What a painfully boring book. 166 narrators chiming in and overlapping in a story that seems so random and disconnected for the most part. It might beWhat a painfully boring book. 166 narrators chiming in and overlapping in a story that seems so random and disconnected for the most part. It might be deep, and it might be clever, but if there isn't the barest spark of something to make you care what's on the next page - then why even bother turning it?
This is exactly how I like my mysteries. It's a shame mediocre books like Into the Water will soar the charts this year, when books like this probablyThis is exactly how I like my mysteries. It's a shame mediocre books like Into the Water will soar the charts this year, when books like this probably won't get the attention they deserve.
The Last Place You Look follows private investigator - Roxane Weary - as she attempts to solve a fifteen-year-old case and, possibly, save an innocent man from death row. It doesn't look good; in fact, the guy looks guilty as sin, but Roxane needs the PI money. However, her digging into small town secrets and a buried past unearth something bigger than she'd ever imagined. It's just so damn compelling.
The real strength of this book is Roxane herself. I adore mystery/thrillers that make you care about the investigator and their private life just as much as you care about the whodunnit. Roxane is bisexual and juggling two unhealthy relationships, one with a man and the other with a woman. She also has a drinking problem that is starting to affect her work.
Roxane's messy, imperfect life makes her all the more interesting. She's set up as someone I would like to read more about - not just to see her solve crimes and get her hands dirty, but because I care about her. I'm really glad to hear there are more books planned for this series.
Some of the reveals are not difficult to guess, but I've said this maybe a hundred times: the best mysteries are those where it doesn't matter if you work out who did it. And here, it doesn't matter. The story stands strong without leaning heavily on its reveals; it is so much more than its outcome.
So if you like small town mysteries, charmingly screwed-up private investigators, cases that expand and get bigger and bigger, and a touch of weird phone calls and creepy houses, I would highly recommend this book.
Tana French aside, it's easily the best mystery/thriller I've read in a while.
I found this a really interesting and convincing opinion piece. Most of what Wilber discusses aligns with my own beliefs, so it was a little case of pI found this a really interesting and convincing opinion piece. Most of what Wilber discusses aligns with my own beliefs, so it was a little case of preaching to the choir - but still, I took a lot away from it.
Wilber attempts to explain the election of Trump, and the current notion of "truth" and "post-truth" in the world today using his own integral theories. I had no prior knowledge of his work on Integral Theory and the four quadrants, but this book was written in a way that made it easy to pick up quickly.
He explains the divide between liberals (or, specifically, Democrats) into two leading categories that conflict with one another and fail to provide a platform on which America can move forward. There are the traditional "orange" liberals who put emphasis on the importance of freedom above all else, and the emerging modern "green" liberals concerned with equality and all acts of oppression. In other words, what one might refer to as SJWs.
This is something I feel quite strongly about, though I rarely have time to write politics essays these days. I, too, am concerned with this kind of radical liberalism (indeed, radical anything usually comes dangerously close to mirroring the opposite). As Wilber writes:
The progressive Left—precisely because it was progressive, or tended to follow new evolutionary unfoldings—was now divided between its original, foundational values of the Enlightenment—individual rights and freedom; universal values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the separation of church and state; emphasis on individual free speech and individual freedom in general—versus the novel values of newly emerging green, which included: overall, an emphasis on green’s “equality” above and over orange’s “freedom,” and thus an emphasis on group rights and a curtailing of individual rights if they in any way threatened to marginalize or even offend any minority group (a direct challenge to the First Amendment and a willingness to limit free speech if it seemed to hurt the feelings of any group);
He talks about an issue that I've seen a lot in the media since the election of Trump - the way in which white, rural, uneducated people have been dismissed and looked down upon by an elitist liberalism. It is interesting how liberals often participate in forms of aggressive conservatism - such as classism - in order to enforce their worldview. The result, of course, is that Trump won the election.
Wilber makes a lot of great points, even if I think he sometimes a) oversimplifies issues and b) overuses phrases like "aperspectival madness". I especially enjoyed reading his theory on the different stages of human worldview development and the way we progress from focusing on the self, to the group, to a more universal outlook. ...more
Feminism has - and probably will always have - a special place in my heart. Overall, I don't read a lot of nonfiction, but when I do, it is often in tFeminism has - and probably will always have - a special place in my heart. Overall, I don't read a lot of nonfiction, but when I do, it is often in the form of feminist essays. And I just think I may have been spoiled by better essay writers than Solnit.
I think the strength of this book - and the reason it has done so well - is that it’s main concept will make sense to a lot of women. I keep seeing anecdotes from other reviewers on how men have tried to explain things to them in their lives. There is something very wonderful about someone putting into words an experience that up until this point you haven’t known how to explain. I get that.
But, unfortunately, that's where the positive ended for me. Take, for example, the title essay of "Men Explain Things to Me". The title pretty much says it all, and the essay doesn't take you into any more depth. Almost the entirety of the essay is contained within its title. The essay consists of Solnit talking about an encounter with a man who tried to explain to her something she knew more about than he did. She doesn't analyze this, or the history behind it - it is not so much an essay as it is an idea floating around without depth.
That's just the first essay, but the rest feel like Feminism 101, too. They are mostly statistics that learned feminists will have already heard of, and Solnit doesn’t give any additional insight. The book lacks intersectionality, which, you know, fine, I get writing about what you know, but then don't make absolutely ridiculous statements like this:
"violence doesn't have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender."
The author highlights her ignorance with this statement because violence has been shown repeatedly to have all of those things.
I thought for a while I could say this book was only for those who know nothing about feminism already, but reading statements like that make me think it isn't for those either.