What do you think?
Rate this book
One for Sorrow, Two for Joy
Led by the malevolent Slyekin and his sadistic assassin Traska, flocks of magpies, aided by their cousins, the crows, have laid waste to the peaceful world of Birddom, and it is up to Kirrick, a lone robin, to rally together unlikely allies to oppose the dark menace and return peace to the world.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
19 people are currently reading
364 people want to read
About the author
Clive Woodall
30 books12 followersFrom Bookarmy
Clive Woodall is a supermarket worker whose life has been transformed following the publication of his first novel, ONE FOR SORROW, a UK bestseller, soon to be a Disney film, with translation rights sold in twenty countries.
Clive Woodall is a supermarket worker whose life has been transformed following the publication of his first novel, ONE FOR SORROW, a UK bestseller, soon to be a Disney film, with translation rights sold in twenty countries.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
July 15, 2011
Borrowed this from the library because I like animal POV when it's done well. This wasn't done well.
The story is basically recycled from millions of other books that use WWII nazis as the villains. Changing them to birds doesn't make it original. The writing itself can't seem to decide what it wants to be (is it for kids, or an epic fantasy in style of Lord of the Rings?) and too often resorts to using purple prose which would actually be kind of hard for kids to understand.
Topping it off, the story is filled with blatant examples of research failure. Crows are depicted as the stupidest birds in the books, magpies apparently are a race of evil, and worst of all; Bird rape.
Bird. Rape.
Which would have been believable in a book about ducks, not magpies.
The story is basically recycled from millions of other books that use WWII nazis as the villains. Changing them to birds doesn't make it original. The writing itself can't seem to decide what it wants to be (is it for kids, or an epic fantasy in style of Lord of the Rings?) and too often resorts to using purple prose which would actually be kind of hard for kids to understand.
Topping it off, the story is filled with blatant examples of research failure. Crows are depicted as the stupidest birds in the books, magpies apparently are a race of evil, and worst of all; Bird rape.
Bird. Rape.
Which would have been believable in a book about ducks, not magpies.
December 31, 2014
The fact that a book starring a robin, an owl and a bunny rabbit manages to be both sexist and classist almost makes me think Mr Woodall deserves some sort of prize.
First things first. So despite the legitimate complaints of plenty of reviewers here, I actually really enjoyed part one, One For Sorrow. The simplistic storyline and cut-out characters lends this a fairytale-like quality which is very absorbing if you're prepared to suspend disbelief. The dialogue is dreadfully affected and exposition is dropped with all the subtlety of a doodlebug, but if you take its pompous nature as part of the package it's an exciting and almost moving story. Grimm's fairytales are pretty brutal, so I didn't find the savage horror and gore jarring here either.
Oh yeah. Apart from the rape. Yeah. Clive, just stop.
I think the weird combination of simplistic writing/ at times horrific content worked on me because I'm essentially a young adult with the mental maturity of a three year old. But I can totally understand why others found it unbearable.
However, then we get to part two, Two For Joy. How do I put this.
Two For Joy is atrocious.
Everything I enjoyed about the first half became a pet hate in the second. The tension of the story pales in comparison to book one - it's like an extended epilogue. As though we're idiots who've already forgotten what happened 20 pages ago, Woodall frequently reiterates the story line of the first half of the novel in...mindnumbing...detail. I don't see why it was written but to make up pages. The dialogue goes from jarring to just plain offensive. So here's where I got the whiff of sexism:
As this book stands, there are basically zero female characters which don't fit a stereotypical mould. Damsel in distress, pure and innocent victim, etc. I was expecting that, so I didn't let it bother me. But
it irked that in book which rarely bothered to include proper dialogue, the entire of page 164 consisted of a male friend randomly and pointlessly telling the female lead that she is beautiful. In fact the number of times that Portia was referred to as 'Beautiful' in lieu of any other positive adjectives - brave, clever, loyal, whatever - started to really piss me off.
And then. The entire subplot of Katya's rape, and bringing her child up to exact vengeance, I found both belittling and offensive. In the end, it actually turns out to be pointless anyway - which left me disgusted. Why write it if both characters eventually serve no purpose to the story? Why focus on something so vile in what is, at the end of the day, a children's book (...I think...)?
Okay. So as for the classism? Mickey the bullfinch.
Mickey is the only character - apart from some of the henchbaddies - who doesn't talk as though he's a duchess in a bad Austen adaptation. In fact, his speech pointedly suggests a regional accent. He uses contractions, occasionally swears, and says the word 'mate' a lot. He's also subtly called Mickey in a book full of Olivers, Celines, and Merions.
It's dumb, but I can deal with it. Until a bizarre transformation comes over Mickey, and somewhere between pages 193 and 197, his accent mysteriously vanishes, and he starts using Received Pronunciation like the rest of them. Then on page 203 we get this gem:
Mickey had gradually lost his façade of chirpy coarsenes… Portia had begun to suspect that her companion’s way of speaking was a contrivance to hide his intellect.
