John > Recent Status Updates

I’m really not sure how I feel about this one so far. It’s a bit unfocused, although very easy to read. It’s unclear to me what the book is trying to achieve. I know I’m early on in the book, but there’s been very little explicit linguistic analysis so far. I also have some concerns about the sources used for the book, and the fact that those sources don’t match up to some claims made by the author.

I’m not sure how much I’ll be posting on here moving forward, but I’ll (probably) be more active on Fable:

https://fable.co/john-c-polles-402442...

I’m so close to the end of this book, and yet I’m finding it hard to care enough to finish.

It’s not that it’s a bad book. It’s just that this book has some of the most deceptive marketing attached to it that I’ve seen in a while. This is not what it says it is.

Sigh.

Not finishing this one right now, I don't think.

Flipped through it before news of her recent comments came to light, and I found a discussion of pansexual and genderfluid identity. It struck me as concerning, because of whispers concerning her feelings about these matters, but I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. But, after the recent kerfuffle, I don't think I want to deal with it right now.

Boring, cliche, way too long, badly researched. I’m very disappointed, and not only because I spent $30 on this just so he could sign my copy of Perks. It’ll be a miracle if I finish this. (Also, I can’t get past the fact that he called a retirement home Shady Pines. Seriously?)

Yeah, not so sure about this one.

Yeah, DNF. After like the third gang-rape (punctuated by beating up a homeless person and holding up a convenience store for no reason), I couldn’t finish it. And his “boys will be boys” interpretation in the intro didn’t help, nor did his calling these rape scenes “pornographic” (or whining about the last chapter). I have better ways to spend my time.

Ooh buddy.

This guy — and I mean Burgess, not Alex — probably wasn’t very much fun at parties, was he? At least if this intro was anything to go by.

Oh, look at that. A sex scandal that the protagonist gets blamed for even though it wasn't her fault. Of course.

The plot itself is good. But the entire novel being a single, continuous letter, written 70 years after the events described, is questionable.

Well, I didn't realize that I'd bought the "author's preferred text" until it was too late to return; I obviously don't know what was cut in the original published version, but I can see why it was cut down.

Anyway, I like it. Heavy-handed at times, but readable.

The fact that Wednesday is seemingly "in charge" is concerning, though -- Hoping this is complicated later.

This novel -- or at the very least Winston -- has a gender problem. I suppose one could argue that it was intentional; the Party, too, has a gender problem. I think this might be a bit too charitable to Orwell, even if he is saying some useful things on the topic, as he himself had a homosexuality problem. It's striking to me how I didn't notice this in the past. 3.5* so far (down from 5).

I'm not giving up yet, but so far, it reads very superficial and gossipy, and more than a little misogynistic. Hoping it gets better -- but I'm pessimistic.

I don't want to discourage anyone from reading this book -- or from going into the field -- but this is stressful af, an I'm less than 100pp. into it.

This is a challenge to get through. Interesting and important — but a lot.

Really into how she's blending dystopic and high fantasy elements here.

Also feels like she's really setting up some interesting dynamics in terms of gender, and I'm excited to see where she goes with it.

(Also, there's witches, castles, dragons, spells, and other things that feel vaguely Medieval.)