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?

  • Yaky@slrpnk.netOP
    2·
    9 days ago

    You should still read Ancillary Justice, it’s fantastic and has so many perspectives, details, and world-building. Even better on a re-read somehow.

    I thought the same about the second book of Broken Earth. In both Broken Earth and Imperial Radch, it all takes place in one spot and gets more interpersonal. I did like the third book of Broken Earth though.

    • Echolynx@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      Yes, book 3 was great but the worldbuilding in it felt like it was backloaded with respect to book 2. And even book 2 was very expository.

      I really liked The Raven Tower, though had some issues with it. But I’ve been meaning to get through Leckie’s other books because that worldbuilding and cleverness with language was on another level.