Maybe a strange question, but do you often have simultaneous opposing opinions on books or series that you read?
Not too long ago I read Peter Watts’ Blindsight, and it has many thought-provoking ideas about conscience, the human brain, and alien life. Yet it is wrapped in a mediocre sci-fi action movie script that is difficult to follow and stops making sense toward the end. So I cannot say that I exactly liked or disliked it.
And just now, I finished Ann Leckie’s Imperial Radch series, and it feels like books 2 and 3 (Ancillary Sword, Ancillary Mercy) are entirely separate story from book 1 (Ancillary Justice). The latter books are okay for what they are, but do not live up to the style, scale, and pace of the first book, and leave some of the concepts entirely unexplored. So once again, I cannot exactly say that I loved the series.
Any other books that left you with similar dual opinions?
The Postman by David Brin is an interesting novel about rebuilding after an apocalypse, marred by superman.
That’s as much as I’m going to say.
I hated every minute of reading it, but I’m glad I read Gravity’s Rainbow. I’m still not entirely sure I know what happened through most of the book, nor the point of the book, but my overall feeling of the book is positive.
I enjoyed reading Confederacy of Dunces until I just couldn’t read anymore so I stopped mid-book. The main character was so unlikeable (on purpose) and story so disjointed with no apparent plot, that while I started out enjoying it as a fun story, I eventually became disinterested and hated the book without finishing it.
I absolutely loved Name of the Wind when I read it 63 years ago and told so many people about it. I could overlook its pretty glaring faults because I just loved the way it was written and the world that was created. I kinda hate the book now because A) the follow up book was mostly awful with some great parts mixed in, and B) the author doesn’t seem to be interested in finishing the series and is an asshole to the fans who want the series finished.
My AP Lit teacher said Gravity’s Rainbow was the most difficult book he ever read, and he highly recommended it. I’m terrified to try and tackle it, but I hope to do so one day. I’m going to focus first on some classics after I’m done with my current book.
That’s interesting about Gravity’s Rainbow.
I had the exact opposite reading Cryptonomicon: it was not bad and sometimes rather interesting to read, but looking back, it was 900 pages of wannabe hackers and WWII dudes, tied together with barely 100 pages worth of plot.
Imo, the Monogatari light novels (where the Bakemonogatari series come from) and Lord of the Rings both are pretty interesting, but they can be insufferably verbose.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemann. Both these books have a lot of interesting ideas and also (mostly) backed by science but still they left me a bit unconvinced of the minute details
Not on the same book, but back in the 90s I read two books on the same topic back to back:
The Hot Zone by Richard Preston:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone
The Coming Plague by Laurie Garett:
https://www.lauriegarrett.com/the-coming-plague
Imagine the same news story, first covered by a sensationalist tabloid, and then again by the New York Times, with in depth coverage, multiple sources, and copious foot and end notes.
This isn’t to say the Hot Zone is a BAD read, it’s not, it’s just not to be confused with anything remotely academic.
This is why I couldn’t bring myself to read Hot Zone. If you haven’t read David Quammen’s Spillover, I recommend that one.
Thanks! I’ll check that out!