What, because he uses colloquialisms his speech must be a façade? And excuse me, why is that ‘coarse’? And bloody hell, did you just link accent to intellect? Dick move, Clive. Last time I checked this wasn’t the 1950s.
By the end of this book, (which is a crap anticlimax, btw) I was so annoyed with it that I revised my half-way decision to give it three stars. My advice? If you pick it up, don't even bother with the second half of the novel.
First things first. So despite the legitimate complaints of plenty of reviewers here, I actually really enjoyed part one, One For Sorrow. The simplistic storyline and cut-out characters lends this a fairytale-like quality which is very absorbing if you're prepared to suspend disbelief. The dialogue is dreadfully affected and exposition is dropped with all the subtlety of a doodlebug, but if you take its pompous nature as part of the package it's an exciting and almost moving story. Grimm's fairytales are pretty brutal, so I didn't find the savage horror and gore jarring here either.
Oh yeah. Apart from the rape. Yeah. Clive, just stop.
I think the weird combination of simplistic writing/ at times horrific content worked on me because I'm essentially a young adult with the mental maturity of a three year old. But I can totally understand why others found it unbearable.
However, then we get to part two, Two For Joy. How do I put this.
Two For Joy is atrocious.
Everything I enjoyed about the first half became a pet hate in the second. The tension of the story pales in comparison to book one - it's like an extended epilogue. As though we're idiots who've already forgotten what happened 20 pages ago, Woodall frequently reiterates the story line of the first half of the novel in...mindnumbing...detail. I don't see why it was written but to make up pages. The dialogue goes from jarring to just plain offensive. So here's where I got the whiff of sexism:
As this book stands, there are basically zero female characters which don't fit a stereotypical mould. Damsel in distress, pure and innocent victim, etc. I was expecting that, so I didn't let it bother me. But
it irked that in book which rarely bothered to include proper dialogue, the entire of page 164 consisted of a male friend randomly and pointlessly telling the female lead that she is beautiful. In fact the number of times that Portia was referred to as 'Beautiful' in lieu of any other positive adjectives - brave, clever, loyal, whatever - started to really piss me off.
And then. The entire subplot of Katya's rape, and bringing her child up to exact vengeance, I found both belittling and offensive. In the end, it actually turns out to be pointless anyway - which left me disgusted. Why write it if both characters eventually serve no purpose to the story? Why focus on something so vile in what is, at the end of the day, a children's book (...I think...)?
Okay. So as for the classism? Mickey the bullfinch.
Mickey is the only character - apart from some of the henchbaddies - who doesn't talk as though he's a duchess in a bad Austen adaptation. In fact, his speech pointedly suggests a regional accent. He uses contractions, occasionally swears, and says the word 'mate' a lot. He's also subtly called Mickey in a book full of Olivers, Celines, and Merions.
It's dumb, but I can deal with it. Until a bizarre transformation comes over Mickey, and somewhere between pages 193 and 197, his accent mysteriously vanishes, and he starts using Received Pronunciation like the rest of them. Then on page 203 we get this gem:
Mickey had gradually lost his façade of chirpy coarsenes… Portia had begun to suspect that her companion’s way of speaking was a contrivance to hide his intellect.
What, because he uses colloquialisms his speech must be a façade? And excuse me, why is that ‘coarse’? And bloody hell, did you just link accent to intellect? Dick move, Clive. Last time I checked this wasn’t the 1950s.
By the end of this book, (which is a crap anticlimax, btw) I was so annoyed with it that I revised my half-way decision to give it three stars. My advice? If you pick it up, don't even bother with the second half of the novel.
October 11, 2022
One for Sorrow, Two for Joy reads like a handbook on how not to write xenofiction—or prose fiction in general. Featuring one-dimensional characterization across its painfully generic cast, villains so shallowly and cartoonishly evil that they might have been poached from a Monty Python sketch, worldbuilding decisions so nonsensical and contradictory that even the average reader will likely have their suspension of disbelief wrenched away every few pages, and bafflingly jarring shifts in tone that veer from the extremely childish to the horrifically violent (including rape, a subject the author handles about as maturely as everything else), this book is written from start to finish in some of the blandest, “tell, don’t show”-style prose I have ever read, leaving it resembling a Wikipedia synopsis more than an actual novel. How this book ever got published in this form will forever remain a mystery to me. [1/10]
January 10, 2015
What a disappointment! "An epic tale in the tradition of 'Watership Down' and 'Lord of the Rings'..." it says on the front cover, but the only resemblance (as so often with that sort of comparison) is that the birds can talk.
Almost from the first page I was inwardly shouting "show me, don't tell me!" as Clive Woodall laid out his ideas in turgid and predictable prose. By page 7, the plucky Robin hero had found a friendly Grebe who advised him to search out the wise old owl in the ancient Tangelwood - and the author had completely lost my respect. This is a children's book, but there is no excuse for lazy cliche and awkward in-filling of plot where there should be real dialogue and action. I've struggled on to p.43, but that's far enough, and this book is on the way out - I don't want my children to read it, they can read something more interesting instead.
