linkalipski's reviews
294 reviews

I had a hard time remembering who is who because at least 3 characters had names starting with K making them hard to distinguish.

The writing felt a bit beginner and it’s hard to tell how much of that is because of the translation. Mostly the book tells you rather than shows you so one feels a little infantilised while reading.

The concept is lovely although I don’t understand how the rule that « going in the past cannot change the present » still allows for a letter from the past to be brought into the present. I liked the conclusion that the point of the chair is not that it will change the present but that characters are the ones who change.

The tone of the book is sweet but the story and characters haven’t stuck with me so I haven’t thought about the book when not reading. That said, it’s undeniably it’s own little world :)

The style is compelling that you want to keep on reading. Each chapter has a slight different style to capture the voice and internal world of the main character it’s focusing on.

However, I got lost with characters and who is who, especially if you get back to the book after a while. I’m not a fan of diving into random characters who seem to have some links together Linkedin style but not actually have a common storyline thread.

I originally wanted to know about Lucy Barton since she seemed to be the character of interest with some suggested trauma. But midway through the book, it seemed to move away from that intrigue.

Because of that, I’m not left satisfied with this book’s story despite how surprisingly enjoyable it was to read.

The style is poetic throughout with a literary academic vocabulary and some quotes of other authors. Sentences are on the long side and favours the enumeration of descriptives. The poetry are without rhymes and its style is beyond my education level for me to comment on.

Picked by my friend for me based on the prompt « a book with a cover the other one would find pretty ». Indeed it’s pretty and I wish there were more of the author’s illustrations in it actually.

I am not educated enough in literature to appreciate this book since I’d have to check the dictionary for most words (including the insects terms) and can’t even name the style of poetry she does. I don’t believe this book is accessible to the average reader and it is likely targeting those well versed in literature.

Without visuals of all the plants and insects she mentions, it is hard to appreciate what she describes because there is no visualisation possible unless one interrupts their reading experience to checks ever single one. Hence, it wasn’t for me.

This book does a great job at presenting crowd behaviour and psychology to everyone, regardless of scientific or academic background.

The style is not overly academic: every definition is well-explained, with a focus on the concepts rather than the methodology’s details

The book is well written and organised so transitions between concepts are smooths and we are not left overwhelmed by information.
A little redundant in place though, due to the intro-main-summary conclusion structure of each chapter. 

The author comes across like a well-balanced person, very passionate and capable to present the complexity of crowd science in palatable ways. Reading the book made me want to do research with him.

Personally, I’m left wanting more. This book was recommended by a french researcher in that field who shared experiment on his Youtube channel Fouloscopie. Therefore, the content of this book was covered in his detailed video so, while I’m glad I read a source, I also felt under stimulated by the familiar information. 
I long for the details of his methodology because we know the principles but not really how to apply them tangibly unless we go read his and others original studies (which I likely will).

I recommend the book, I think I wasn’t the target market that’s all :)

This book was a birthday gift as my friend really enjoyed it but my experience was different. I didn’t enjoy the book because I find the main character to be insufferable and I don’t understand the choices of the author.

The book is dominantly dialogues. A bit too much in my opinion: I’d say 80% is dialogues, mostly the primary type but at times indirect, with 10% of the book being her inner thoughts (which is mostly imagined dialogues or self-talk) and 10% action descriptions. 

While the author did a good job in  giving each characters distinct voices, the surrounding text lacks enough descriptors to make it unique and specific. This means that if you extract a piece, the writing doesn’t stand alone and reads very generic. A good example of that is the pool scene (page 302). In places, you could think you’re reading about a Karen being entitled and mean against children. Whereas if you add the missing text elements that are unique to this character, then you’d be reading about racism. Simple additions would have sufficed, such as describing the kind of stare the little girl has or the tone of the dialogue.
Eg, “Tabitha, come here!” Will read differently if the tone is embarrassed, through clenched teeth and an attempted smile or said with anger and exasperation or shouted with panic and alertness. Which will change the scene completely. But those indicators are constantly missing so the scenes are impoverished. 
 

The book is very fast to read thanks to the dialogues and the rather short sentences. The style is a mix of swear words, london slang and young people speech. 

A few missed errors (unless they were chosen by author although that begs the question of why) such as the use of the abbreviation “irl” in descriptive text and “he asked” after a statement.

I did not find the character to be  relatable in the slightest: Queenie is rude, entitled, self-centred and selfish, an awful friend and a lazy worker. She lies too and is overly melodramatic. The drama part could be because she’s in her twenties but I find that insulting to that age group as not everyone who is young behave like they have a personality disorder. I don’t get why she was created as a character, what was the point. I experienced no joy reading her. There is no real character growth either. In fact, all ends well for her despite her shallow superficial “growth”. She expects apologies from everyone but hardly dishes them out herself and when she does, it’s not from a place of true understanding and kindness but with self-serving intent led by loneliness. 

