Sam

You know how we have “TV adaptations” of books and video games nowadays? Well, The Blade Itself is like a book adaptation of an action-adventure video game, and it sucks.

Abercrombie subverts nothing. The characters are unoriginal, no better developed than mere archetypes. The world feels like a shallow reflection of our own, since the author probably inundated himself with too much TV and video games to be able to create a truly original setting. The plotline is so bad, that this book is making me consider anger management.

Oh, and this is “dark?” I'm sorry, did you go from reading F. Scott Fitzgerald or Jane Austen to foray into fantasy, and you're surprised that people have to make difficult decisions in life? Because that's the only possible way you might consider this excuse of a book “dark.”

The core problem is that Abercrombie never gave me a reason to care. Why is your story better than the others, sir? Are your characters original and insightful, with unique stories and worldviews? No. Instead, we get “haughty, noble womanizer who falls in love with commoner,” “interrogator who was once famous swordsman,” and “barbarian who beats up a ton of people.” Wow. And how about the plot? “There's a big war coming, and both sides are actually proxies for larger forces! Long-preparing evil has made its move and we have to defeat it!” Delightful, truly.

Maybe Steven Erikson just spoiled all other fantasy for me, but The Blade Itself is just trash.

Rough.

The style was the worst part. I couldn't visualize anything Banks described, even though he spends literally paragraphs describing the most mundane thing. I could just be a bad reader. Or maybe British English is just too much for my feeble American mind to handle. Either way, God was I bored at many points in this book.

Nearly just as bad is the false marketing of this book. It's not sci-fi, it's action with sci-fi elements. I've seen other reviews claiming Banks's later books are better in this regard, so I'll read The Player of Games at some point.

I rated this book 3 stars for the “sci-fi elements.” It is really imaginative, at the end of the day. I always adore deep lore in books (Foundation and Hyperion were great series for this reason), and I can tell there's a lot to look forward to with the Culture series.

Also, either I serverely under-analyzed, or this book is really superficial. Foundation and Hyperion are deeply philosophical and have brilliant novelties. Consider Phlebas felt like a book made for social media: looks amazing on the surface, but lacks any sort of depth. That might just be a preference, but books that have something to say about today are always appreciated more for me.

Life and Fate? What a pretentious title. How can any one book cover such grandiose concepts?

I assure you, though, that Grossman's book lives up to the title with flying colors. I read literature to answer the question: “What does it mean to be human?” Literature provides readers with new experiences, from which readers can understand this question a little more. Life and Fate answers this question better than Dostoevsky, Turgenev, and, most importantly, Tolstoy, without a doubt. Sure, Grossman is grim, and Life and Fate can really weigh on readers. But it truly is better than the classic, great Russian novels. It captures the spirits of the times very well. From the gulags of Siberia to the ruins of Stalingrad, it's life in a book.

Still, I cannot recommend this book to everyone. You need a basic understanding of the early Soviet Union to be able to really understand things. Just to list a bunch of historical happenings that came up in chronological order: the Russian Revolutions (of course); the Russian Civil War and the Whites; New Economic Policy under Lenin; Lenin's death and his Testament against Stalin; collectivization, dekulakization, and the famine of 1929; the industrialization of the 1930s; the Great Purge of 1937; and finally, a simple understanding of the course of World War II. If that wasn't already enough, you should know the names of Yezhov, Beria, Malenkov, Himmler, Paulus, Zhukov, and Chuykov. This book is for a specific audience, and I can say for certain that Life and Fate cannot find popularity in a general audience. I'd say this book is more for those interested in history rather than those interested in literature generally.

Pretty great, but it's definitely not for everyone. This is near-future, rather “realist” sci-fi. I use the word “realist” in two ways: first, technology hasn't made everything invincible yet. The dangers of space and spaceflight take a central role in the book. The second way I use “realist” is in contrast to philosophical. I find that, while writing about the future, sci-fi writers often have deep insights into the present day and the human condition. I'm thinking particularly of Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?.

I strongly prefer less realist sci-fi. I may come back to this series some day, but it just didn't strike me as a true “great.”