Almost from the first page I was inwardly shouting "show me, don't tell me!" as Clive Woodall laid out his ideas in turgid and predictable prose. By page 7, the plucky Robin hero had found a friendly Grebe who advised him to search out the wise old owl in the ancient Tangelwood - and the author had completely lost my respect. This is a children's book, but there is no excuse for lazy cliche and awkward in-filling of plot where there should be real dialogue and action. I've struggled on to p.43, but that's far enough, and this book is on the way out - I don't want my children to read it, they can read something more interesting instead.
December 26, 2022
One for Sorrow, Two for Joy is split into two parts (book 1 and book 2). I enjoyed the first part, which centers on the robin Kirrick's quest through Birddom. But I found the second part to be less enjoyable - it was following too many characters and too many story lines, most of which fail to pay off for the reader. As an added note, the book is also rather unnecessarily graphically violent at times.
August 4, 2009
I bought this a long time ago and lost it in my library - I just moved and was unpacking - there it was. I've been so busy - I thought, "I really don't have time for a book with all these boxes to unpack." Famous last words - I consecrated my new library by reading this book in two days.
Funny how I always looked at robins without really seeing them. I mean, owls, eages and hawks are the favorites - conjuring flights of fancy and daring.
The bird world is in trouble - an evil magpie has united his flock and they proceed to wipe out bird species. The mayhem spreads to other magpies and suddenly there are no safe places for small robins and nuthatches.
One small robin has three tasks - convince other bird species to help - the eagles, the sea birds and the insects to stop the killing and torture done by the magpies and crows.
This book had me engrossed and taught me a lot about birds. I do admit I love ravens, crows and magpies (sports car crows) and I felt bad that they were the villians. It's a good read!
Funny how I always looked at robins without really seeing them. I mean, owls, eages and hawks are the favorites - conjuring flights of fancy and daring.
The bird world is in trouble - an evil magpie has united his flock and they proceed to wipe out bird species. The mayhem spreads to other magpies and suddenly there are no safe places for small robins and nuthatches.
One small robin has three tasks - convince other bird species to help - the eagles, the sea birds and the insects to stop the killing and torture done by the magpies and crows.
This book had me engrossed and taught me a lot about birds. I do admit I love ravens, crows and magpies (sports car crows) and I felt bad that they were the villians. It's a good read!
December 20, 2008
I think this is suppose to be a child's book. I'm not sure because it reads like the book itself doesn't know what it wants to be. If it is a children's book than why does it have a rape in it? If it's an adult book (or even YA), than why is the writing childish? Is Woodall trying to sound like Adams and not just doing a good job?
One problem with the book are everything is oversimplified. This wouldn't be a problem if it was a children's book, but that brings us back to the rape, which is a bird rape. It's not overly graphic, but considering the simplification and writing level, it seems out of place. I also find it hard to believe that any bird would give up eating bugs. Females characters are very flat and rely on the male characters too much. The excuse of "they're animals" doesn't work. Look at Watership Down and the female rabbits there; look at Horwood and his moles. Additionally, the motivations of several characters were too simple and not deep enough.
One problem with the book are everything is oversimplified. This wouldn't be a problem if it was a children's book, but that brings us back to the rape, which is a bird rape. It's not overly graphic, but considering the simplification and writing level, it seems out of place. I also find it hard to believe that any bird would give up eating bugs. Females characters are very flat and rely on the male characters too much. The excuse of "they're animals" doesn't work. Look at Watership Down and the female rabbits there; look at Horwood and his moles. Additionally, the motivations of several characters were too simple and not deep enough.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 31, 2020
Robiłam ostatnio Tag "13 pechowych książek" i między innymi ta książka znalazła się na liście. A że byłam u mamy, u której znajdują się wszystkie moje książki, stwierdziłam, że ją wezmę. W końcu co mi szkodzi, skoro leży na półce już dobre 10 lat, kiedy to zachwyciła mnie okładka i kupiłam ją za niecałą dyszkę. I ma sowy na okładce i w temacie. Czy mogło pójść to źle?
Jakby to zacząć, co by miało ręce i nogi...? A wiem! Ja pierdolę taki debiut. Czytałam w swoim życiu wiele debiutów i chyba żaden nie był tak zły jak ta książka. Ba! niektóre kontynuacje nie były tak złe. Książka ledwie przebiła magiczną liczbę trzystu stron, a ja się czułam, jakbym przeczytała cegłę mającą ich co najmniej 1500. Już dawno nie byłam tak wymęczona żadną książką! Szło mi bardzo opornie, musiałam robić przerwę co parę stron, a raz nawet zasnęłam z moim palcem robiącym za zakładkę! No błagam.
