - just none are memorable and all are too predictable.

Aside from the slight diversion of what I was expecting, it treads all too familiar ground without changing up the formula too much. It doesn't give much depth to Dick Grayson aside from a slight glimpse into his school life and establishing a dynamic with Alfred - both of which are not important to his character and can be seen in other entries.

This can easily be skipped without missing much of anything relating to Batman lore.