This book makes me want to stock up on dish washing and anti-fungal soap … okay maybe that's not how you kill this kind of fungus but it's a start. Apparently, the apocalypse will be brought upon us by a new breed of fungi that will somehow enter the human system and turn us all into zombies and you know what they say about prevention versus cure. Seriously this concept is scary. It doesn't help knowing that fungi have a completely different kingdom of their own. It makes sense, right? These aren't plants or animals … and they will take over the world. Wait-what? What's even scarier is these zombies (the book calls them "hungries") can run ... fast. Like World War Z (the movie which I never watched, BTW) run. And you can't outrun them. They're faster than foxes! I didn't like the term "hungries" at the beginning and I was gonna take a star off for that but it kinda grew on me. Lol.
Now, I'm not a big fan of zombie ... stuff (except for WWZ because that's a whole different level of awesome). I watched the first season of The Walking Dead and that's about it but THIS! Normally I zone out when they talk biology and sciences but I really tried to understand the explanation for the fungus ... thingie. That's how much I loved this book.
And the feelings! There's so much of those in here. I liked all the characters. Even the, supposedly, antagonists are not completely hate-able (I'm too lazy to think of a better word) because they make sense. I actually thought the ending would be different. ***SPOILER ALERT*** Like Melanie, I thought, would die at the end since the hungries grow whole trees out of their heads. And in a perfect world (which is my version of the ending) Parks would live and help Helen do ... I dunno. whatever. Although yeah, that's asking for too much.
Is it me or is this book
screaming (a cross between) Hunger Games and Supernatural? You know? A
girl with an estranged mother and a younger sister that means the world
to her? The resistance? Angels who doesn't know why they're doing what
they're doing? An agnostic archangel who has never talked to God because
only one "messenger" (another angel) can do that? I could go on.
I
picked up the book because I've seen good reviews of it. Four to five
stars everywhere. Words like "incredible", "gushing", "amazing", and
even more "gushing" comes to mind. It's part-romance novel, so I can
understand all the gushing.
Do I like the book? Based on the
stars (and my intro), you can say no but I should be more specific. I
didn't like the first 75% of the book. It was a task to read this book
and it's not even a complicated, philosophical one. Other than the
Hunger Games type of characters I have to say I didn't like the
dialogue. It's ... thin. Awkward. Maybe a bit trying hard on the
sarcastic side. I understand where they're getting at but it doesn't
work for me.
The last quarter of the book, however, is a
different story. Cliche, I know, but "the plot thickens!" It becomes
more interesting as the story unfolds. The romance becomes more bearable
and the exchange of words seem to come out more ... natural. It was
actually pretty good. This is supposed to be a trilogy (I think) so it
leaves the reader wondering what will happen next but not in an annoying
kind of way. It may be true that more questions arise and they will not
get answered by the end of the book but that's what keeps the readers
hanging on and waiting on the second one, I guess.
Now, this is
me filling in the blanks but I kind of have a feeling Penryn is some
sort of a descendant of an Angel ... or something like that. I guess
we'll have to see in the next book. Am I going to read the second book
given the stars and the initial dislike of dialogue? Yes, I think the
plot is pretty good and could be developed into something awesome. I am
hoping the next books will be good from beginning to end. :)
**SPOILER FROM HERE ON**
Oh
yes, I'd root for Penryn being an angel. I mean, an affair between an
angel and a Daughter of Man is forbidden (and any offspring they might
have is bound to be a Nephilim) so how else could this work? Unless
Raphael becomes human but HE'S AN ARCHANGEL (and a self-righteous one at
that!) so I don't like that idea, heh. Also, she can wield an angel's
sword. Granted, it gave her permission because she was going to help the
owner but what about when she was able to wield it when Raphael
couldn't anymore because of his new demon wings? That could mean the
sword belongs to Penryn already ... but she's a Daughter of Man?! Oh and
that's another thing I didn't like, the wings. Beliel, the demon angel
wanting his wings for vanity purposes (yes demons can be vain but ...
meh). I kind of like the idea that they did that as a smear campaign
against Raphael. So they could've left it at that. Beliel's "I can't
wait to show this off in hell cause no one has feathers in their wings
down there" bit is kind of a mood killer.
Read: September 21-25, 2012.
Normally, I only write about books I actually like but The Giver leaves
this reader confused that I can't move on. I'm not particularly excited
about this book and I thought maybe I need to read the sequels to
appreciate it fully.
The main thing that pushed me to read The
Giver is the fact that it won a Newberry medal so I thought it must be
something. I also read good reviews about it (some even raving of the
books ingenuity to teach children). There is a fourth book coming out
too so I was fairly convinced I'd at least enjoy reading this even if it
doesn't make it on top of my list. I mean, if there is a fourth book
surely that means the first three that came out are good enough? As you
can see, I gave it only a single star ... for good organization of a
concept. I know for a fact it's not easy to write. But in general, this
short book is a big let down for me.
The story is kind of
disturbing for a children's book. I'm not sure I want my nephews reading
this until they're at least 16 or already understand what the holocaust
was. By coincidence, I have been reading books that has a connection to
the holocaust so maybe it's hard for me to process this without
comparing. Granted, there is no mention of the event in the book but a
reader is led into that conclusion. There is much discrimination in this
book. The parents in this book are not actually biological parents,
they are people who are chosen and expected to be able to raise children
well. Actual birth mothers only give birth and after 3 or 4 times of
doing so are sent to perform hard labor because they are not perceived
to be able to raise children well or do "more important jobs". These
women are looked down on by the community in general. There is also
genocide in a way because they kill and dispose of babies that do not
reach the community standards and they do the same process for adults
too old to work or live on their own. So that is the conflict. But what
about the resolution?
I think the author used the part when the
helpless newborn is disposed off for being the weaker version of the
twins as the big turning point of the story. It is what made the
protagonist decide to fight against the system but the presentation is
actually weak. The main character's attempts and reasoning appear so
half-hearted. I think that's one of the things that killed it for me. For such a simple story it failed to explain how things became the way it is.
Even the ending is weak. It closes to the protagonist
catching (dying of) hypothermia and that might be a good ending for a
book that has a sequel but the thing is, the second and third books were
written so many years after the first one (it's like she wasn't sure
she wanted to do so) and from what I gather, even though the books are
related and grouped into a quartet (previously a trilogy), the sequels
does not present a conclusion to the first one.
Again, I would have to
read the newer books to know but it may take a while before I find the
interest to after this.