Lore! So, so much lore! That's what I enjoyed most about Hyperion: the 700 years of lore that Simmons thought up. It's extremely entertaining, creative, and thought-provoking. The dangers of entertainment-focused content industry, with the most talented writers writing trashy romances rather than exploring what it means to be human; the horrible injustice of Rachel's time curse, aging backwards while forgetting everything from the day before; human reliance on the Delphic and seemingly infallible AI TechnoCore, bestowing unto humanity incomprehensible technologies that society relies on, such as wormholes. Simmons creates the richest sci-fi universe in any book that I've read so far.

That being said, I raised an eyebrow many times while reading the book. I have three main complaints: the long passages of hard-to-imagine scenery, how crude the story was, and the historical eyerolls. “The Third Sino-Japanese War?” “The Second Holocaust?” Really? I don't know if Simmons was trying to make a reasonable prediction of the future or if he was just trying to be edgy. In any case, a fascinating vision of the future that warrants a read!

The plot was an adequate continuation of the first book, but it wasn't very impressive or plausible to me. I thought a lot of major plot points were extremely contrived and artificial. Besides that, the prose annoyed me. It felt redundant, long-winded, and overly descriptive. These long descriptions were not fruitful either; it's just hard to imagine some of this sci-fi scenery. I thought the occurrence-to-fluff ratio was 0.2. Reading this book after the first is certainly necessary, but I found it a little disappointing.

Oh, also, there were at least 2 typos. >:(

Deranged? Raving? Idiotic? Well, I have to concede that We is at least imaginative. I think my rating says more about me than it does about the book. I suppose I'd be an ideological apologist for the One State, which governs everything rationally and scientifically. To me, this book was following the subversive acts of a bunch of overly sentimental terrorists, while others might read this book as a memoir of some freedom fighters restoring humanity to a despotic society. I despised the “protagonist,” whom I'd prefer to deem an antagonist. This opinion, of course, made the book very hard to enjoy. So... the enjoyment one may derive from We is quite dependent on the political beliefs you already have.

The only reason I did not give We one star is because of how clearly original the novel is. It might as well be the first of the ‘‘dystopia'' genre. Another fun fact that might persuade you to read it: We was the very first literary work that was banned by the Soviet censorship board. Well, at least Comrade Zamyatin provided a manual for combatting anti-state terrorism a millennium from now.

I read the last 250 pages of the book in one day. But I can't bring myself to give it 5 stars. It's remarkably entertaining and gripping. I love all the tangential philosophical questions the book poses. The characters are well-developed and dynamic.
One of my favorite lessons from the book is in the final pages (no plot spoilers, don't worry). What is it that humans value most? The character posing this question finds an answer: novelty. Both Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently, but we credit Newton because he did it first. If I had read The Way of Kings before I read The Lord of the Rings, I'd have eagerly given it 5 stars. But it lacks novelty. It feels so cliché sometimes. It feels repetitive.
The Way of Kings is a fantastic book. Thought-provoking, engaging, enjoyable. I'll definitely be reading the rest of the series. But I do not believe this book will stand the test of time as The Lord of the Rings has. 4 stars!

I regard this book as perhaps the greatest of all time. The characters are incredibly richly developed (to an extent that most real humans cannot hope to match the depth of Raskolnikov, Raz, Sonya, and Porfiry). The story is engaging and a thrill to follow. If anyone asked me, what book would you recommend? I'd recommend Crime and Punishment, no matter who asks. It is a must-read!

A wonderful novel! Characters who felt alive, a plot that feels dynamic and unpredictable, prose that is simultaneously poetic and grounded. Thought-provoking and highly entertaining. The book is packed with wisdom; I gathered some 15 memorable quotes from it.

At its core, the novel has exactly one message: be defined by what you have, not by what you lack. Dantès struggled with this in his first years in prison (we all would), but we see that suffering can strengthen humans to an unbelievable degree. In his conversations with Faria, it is evident that Dantès fully embraced this message. Compare this to Maximilien's circumstances: he continued to define himself by what he lacked, so his resolve to kill himself remained until Valentine returned to him. Maximilien never had the trials by fire that made the Count understand this message.

From a religious perspective, this book is in extremely murky waters. Christianity is ever-present in the book, with the Count frequently associating with God in some way, first as His emissary and then as His equal. With this in mind, the Count believes that he can distribute “divine justice.” We can thus view the Count as a foil to Jesus Christ: the Count was a fraudulent “divine emissary” and enacted his revenge, while Jesus was truly divine and forgave all. In all, even if Dumas did not intend for justice to appear this morally problematic, the Count's justification in his quest for vengeance is nearly blasphemous.

