I initially thought this book was great and gave it 4 stars, but I think I was lying to myself and just wanted to conform (opposite to what this book I initially thought this book was great and gave it 4 stars, but I think I was lying to myself and just wanted to conform (opposite to what this book is telling me to do). Here's several things I disliked about the book.
- It was underwhelming with a very 'in your face' message. Nothing is subtle in this book unlike Animal farm. It might as well have been an essay about totalitarian governments utilizing surveillance technology in the future rather than a novel. To be honest, I prefer George Orwell's essays to many of his novels. He was a great essay writer, but not a great novelist in my opinion.
- It gets a bit over the top. For instance, the main character works in a government department called ministry of truth where they work to change and erase pieces of history. Although that has happened to some degree in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, it never became that bad. Nazi Germany was defeated and Soviet Union actually became less totalitarian as years went by rather than more. The internet has also changed how we access information which means it has become harder to do what George Orwell is describing in his novel. Not to say the government can't censor the internet and change history like the Chinese government does for tiananmen square protests, but certainly the internet has managed to allow people access greater information than before.
- The love story. oh god. Why? It was so bad and bland. I know the love story is needed to move the plot along, but I am sure George could have come up with something better than a horrible romance to emphasis dissent and nonconformity. The reason why this particular government wouldn't allow them be together was just stupid. It would have been more interesting if he added a racial aspect as to why the government wouldn't allow them to be together like in Nazi Germany. I just thought you were better than this George. Why does there need to be a dull love story for a book about government censorship and surveillance?
I'm just annoyed about how often people like to say 'read 1984 if you want to understand our current situation.' And even more annoying are those people who are like 'political correctness' or people not allowed to say the n-word means Orwell's vision of the future is becoming a reality. Calm down. Back in the 19th century it was unacceptable and impolite to say profane things in public, so were people in the 19th century already living in an orwellian world? There's always been socially acceptable and non-acceptable things to say in public and this is called 'norms,' but now days we call it 'political correctness' for some reason.
Of course, the book does deliver an important story about totalitarian governments and surveillance, but it's submerged a lot of times by the over the top and 'in your face' message which lowers my opinion of the book....more
Oh yes, the book which every ultra conservative will fling at you in the belief that it rightfully speaks out against socialism.
Somehow they always fOh yes, the book which every ultra conservative will fling at you in the belief that it rightfully speaks out against socialism.
Somehow they always fail to read the preface of the book written by George Orwell.
"But on the other hand it was the most utmost importance to me that people in Western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear sings of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class."
Furthermore, George Orwell goes on to say: "Up to 1939, and even later, the majority of English people were incapable of assessing the true nature of the Nazi regime in Germany, and now with Soviet Regime, they are still to a large extent under the same sort of illusion. This has caused great harm to the socialist movement in England, and had serious consequences for English foreign policy. Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."
I think this book primarily and essentially speaks out against Stalin and totalitarianism. George Orwell's deep aversion of totalitarianism made him strongly against Stalin and other regimes such as Nazi Germany. He was living during and after the period of the great depression which had left people greatly uncertain with the system of capitalism. People were willing to abandon democracy in favor of totalitarian and authoritarian systems like fascism in Germany and Stalin leadership in Soviet Union. However, George Orwell saw what brutal regimes came about as a result of totalitarianism and he saw how totalitarianism essentially ended up corrupting socialism in Soviet Union. After the 1940's, people had began to recognize the brutality of the Nazi Regime in Germany. However, people had yet to do the same with the Soviet Union. It was still looked at as some great manifestation of socialism, but it was anything but that.
This had all led to Orwell considering himself a democratic socialist. Totalitarianism essentially led to the same practices which trampled on other humans but this time it was under the guise of 'socialism'.
But hey, if you want to be simple-minded, it was definitely speaking out against socialism. ...more
There are many books which have very noticeable flaws, but you can’t help but give 5 stars to because they’re so goddamn interesting. Kindred is one oThere are many books which have very noticeable flaws, but you can’t help but give 5 stars to because they’re so goddamn interesting. Kindred is one of those books which I can overlook for; the semi-weak plot; the secondary characters who have been granted little depth; plot holes; and the overuse of plot mechanism.
The story is just too fascinating and draws you in till the last page. The premise of the story is very simple. Dana, a young and well-educated black women, is sent back in time to help her ancestor, Rufus, who is a slave-owner.
Kindred is one of those books which prefers to focus on delivering a subtle message more than anything. Themes of morality, ethics, change, time and race are delivered in an underlying manner. The novel considers whether you can change someone whose environment has profoundly influenced them and shaped their nature or are they bound to repeat the behaviour and actions of their forefathers? Can you truly and completely blame a person for their low morals when their environment, which they have been born and bred in, has predisposed them to act in such immoral way? These questions popped into my mind as I was reading the book. Kindred does not strongly highlight these questions, but they are tied to the story somewhat and configure into your mind.