The book is a collection of the worst cliches and I don’t understand why. I find that it actually makes things worse rather than help cultural shifts towards abandoning unconscious biases. Here are some of the unnecessary stereotypes in the book: black characters have absent fathers/broken families and talk in street slang, the jewish character lends money, the Pakistani character flaunt his money from their thriving family business, men are all sex crazed sexist pigs, white people are racists, women bosses are cold b*tches, rich people are arrogant and immoral, BDSM practitioners are violent, etc. 

I was really upset that, once again, BDSM is used to demonise the practice. The kink community does not engage in risky sex without prior discussions, even more so if acts involve potential physical injury. The violent scene reads like rape to me. It was unclear if author meant it as so because there were missing indicators in text to clarify the level of consent of Queenie and how she felt about it. To me, it was a rape scene.

Also, it is rather ironic that a character who is supposed to be a feminist, uses the term hysterical to describe a woman. I don’t know if the author meant for that irony or if she herself, does not know the origin of the term and why it should be avoided. 

Overall, the writing was lacking depth so it reads like a compilation of Twitter threads on racism experiences mixed with instagram gossip. We can feel the author’s agenda as opposed to feeling like this is a real character, to whom real unfair experiences happen. That said, that’s her first book so I think it’s a good start. She has many aspects of dialogue nailed so with some maturing in the other areas of writing, I have no doubt she will write some good stories in the future.

I’m glad I read this book but I also can’t say I enjoyed the experience.

The book structure is all over the place which is likely a poor editor’s choice. There is a constant back and forth with the documentary making timeline and with it the cat timeline. And that is the same for historical retelling. While it’s somewhat chronological overall, this constant jumping around makes it hard to follow. 
The  historical retelling are written in an academic style and mixed with documentary reporting. The latter is written either as passive voice when talking of the crew’s journey or as active first person when it is his personal experiences. 

I can sense the intent to make the cat, the primary thread that weaves all those bits together but unfortunately I don’t think that was done successfully. The relationship with the cat and how the cat mirrors gulag survivors experiences from an emotional perspective would have been a better strategy. 

The writing style is as dry and cold as the Siberian landscape he describes. A lot of political and foreign terms (often unexplained) mixed with a literate vocabulary makes for a tiring read. While his vocabulary is extremely literate, his emotional literacy is sub-par. That may have been a writing choice or a direct reflection of his person, only him knows. But while the books does describe some emotions, they are always at surface levels unless he describes his anger or anxiety. His reflection often didn’t match the underlying complexity of Gulag’s survivors emotions hinted at in his retelling. At times, I felt as if he himself didn’t read his own words for his argument seems so devoid of feelings. 
For instance, why he wanted to do this documentary on the Gulags was unclear. At some point he mentions being of Polish jewish decent but that’s not presented as a motivation. Hence I could speculate that this may be a reason since mass of Polish people were deported to Gulags during WW2, but It doesn’t feel like it. 

 

I learned quite a few things and now want to read Chalamov’s writing (perhaps to understand what my own grandfather survived). However, I was very bothered by his argument that Stalin’s Gulags weren’t part of a mass extermination plan. Arguing that a survivor saying “there’s good and bad” is evidence it wasn’t designed to exterminate is akin to arguing that a domestic violence survivor saying their partner had “good and bad times” is indicative that the perpetrator didn’t intend to harm them and that it was a byproduct. I think this argument shows a misunderstanding of the psychological functioning of cruel mechanism, abuse and manipulation and the complexity of responses in trauma survivors who endure the more sophisticated forms of torture and abuse.
Besides, that the gulags existed pre and post ww2, does not necessarily mean that the ones created by Stalin didn’t have an extermination function. It’s surprising to me as Russian friends of mine were taught at school in Russia of the Gulags as extermination camps. I personally view his argument as a perfect example of the brilliance of Stalin’s manipulation who managed to make his victims believe their abuse was for their own good. I understand these are complicated points that requires deep conversations but I very much felt upset at his point of view which I find to be akin to denial. 

All in all.. I’m not mad I read this book. But I also think, the editor could have helped this book become better. 

It’s an interesting read and I’m glad I got to read it. It’s a way to expand ones cultural knowledge and be immersed in different ways of living.

That said, while I empathised with many of the characters because of their difficult situations, I didn’t like any of the characters. They are very authentically human but I personally wouldn’t want to be friends with any of them. I don’t know if the author meant to make them all equally unlikeable or if it’s just me… probably just me. 

This story could be summed up with « sexism does not make people happy and promotes cultures of unhealthy interpersonal control ». 

I don’t know how I feel about the story. Overall, I feel both frustrated and saddened that they are all just following sexist culture that clearly just creates issues. Also, I find Afi to be no more moral than the rest of them even though she is presenting as having integrity. I need time to reflect on this book before I know what I get out of it.