Ciężko mi powiedzieć w ogóle dla kogo jest przeznaczona ta lektura. Okładka zawiera ostrzeżenie, że nie jest to książka dla dzieci i faktycznie - ma drastyczne sceny - morderstw, gwałtu, zdecydowanie pisana była z myślą o starszym czytelniku. Ale czy dla dorosłych? Broń boże, bo mimo, że kocham sowy całym serduchem (są tu też inne ptaki, jak rudziki, sroki, orły), to absolutnie nie była to forma dla mnie! Ptaki są aż nazbyt uczłowieczone - w pewnym momencie jedna z nich się rumieni (jak to wygląda pod piórami?), a ja wciąż się zastanawiam, jak ptak po gwałcie może być pokrwawiony i posiniaczony? Moja znajomość ptasiej anatomii i fizjologii przeczy temu, co pisze autor. No banialuki straszne. Fabuła może i jest, ale matko, ja jestem tak zmęczona, że ciężko mi powiedzieć, o czym ta książka jest, bo myślę tylko o tych bredniach.
Zabrakło także tutaj porządnej korekty i tutaj wydawnictwo zawiodło na całej linii. POWTÓRZENIA IMION! Kochani, ich było MNÓSTWO. Jak już kiedyś mówiłam, trzeba wielu błędów, żeby mnie wyprowadzić z równowagi, ale kurde! Jeśli ja na jednej stronie mam TRZYNAŚCIE RAZY powtórzone imię głównego bohatera to mnie szlag jasny trafia. Już po pierwszej stronie miałam wyryte je w mózgu, a dalej było tylko gorzej. O porównaniu do "Folwarku zwierzęcego" to ja się już nie wypowiem, bo takie porównywanie jest cholernie krzywdzące dla każdej książki.
Nie, nie, nie, nie i nie! Nie polecam. Recenzję piszę, zanim w ogóle skończyłam książkę, ale nic już nie zmieni mojego zdania. Ja nawet nie chcę wiedzieć, jak ona się kończy. W ogóle nie chcę jej czytać. Z tego, co widziałam, autor napisał jeszcze dwie książki. Szczerze? W dupie to mam, mógłby napisać jeszcze trzysta, ale ja absolutnie nigdy więcej nic od niego nie przeczytam, bo źle by się to dla mnie skończyło.
Dodatkowo wspomnę, że przez cały czas nie mogłam się odgonić od skojarzenia ze "Strażnikami Ga'Hoole" - bardzo podobny motyw i mam wrażenie, że linia fabularna jest prawie identyczna, mimo, że obie książki są o kompletnie innych rzeczach. Co prawda widziałam tylko film, więc na nim porównuje, ale widziałam, że książki zostały wydane w tym samym roku. Przypadek? Nie sądzę! A Strażników kocham mocno i uważam, że jest to jeden z najpiękniejszych filmów, jakie kiedykolwiek widziałam!
Jakby to zacząć, co by miało ręce i nogi...? A wiem! Ja pierdolę taki debiut. Czytałam w swoim życiu wiele debiutów i chyba żaden nie był tak zły jak ta książka. Ba! niektóre kontynuacje nie były tak złe. Książka ledwie przebiła magiczną liczbę trzystu stron, a ja się czułam, jakbym przeczytała cegłę mającą ich co najmniej 1500. Już dawno nie byłam tak wymęczona żadną książką! Szło mi bardzo opornie, musiałam robić przerwę co parę stron, a raz nawet zasnęłam z moim palcem robiącym za zakładkę! No błagam.
Ciężko mi powiedzieć w ogóle dla kogo jest przeznaczona ta lektura. Okładka zawiera ostrzeżenie, że nie jest to książka dla dzieci i faktycznie - ma drastyczne sceny - morderstw, gwałtu, zdecydowanie pisana była z myślą o starszym czytelniku. Ale czy dla dorosłych? Broń boże, bo mimo, że kocham sowy całym serduchem (są tu też inne ptaki, jak rudziki, sroki, orły), to absolutnie nie była to forma dla mnie! Ptaki są aż nazbyt uczłowieczone - w pewnym momencie jedna z nich się rumieni (jak to wygląda pod piórami?), a ja wciąż się zastanawiam, jak ptak po gwałcie może być pokrwawiony i posiniaczony? Moja znajomość ptasiej anatomii i fizjologii przeczy temu, co pisze autor. No banialuki straszne. Fabuła może i jest, ale matko, ja jestem tak zmęczona, że ciężko mi powiedzieć, o czym ta książka jest, bo myślę tylko o tych bredniach.
Zabrakło także tutaj porządnej korekty i tutaj wydawnictwo zawiodło na całej linii. POWTÓRZENIA IMION! Kochani, ich było MNÓSTWO. Jak już kiedyś mówiłam, trzeba wielu błędów, żeby mnie wyprowadzić z równowagi, ale kurde! Jeśli ja na jednej stronie mam TRZYNAŚCIE RAZY powtórzone imię głównego bohatera to mnie szlag jasny trafia. Już po pierwszej stronie miałam wyryte je w mózgu, a dalej było tylko gorzej. O porównaniu do "Folwarku zwierzęcego" to ja się już nie wypowiem, bo takie porównywanie jest cholernie krzywdzące dla każdej książki.