Another particular aspect of this book is time travel. It’s never explained in anyway and it seems to be only used as a plot device. You only know that when Dana’s ancestor is in dire trouble, Dana is pulled back in time to help rescue him, but when she feels as if her life is at risk, she can travel back to her own period. It’s never clarified and it’s quite illogical even for a science-fiction novel. However, most people consider this novel to be more of a fantasy, which I agree. Essentially, it seems this book is stating that time travel, in itself, makes as little sense as slavery does.
Lastly, Dana and Rufus were very well-developed characters. The way they changed and grew into different people over a period of time made them quite realistic. The others were sub-standard. Dana’s husband was horribly developed, and I had very little understanding of his character. Although, I suppose, he was created so the author can highlight the way attitudes and beliefs modify over time.
I also read Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl after I finished reading Kindred. It was a based on a true story, written by a female slave who escaped bondage, and it may have influenced Kindred to some degree. For instance, Rufus seems to possess somewhat similar characteristics with the real-life, villainous slave-owner, named Dr. Flint, from Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. I suggest reading Incidents in the life of a slave girl before picking up Kindred. It’s as interesting as Kindred and, like I said before, it’s based on a true story. ...more
This book wasn't as good as the first. It felt as if it was just a filler, and that it was only written to help set up the stage for the last book. ThThis book wasn't as good as the first. It felt as if it was just a filler, and that it was only written to help set up the stage for the last book. The book could be condensed into less than 100 pages. I think it would been just better to add the 100 pages to the last book and make the series into a duology. Todd and viola were simply irritating in the second book. I know the book is suppose to deal with serious issues such as genocide, war and torture, but it seemed more like a facade. These issues were introduced and then quickly swept under the rug or weren't dealt with in a new and original way. It didn't look at these issues in a deep, meaningful or interesting manner. It felt more like a display (look at how I'm tackling these serious issues in YA!) A great handling of the subject of genocide can be seen in Avatar: the last airbender. It did a fantastic job in showing the horrifying nature of genocide to the young. There was nothing great or original in this book. The first book was at least fast-paced, action-packed, but the second book had barely much of anything to give....more
I've been wondering more often lately as to why YA books are so similar in characterisation and plot. It's either the publishers have some shitty guidI've been wondering more often lately as to why YA books are so similar in characterisation and plot. It's either the publishers have some shitty guidelines they need to follow, or secretly there's only one author writing all these YA books....more
This is one of those books I really wanted to like because everyone else did. Unfortunately, the book’s recycled villains and melodrActual rating: 2.5
This is one of those books I really wanted to like because everyone else did. Unfortunately, the book’s recycled villains and melodramatic writing did little to gain my favour.
Victor: The villain who gains a superpower and then turns suddenly evil. I think I saw that villain in every Spiderman movie.
Eli: The extremely religious villain who thinks it’s his duty to wipe out a group of people with extraordinary powers. I think I saw that villain in Fullmetal Alchemist (anime), except that villain was very well developed.
The narrative and the dialogue was a replica of a dramatic scene in a film or show right before the camera cuts away. It’s the usual cliché stuff you hear on TV, for instance:
‘I will have my revenge,’ he whispered, ‘even if it the last thing I do’. (Camera cuts away)
Here’s an example from the book:
“And now, just as then, when he closed his eyes and searched for silence, a word rose up to meet him, a reminder of why he couldn’t afford to break, a challenge, a name. Eli.” (There's much more from where that came from)
This type of writing makes me roll my eyes. It’s trying so hard to be cool. This book is an epitome of trying to be cool. It so badly wishes to be one of those comic books where the villain is speaking about vengeance, wearing stylish clothes, and standing/sitting with a dark setting surrounding him…reminds me of the book cover.
The writing would have worked better in a linear structure, so you can experience the characters developing. However, the book is too short for what it’s promising; therefore, it will still fall short, in terms of, character depth (the character’s actions are rarely thoroughly explained. I’m evil so I do this shit.), plot (predictable), and further investigation into Eos.
It's different to other YA books though, so I understand why many find it refreshing and enjoyable. ...more
I cannot stress enough the significance of a half star especially for this book, because the extra half star for 'The Elite' mActual rating: 2.5 stars
I cannot stress enough the significance of a half star especially for this book, because the extra half star for 'The Elite' meant it was not as worse as the first book. It was rather unexpected since many who enjoyed the first book disliked the second. It was the opposite for me, but I still disliked 'The Elite' just not as much as I loathed 'The Selection'.
Now, when I say there was more action in the second book - I mean to say there was more than just a bitch slap.
The action did nothing much to move the plot along. It just caused heavy tension between Maxon and America. If it wasn’t for the action this book would have literally finished at page 80.
Speaking about the love triangle I mean the plot… It's hard to tell them apart in this book.
America has conflicting emotions as she struggles to choose between Maxon and Aspen, as she continues to struggle like forever and ever and ever…the rebels are trying to screw everyone up. The palace security is so shit that they manage to get through every time. But seriously did anyone ever wonder who the fuck is in charge of the security? Cause seriously fire them. Like right now. My home security is better and I’m not even a royal.
I can’t write a sensible review for this book.
It’s still better than the first. I’ll give it that. And I'm still curious to how it ends.
Loading...
