Atsiliepimai ir komentarai

Same Murderbot confusion about how the world works (and emotions), then same gripping action. My palms sweat when the fights start.

I think I'm going to have to binge these again because it takes me half the novella to remember who everybody is. I suppose I have that to look forward to.

Wow. Don't underestimate this book. It's slow but comfortable in the beginning. Well pruned sentences. I enjoyed it, but I didn't see what Serle was doing.

Trust her.

The plot is kinda fun. But I have to rant:

Huge secret library, with books! (Yes, I'm in!) And they have access to multiple universes! (OK, let's go!) And they end up in a steampunk world...(steampunk? really? That's the world you choose?) And they stay in steampunk world for the next book rather than explore the infinite universes. (Ugh.)

Also I should've read the reviews. 2D characters. I won't be continuing the series.

This one, like the last, is for the world builders. The world building is the plot. It is very detailed and thorough.

A brief warning: be careful with this book if you're depressed. It can be very depressing and possibly bring an existential dread. Even more than the second book. I had to read it pieces.

For that reason, I can't say I enjoyed this book. It is very impressive with what it's trying to do though.

I tried to read this book earlier but put it down. This time, I listened on audio. The ending this book, or beginning of the next installment, was worth it.

This is a very dense text. It is almost pure plot and setup. But like the first installment's ability to give a sense of cosmic unease just by talking about physics, this book can tip you into dread with exposition. I caught myself creeping into despair yesterday; I had to shake it off.

I can see there is a point to the gloom though. We have to hit the depths before we can be raised back up. I have hope for the next book!

So, I'm not exactly sure how to ask this question. I'm wondering, is this Roth book actually good writing?

By page 100 or so on this book, I still have no interest in these characters. Now I understand not 'getting into' a book. Like, I tried Joyce and stopped; it wasn't what I was looking for. But I could see the writing was good; I saw he was going for something. I don't get that feeling from this novel. It's super repetitive, and it launches right into descriptions and contemplations.

I am new to older fiction; not very well read. But I've been writing for quite some time, so I'm versed on narrative construction. To me, good writing gets you into the characters before you get verbose; 'you have to earn it.'

Has what is 'good writing' changed over the past decades? (This book is from 2000.)

You're introduced to a woman. She panics. She gets into situations I'd never get into. A little tense; a little curious. Then it's done.

The novel's written in 2nd-person. It didn't bother me; I slipped into the character fine.

You have to like Shakespeare for this one. It is steeped in his drama.

I think this book was a take on what's now called 'dark academia' that came from Tartt's Secret History. 'Villains' did do a good job of showing the cult-like bonding of repertory acting and you do fall in love with the characters. But it didn't touch the subtle sinking into the depths that Tartt's original does.

A deep dive into friendship; how it intersects with work and family, etc. Don't worry if you don't play video games. It's just an adjacent theme, and it never gets technical.

It's a good book; just didn't end up thrilling me.