Nie, nie, nie, nie i nie! Nie polecam. Recenzję piszę, zanim w ogóle skończyłam książkę, ale nic już nie zmieni mojego zdania. Ja nawet nie chcę wiedzieć, jak ona się kończy. W ogóle nie chcę jej czytać. Z tego, co widziałam, autor napisał jeszcze dwie książki. Szczerze? W dupie to mam, mógłby napisać jeszcze trzysta, ale ja absolutnie nigdy więcej nic od niego nie przeczytam, bo źle by się to dla mnie skończyło.
Dodatkowo wspomnę, że przez cały czas nie mogłam się odgonić od skojarzenia ze "Strażnikami Ga'Hoole" - bardzo podobny motyw i mam wrażenie, że linia fabularna jest prawie identyczna, mimo, że obie książki są o kompletnie innych rzeczach. Co prawda widziałam tylko film, więc na nim porównuje, ale widziałam, że książki zostały wydane w tym samym roku. Przypadek? Nie sądzę! A Strażników kocham mocno i uważam, że jest to jeden z najpiękniejszych filmów, jakie kiedykolwiek widziałam!
December 28, 2022
I had heard this one was one of the worst pieces of xenofiction in the big pumpkin patch of xenofictions out there. Didn't quite believe that -how can you mess up writing birds?- turned out it was really bad and truly a fast slide down a rabbit hole of squick. I've read a lot of specist content, but we go beyond that. So--
Holy shitake mushrooms we have got to talk about how racist, sexist, classist, and awful this book is, and I'm not sure I can be the person to do that. Nazism and birds are not what I came into this book expecting, but it was what I got. Bird Hitler.
Step one to reading One for Sorrow: Take everything you know about birds, symbiotic relationships, and how birds coexist and throw it in the trash. Step two: Next take all those species tidbits and anything you've read, seen on Youtube, or grown up knowing, and throw it in the trash.
Seriously, out with all of that.
This is not a kid's book, but it is often in the kid's section, much like Warrior Cats(incest, pedophilia, gutting), and other adult books: Plague Dogs. We really need to talk about the amount of sex and sexual assault depicted in graphic detail within YA books. This just keeps happening. Also, there's all of the above plus a graphic, too-detailed rape scene in this "kids' book" so, uh. Someone please actually read the contents of these books before putting it out before children. Kids reading these and getting scarred is a regular staple and maybe that should be fixed.
Crows are exceptionally stupid, foolish birds. Yes, the one entire chunk of birds known to be capable of tool usage, learning exchange and bartering, and so on. In this book, they are stupid and unintelligent beings. They are low on the totem pole, treated awfully, and all in the family of corvid(save magpies) are basically hated and looked down upon. How???
Owls being wise is a small and poor hill to die on, they are exceptionally brilliant at what they do, but they are utterly stupid in anything they do not know. In One for Sorrow, they're extremely wise, blah de blah.
Robins are often a violent species of bird, with 10% of their deaths being by their own claws and territory fights going too far. But in One for Sorrow, robins are peaceful hippy-typed birds who want peace and never do violence, even if angered.
Eagles are elegant and majestic and barely useful. They're almost extinct and never ever poach or eat carrion. The book even makes a point to say they're too noble to eat robins, but they do! In real life, they love to grab songbirds and eat them. Songbirds are prey, all animals are prey to an eagle, even a deer! But one rabbit helps them so they vow to never eat rabbits again. This tied in with something else down below will elaborate on how stupid that decision is.
Seagulls are... pirate-themed and not featured? This is a terrible loss, I would have likely actually given this a real two stars if we had seagulls taking everyone hostage for their seeds and bugs and wielding some type of weapon. Or even using their beaks like swords! An utter waste!
Magpies are Nazis. Yes. Those Nazis. They are exceptionally cliche, unremarkable, and cartoonishly written but they are still Nazis. In fact our main character is detailed to have killed all his siblings hours after hatching, then being abandoned by his parents. So he fed off their dead bodies, and then grew into adulthood. Somehow, he knew who his parents were, and as adults, hunted them down. Then brutally torturing his parents in the darkest ways possible. Yes, our main villain Nazi was born evil. Shadow the Hedgehog at his worst written moments is not this level of edgy. Most of even the edgiest WC content is nothing, this magpie is beyond intense darkness and straight through to edgy.
And I have read some edgy content. Edgy isn't always bad. But here? It's literally "the suffering of others is fun!" It's absolutely bad.
As an outsider looking in, my reflex was to expect the large birds such as the owls and the eagles to kill the Nazi dictator magpie, but they cannot for some...some reason. Apparently even though magpies are eaten by both owls and eagles, there is no bird-on-bird violence done by anyone but the magpie species. Likewise, birds don't eat birds. Also, magpies now outnumber all other birds for some...some reason. I don't know. Plot contrivance? Because for some reason magpies needed to out populate all other birds, even crows.
