This link opens in a pop-up window
Brilliant writing, deeply ideologically confused. Are you racist? Are you not racist? Are you just anti-imperialist with a luddite-esque attitude toward conquerors?
Murakami is one weird bird
May 2025 - Very different than the series in form; the lack of visual makes the narrator feel much less 'actual', closer to Esther Greenwood. They are very different things, and I think the main measure of that is that the novel is so hopeless. 3.75/5
November 2025 - Offred c'est moi 5/5
May 2025 - Very different than the series in form; the lack of visual makes the narrator feel much less 'actual', closer to Esther Greenwood. They are very different things, and I think the main measure of that is that the novel is so hopeless. 3.75/5
November 2025 - Offred c'est moi 5/5
Not as absorbing as the rest of the quartet.
All the space I was never given to occupy at 12. Possibly it might be a disconcerting choice of comfort
A bit gimmicky. Very much felt like a money pull. Aunt Lydia's bit was much more true to the original atmosphere I think.
A bit gimmicky. Very much felt like a money pull. Aunt Lydia's bit was much more true to the original atmosphere I think.
A white man prattles about women and native Americans, albeit 'nicely'.
Connell and Marianne grow up in the same small town in rural Ireland. The similarities …
Lost momentum halfway through. The existential gloom of growing up is saturating, like a bad spill. But I can't really feel sorry for either of them
Ambitious in conception, but none of the writing was that ambitious at all. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the first industrial revolution with so much more. Brave New World is conceptually brilliant, but it lacks the proper organisation to make it actualise that brilliance.
stop letting men write books
The two stars are for Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott because damn the film was so much better
A raving female bacchanalia, painted exclusively with the nauseating aesthetics of white, upper class, Americanism.