What makes this whole justice question even more ironic is that the death that made the Count question his justification in achieving vengeance was that of Madame de Villefort. She poisoned four people, and the Count believes he took a step too far in indirectly enacting justice on her? Additionally, the Count was perfectly fine with letting the Saint-Merans, Barrois, and Valentine be casualties in his retributions, even though none of them deserved his “divine justice” by any justification. (The Count regretted the poisoning of Valentine only after Maximilien told him of his love for her.) In conclusion, I had many moral misgivings towards the Count which prevented me from liking the character. I understand that he reflected on these failings, but his own repentance was nowhere near sufficient. Still, the nuances presented by his situation were extraordinarily thought-provoking, such that they make me more inclined to recommend this book.

Nonetheless, I can't give this book five stars for a couple of reasons. First is Dumas himself. From Robin Buss's introduction, I learned that he wrote for money. For this reason alone, he didn't necessarily seek to explore the tragic and ecstatic depths of the human soul like, say, Dostoevsky (who was it that said “all great novelists die in poverty”?). Instead, Dumas made a plot that he knew would be popular. Certainly, there is some timeless wisdom in the novel, but his “popular novel” formula can really be felt; it feels cheap at times, such as when Valentine magically reappears at the end of the novel. Oh, and besides his approach to writing the novel, Dumas himself isn't a very upstanding character.

The second qualm I have with the book is the fate of Villefort. I thought that he was a good person at the end of the book. He might have made terrible mistakes in his past, sure, but I firmly believe in redemption. I don't think it was in character for Villefort to just back out of the court room when Benedetto revealed the whole quagmire of his history. I would have thought that he'd stand his ground, own up to his mistakes, and speak this line that he said only a couple hours before to his wife:

“For God's sake, never ask me to pardon a guilty man. What am I? The law. Does the law have eyes to see your sorrow? Does the law have ears to hear your soft pleadings? Does the law have a memory to make itself the conduit of your tender thoughts? No, Madame, the law orders and when it orders, it strikes.”

All in all, I wonder if I am the only one who believes that Villefort is the truly tragic character in this novel, not the Count.

Very instructive and well-written! Fowler explains things very clearly, and he even sprinkles in some humor now and then. Some of the words he uses just don't make sense, though. You'll know what I mean when you see them.

I'm not sure if I'd recommend reading this today. I'll have to see how much I apply it at my job over the coming months and years.

A highly instructive book! As a Martian, I've always had trouble communicating with humans. But this is an excellent introduction to what humans want and expect from personal interactions. How to make yourself understood, ways to approach conflict, negotiation, validation, why you should feel comfortable with approaching strangers; it's all covered. Some of the chapters in the second half were not very helpful, like the one on digital communication. Still worth a read/listen regardless!

War and Peace is a glorified romance. At times, the book presents itself as a historical drama, but Tolstoy's frequent philosophical asides and all the love stories detract from that significantly. There are many excellent historical novels that do much more justice to the genre than War and Peace. Particularly, I think Les Miserables was much better in this aspect.

For me at least, I finished this book only because I started reading it, and I don't like leaving books halfway read. It was quite a bore to read. Some characters are fascinating (I particularly liked Prince Andrei), but this doesn't make up for the lackluster plot.

If you're a fan of Elder Scrolls lore, The Infernal City and its sequel Lord of Souls are great reads! There are some noticeable typographical errors, but the story itself and the lore are great. It's awesome to be able use your knowledge of where Lilmoth and Rimmen, for example, are in Tamriel. The characters are entertaining and well-developed, too.

However, my caveat is that this lore has been barely engaged by Bethesda at all. There is exactly 1 reference to these novels in TES:V Skyrim, and it easily goes unnoticed. I would love to see similar novels released to cover the time gap between Skyrim and the next Elder Scrolls game, and it would be even more awesome to see Bethesda actually shape the world in TES:VI according to these novels.

My history textbooks and English articles had always referred to the Russian Revolution and Civil War as a well-understood monolith of an event, but they never treated the events with any more detail. “The Russian Revolution caused Russia to exit World War I, and then they descended into a Civil War, and then Stalin!” I'm glad that Beevor wrote this astounding book, since it's part of a departure from the current oversight of the Anglophone histories.