Then they made a deal with insects to say they will never ever eat insects again if they contaminate carcasses. That's all of the insects made peace with via Tomar the owl. What are the birds eating now then? Why is this their doomsday solution?
The graphic rape scene early on is because our main villain basically tantrums and violates a fellow magpie for no reason. Poor Katja. She'll be back near the end. But this somehow gives him a conscious and he's in love with her when she returns, and ... what? She vows to kill him in revenge, and even though he has forgotten her, she raises her kid to kill him. Katja is killed before him, with him feeling "horror" for some reason. Her son seeks revenge. Both Katja and her son, Venga are then killed. Basically their whole revenge plan ends with them dead and nothing accomplished.
And then the main villain is shot in even more graphic detail than necessary. Because he's mistaken for his dead son who pecked a kid(extreme reaction to a bird, but okay).
Oh, I want to add the final nail in this book's coffin for me. It's a cherry-on-top type of thing:
The author wrote themselves into such a corner that they could only use an apocalypse as a possible ending for it. Yes, this book goes so inanely into the pits of hell that it requires an apocalypse as a possible solution. I saw a comment on Youtube that perfectly summarized how bad this went, "Because of a decision made in the last book, the world goes to shit and is running straight into the apocalypse, but then humans decide to nuke everything, but the rapture comes before that can happen".
1.5 stars, Woodall literally lost the plot.
Holy shitake mushrooms we have got to talk about how racist, sexist, classist, and awful this book is, and I'm not sure I can be the person to do that. Nazism and birds are not what I came into this book expecting, but it was what I got. Bird Hitler.
Step one to reading One for Sorrow: Take everything you know about birds, symbiotic relationships, and how birds coexist and throw it in the trash. Step two: Next take all those species tidbits and anything you've read, seen on Youtube, or grown up knowing, and throw it in the trash.
Seriously, out with all of that.
This is not a kid's book, but it is often in the kid's section, much like Warrior Cats(incest, pedophilia, gutting), and other adult books: Plague Dogs. We really need to talk about the amount of sex and sexual assault depicted in graphic detail within YA books. This just keeps happening. Also, there's all of the above plus a graphic, too-detailed rape scene in this "kids' book" so, uh. Someone please actually read the contents of these books before putting it out before children. Kids reading these and getting scarred is a regular staple and maybe that should be fixed.
Crows are exceptionally stupid, foolish birds. Yes, the one entire chunk of birds known to be capable of tool usage, learning exchange and bartering, and so on. In this book, they are stupid and unintelligent beings. They are low on the totem pole, treated awfully, and all in the family of corvid(save magpies) are basically hated and looked down upon. How???
Owls being wise is a small and poor hill to die on, they are exceptionally brilliant at what they do, but they are utterly stupid in anything they do not know. In One for Sorrow, they're extremely wise, blah de blah.
Robins are often a violent species of bird, with 10% of their deaths being by their own claws and territory fights going too far. But in One for Sorrow, robins are peaceful hippy-typed birds who want peace and never do violence, even if angered.
Eagles are elegant and majestic and barely useful. They're almost extinct and never ever poach or eat carrion. The book even makes a point to say they're too noble to eat robins, but they do! In real life, they love to grab songbirds and eat them. Songbirds are prey, all animals are prey to an eagle, even a deer! But one rabbit helps them so they vow to never eat rabbits again. This tied in with something else down below will elaborate on how stupid that decision is.
Seagulls are... pirate-themed and not featured? This is a terrible loss, I would have likely actually given this a real two stars if we had seagulls taking everyone hostage for their seeds and bugs and wielding some type of weapon. Or even using their beaks like swords! An utter waste!
Magpies are Nazis. Yes. Those Nazis. They are exceptionally cliche, unremarkable, and cartoonishly written but they are still Nazis. In fact our main character is detailed to have killed all his siblings hours after hatching, then being abandoned by his parents. So he fed off their dead bodies, and then grew into adulthood. Somehow, he knew who his parents were, and as adults, hunted them down. Then brutally torturing his parents in the darkest ways possible. Yes, our main villain Nazi was born evil. Shadow the Hedgehog at his worst written moments is not this level of edgy. Most of even the edgiest WC content is nothing, this magpie is beyond intense darkness and straight through to edgy.
And I have read some edgy content. Edgy isn't always bad. But here? It's literally "the suffering of others is fun!" It's absolutely bad.
As an outsider looking in, my reflex was to expect the large birds such as the owls and the eagles to kill the Nazi dictator magpie, but they cannot for some...some reason. Apparently even though magpies are eaten by both owls and eagles, there is no bird-on-bird violence done by anyone but the magpie species. Likewise, birds don't eat birds. Also, magpies now outnumber all other birds for some...some reason. I don't know. Plot contrivance? Because for some reason magpies needed to out populate all other birds, even crows.
Then they made a deal with insects to say they will never ever eat insects again if they contaminate carcasses. That's all of the insects made peace with via Tomar the owl. What are the birds eating now then? Why is this their doomsday solution?
The graphic rape scene early on is because our main villain basically tantrums and violates a fellow magpie for no reason. Poor Katja. She'll be back near the end. But this somehow gives him a conscious and he's in love with her when she returns, and ... what? She vows to kill him in revenge, and even though he has forgotten her, she raises her kid to kill him. Katja is killed before him, with him feeling "horror" for some reason. Her son seeks revenge. Both Katja and her son, Venga are then killed. Basically their whole revenge plan ends with them dead and nothing accomplished.
And then the main villain is shot in even more graphic detail than necessary. Because he's mistaken for his dead son who pecked a kid(extreme reaction to a bird, but okay).
Oh, I want to add the final nail in this book's coffin for me. It's a cherry-on-top type of thing:
The author wrote themselves into such a corner that they could only use an apocalypse as a possible ending for it. Yes, this book goes so inanely into the pits of hell that it requires an apocalypse as a possible solution. I saw a comment on Youtube that perfectly summarized how bad this went, "Because of a decision made in the last book, the world goes to shit and is running straight into the apocalypse, but then humans decide to nuke everything, but the rapture comes before that can happen".
1.5 stars, Woodall literally lost the plot.
April 25, 2012
To be honest the only reason that I read this book was my eight year old daughter, Karen, looked at the cover and said "You should read this one." I checked it out from the library and forgot about it. Somehow it ended up in my work bag (I think Karen had something to do with that). I started reading it at lunch simply to have something to do. I ended up loving the book. In this story Birddom is under attack and species of birds are being killed off. It is up to a lone robin and an ancient owl to come up with and implement a plan that will save them all. Although the on the surface it sound like a Disney movie (they have actually bought the movie rights) readers will be in for a surprise. Unlike the Disney movies the fight scenes are not whitewashed. The violence is described in detail. Readers will find this story a fast past adventure. I cant wait to see what Clive Woodall will write in the future (this being his first novel.)
August 13, 2014
Wow, I love this style of writing that Clive Woodall delivers. I am looking forward to read another one of his books.
**However, I am unsure, as many other reviewers have also expressed, what age group this is targeting. It reminds me of the series Guardians of Ga'hoole, another great series. It has some serious content and themes though, and may not be suitable for younger readers, as it includes a scene, although not descriptive.
To me the last lines in the book were mesmerizing.
**However, I am unsure, as many other reviewers have also expressed, what age group this is targeting. It reminds me of the series Guardians of Ga'hoole, another great series. It has some serious content and themes though, and may not be suitable for younger readers, as it includes a scene, although not descriptive.
To me the last lines in the book were mesmerizing.
December 7, 2011
I loved this book. It was amazing, it was thrilling, and at places it was raw and horrific. Clive captures the world of birds with surprising vividness; he compares them to people yet also sticks to their true natures. At some points of the story I was saddened, and at other points I was laughing and smiling. One for Sorrow Two for Joy (the title is based off a superstitious nursery rhyme about magpies) was a splendid read.
The 'One for Sorrow, Two for Joy' nursery rhyme about magpies:
One for Sorrow
Two for Joy
Three for a Girl
Four for a boy
Five for silver
Six for gold
Seven for a secret (never to be told)
Eight for a wish
Nine for a kiss
And ten for a bird that you can't miss!
Apparently your luck was determined by how many magpies you saw. It was a creative title for the book.
The 'One for Sorrow, Two for Joy' nursery rhyme about magpies:
One for Sorrow
Two for Joy
Three for a Girl
Four for a boy
Five for silver
Six for gold
Seven for a secret (never to be told)
Eight for a wish
Nine for a kiss
And ten for a bird that you can't miss!
Apparently your luck was determined by how many magpies you saw. It was a creative title for the book.
April 23, 2010
Great, great, great book. I've read it twice, and was *THIS* close to crying both times. I read it three years ago, in fourth grade, and again this year.
I realized I forgot alot about Kirrik and Portia's life together, and the fate that ended Kirrik's life. Traska...devil. He was just...evil. I hated him the whole way through, since I saw his name. His idea to support his leader was just...brutal. He had no reason to destroy Birddom's life. Especially by killing Kirrik the way he did...Ugh.
I just felt so bad for Portia when she had to watch her mate's death. I also felt bad for Katya, poor girl. Venga by far had to be one of my favorite characters...He and his mother didn't deserve their deaths, either. I however loved Traska's death.
I realized I forgot alot about Kirrik and Portia's life together, and the fate that ended Kirrik's life. Traska...devil. He was just...evil. I hated him the whole way through, since I saw his name. His idea to support his leader was just...brutal. He had no reason to destroy Birddom's life. Especially by killing Kirrik the way he did...Ugh.