Beevor elucidates the unimaginable scale of the terror and destruction brought about by the Civil War. Every person in every town had something to fear. The Cheka, unbelievably sadistic torture, “food detachments,” starvation, hypothermia, typhus, cholera, reprisals by retreating armies, looting by advancing armies, pogroms. Reading from the vantage point of a well-off American, I just can't comprehend the total suffering of the population. It's almost otherworldly. It's insane. It happened, and it's hard to grasp.

Beevor mostly focuses on the experience of the Whites. Now, although some may denounce him as biased or revisionist, the Whites' is a story too often overlooked. Beevor is primarily a military historian, but he examines the character of the White leadership in satisfying detail. In fact, he identifies it as perhaps the primary reason why the Whites lost the Civil War.

If you want to learn more about the Russian Revolution and Civil War, I can confidently say that you can look no further!

I actually read this book first in “The Rat” series, but it didn't throw me off much at all. Murakami's stories are very ephemeral. Chapters (and even whole books in this series!) can sometimes be misordered when read, but all will be fine! In fact, it made reading [i]Pinball[/i] a very interesting experience!

Anyways, I'm a huge Murakami fan, and I have yet to be disappointed. Great book!

An excellent introduction to the German Empire. Hoyer balances the content of her book exceptionally well: politics, foreign policy, economics, culture, science, military matters; it's all there. The only reason I gave this book 4 stars instead of 5 was various textual errors: poor capitalization (e.g. “Huns” was not capitalized), a few repetitive sentence structures, and other such typographical issues that should have been caught by the publisher. Hoyer wrote an exceptional book; the manuscript could use a little more editing though.

This book was incredibly disappointing. It's a lot of Wyman stating “things were like this in Europe and this made Europe special.” And what were things like elsewhere? As Wyman points out in the introduction, China and India, for example, were more advanced than Europe before the Divergence; so why didn't they develop these institutions? Wyman's exclusive focus on Europe makes his argument very unconvincing. Decently interesting points about European history, but if I could go back in time to advise myself not to read this book, I would.

Really amazing account of Lafayette's life! Duncan does a great job providing concise yet sufficient context for Lafayette's life too. Pre-revolutionary France, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, the Bourbon Restoration, and the July Revolution are all explained along with Lafayette's part in each.

I really wish Duncan gave more judgment on his life, though. Where did Lafayette go wrong? Where did he go right? What were the flaws in his day-to-day character that might've prevented him from reaching his goals? Duncan offers some reminiscence from Lafayette's contemporaries at the very end of the book, but I found it far from sufficient. In any case, a really delightful read about a fascinating character!

This book was insane. I found myself scowling and breathing more heavily while reading, in response to the pure carnage that Erikson so capably presented. It's a reminder of how different the world can be, of how different our world once was.

The literary elements of Deadhouse Gates are just about unsurpassed by anything I've yet read. The deep character development, a truly riveting and engrossing plot, and the totally immersive world-building all mark Erikson as a paragon in fantasy authorship and, more humbly, as one of my favorite authors.

I'd like to point out the parallel between Coltaine's march across Seven Cities and Caesar's campaigns in Gaul. A fiercely professional and disciplined force finding itself deep within hostile country, without any prospect of reinforcement. I once watched an interview with Erikson in which he noted how great an inspiration history is to him. But as ever, one can never assume correctness when blindly grasping at the author's intentions.

I was dismayed at the number of typos that somehow made it into print, but I shan't let that dim my opinion of this stellar book. 10/10. I already bought the next book in this series when I was but midway through this one :)

Fantasy at its best. At least, for me.

Grand, so very grand. It's almost like a “history novel.” I was craving something more... impersonal compared to what most modern books are. Gardens of the Moon has less focus on characters, and more focus on power, empire, and gods. I love how dark the book is, not just in tone either. You really never know what's coming. Erikson simply doesn't satisfy your curiosity, instead always leaving you wanting just a little more. The retained sense of mystery did wonders to keep me engaged throughout the whole book.

After reading Gardens of the Moon, I have a new standard for what I expect in fantasy. It is with a tinge of disappointment that I recalibrate my expectations, since other books will certainly not be able to meet this standard. Nonetheless, Gardens of the Moon is incredible and awe-inspiring, and I am now a devotee of the Steven Erikson cult.