I just felt so bad for Portia when she had to watch her mate's death. I also felt bad for Katya, poor girl. Venga by far had to be one of my favorite characters...He and his mother didn't deserve their deaths, either. I however loved Traska's death.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 31, 2013
Whether it was the pacing, the characters, or the unceasing plot. One for Sorrow, Two for Joy is a book you turn to again and again. For those who love Watership Down this is a perfect. Well developed bird characters that seem more human and relatable than anything else. This book makes your heart sing and follow the ups and downs of the characters and extremely connected. It's the kind of book you put under you pillow and let it whisper to you. Watership Down
February 19, 2009
This is a really good book! At first it would seem to be a book about birds, but as you begin to read further, and look between the lines, it is actually a book about people. It follows the story of a young robin, trying to work out what the world is about. He meets a whole host of characters, some nicer than others and learns a lot about himself and others. I would reccommend this book to anyone wanting to read something challenging yet thoroughly enjoyable and worthwhile.
March 6, 2018
3.5 stars. A really good book in the vein of Watership Down mixed with the perilous journey of The Lord of the Rings, One for Sorrow, Two for Joy is an interesting fantasy novel. The world is set up beautifully, and the characters all are great. The endings of each book are a little anti-climactic, since the protagonists seem to fail, only for a Deus Ex Machina to save the day.
Kirrick and Portia are lovely, and each bird is well thought out and have a role to play
Kirrick and Portia are lovely, and each bird is well thought out and have a role to play
January 6, 2008
I LOVED this book so much. Although making Kurrick, the only sparrow left in the whole forest wasnt a very good idea, and effected the whole book. I loved how the first half was called One for Sorrow, and was all sad, and then the happy ending, Two for Joy. Although i didnt get why it was ONE for, or TWO for.
August 19, 2016
So, I never reviewed this when I finished it but I gave it five stars so it probably warrants one.
My lasting recollections of this were that it was a captivating yarn, along the lines of something epic like Lord of the Rings. Except instead of Frodo you had a robin, instead of orcs you had magpies and instead of gandalf you had owls.
My lasting recollections of this were that it was a captivating yarn, along the lines of something epic like Lord of the Rings. Except instead of Frodo you had a robin, instead of orcs you had magpies and instead of gandalf you had owls.
January 11, 2012
I loved this book immensely when I was younger! Given the option, I did as many book reports as possible on this one piece of literature.
Despite being a story about robins, I connected with the small flighty main character, and enjoyed the twists and turns that the plot provided.
If anyone wants more information on how much I enjoyed this book, let me know!
Despite being a story about robins, I connected with the small flighty main character, and enjoyed the twists and turns that the plot provided.
If anyone wants more information on how much I enjoyed this book, let me know!
October 14, 2012
The author brings you into the bird world giving a perspective of good vs evil in Birddom. This book is not for children due to the violence and senseless killing.
FYI the Nursery Rhyme about magpies:
One for sorrow
Two for joy
Three for a girl
Four for a boy
Five for silver
Six for gold
Seven for a secret
Never to be told
December 4, 2012
This is a wonderful peace of liturature. The story was equisite, the vocabulary used waas fenominal, and the characters were certainly well developed. Although this is two books in one, they connected nicely. I would recomend this book to anyone who has an interest in birds or animals in general. Overall, this book is definately one of my favorites.
October 26, 2016
I read this book about... eight years ago, and I remember that this was amazing. I read it in Czech language and the title was Ptačí srdce (something like The heart of bird) and I first thought that it is something bad, not good written, but after reading... It was the first great fantasy story I´ve read.
March 8, 2014
Like "Watership Down", only with birds instead of rabbits. I thought the author did a good job of really bringing the characters to life. Being from Hawaii, I was unfamiliar with many of the bird species mentioned in the story. I found myself having to do some research everytime a character was introduced so that I would have a mental picture of the bird's appearance.
January 18, 2009
I thought that this was a very good book. It was a lot like Watership Down and Tailchaser's Song. I liked the way the small birds interacted with the larger birds like the owls, seabirds, falcons, and eagles.
June 19, 2010
I have not read this book for a while and it was actually my first audio book but I will never forget how completly captured I was in this book from the first word. I never though a book about birds could be so interesting! I loved the flow of the words and the hardship our hero had to face.
February 11, 2012
love the book though its not for children to read since I'm not a child the story itself was many very interesting comparison for me put it in a different perspective about the world and the environment.
July 4, 2013
It's absolutely NOT for kids but it's so damn fun and addictive. For me, I felt like enjoying some epic bloodshed-war fiction in the form of birds.
Unexpected joyfully.
Don't forget about my mention that it contains violence.
Unexpected joyfully.
Don't forget about my mention that it contains violence.
July 23, 2014
This is one of the first audio books I've tried, I do a lot of driving for my job. the story was very interesting and made the miles go by very quickly. The reader did a good job conveying intent of meaning.
October 7, 2007
at first, I thought this is a book for children. but no, it's for adults XD
there are too many blood and gore. but the story is great. I can't put it down.
there are too many blood and gore. but the story is great. I can't put it down.
January 12, 2008
Enjoyable animal(bird) characters in an adult story line
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews