Paul's Reviews > 253

253 by Geoff Ryman
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
416390
's review
Sep 21, 13

bookshelves: novels

This was tedious postmodern whatever who cares "experimental" crap of the worst sort.

Although I would like to make it clear that I think the author was, is, and always will be a really nice person.

This book was so grindingly obvious in all its techniques and the "shock ending" was telegraphed so far in advance a person in a deep coma would have sussed it by page three if their loved one had started reading it to them. Actually, it would have cured the person in the deep coma, because they would have woken up and yelled "please stop reading, please, I'll do anything, just stop".

But as I say, the author is a really really sweet natured person who as I understand is very kind to little children and dogs, but not in a creepy way, in a good way.

I really hated this thing.

But the author is one of my favourite human beings. And yours too.

This review was only about the book.


Licensed by Paul Bryant under Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
109 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read 253.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-38 of 38) (38 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by ·Karen· (new)

·Karen· So, (and this does interest me) what induced you to pick it up in the first place?


message 2: by Dustin (new) - added it

Dustin I am curious, as well.:)


message 3: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul I should maybe explain that this is a silly review which was my kneejerk response to the big hoo-hah going on here:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... - see message 1 - you really don't have to read the following 1054...

I did read (most) of this because it's quite well regarded in SF circles. Authors get these ideas from time to time and some of them actually follow through with a novel - see this one for another example :

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

and sometimes I think I'm going to like them because I'm a great fan of "The Wandering Rocks" section of Ulysses.


message 4: by Alfaniel (new) - added it

Alfaniel Aldavan This review is a model of good behavior, and it has the correct - and acceptable - tone. Way to go.


message 5: by Nenia (new) - added it

Nenia Campbell LOL


message 6: by La-Lionne (new)

La-Lionne Hilarious :-D


message 7: by Dustin (new) - added it

Dustin Alfaniel wrote: "This review is a model of good behavior, and it has the correct - and acceptable - tone. Way to go."

Hehe..:)


message 8: by Paul (last edited Sep 21, 2013 01:44PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul Thank you. I believe this review conforms to the new standards. I will be suggesting that the GR team reads all reviews and issues certificates, like they do when they give ratings to movies, such as the U rating, which means that everyone can see the movie in the knowledge that there will be no depictions of sex or drugs, no bad language and no attacks on the author living or dead of any book, periodical or as yet unpublished manuscript.


message 9: by Nia (Kantorka) (new)

Nia (Kantorka) Wait if they cut the 1-star-revs from their policy.
Nonetheless well done. It's sad reviews like this will be the GR's future...


message 10: by Praj (new)

Praj This is to certify that the above review has been passed for GR exhibition!!


D.A.-It's a copyright • Not your right to copy. So, is there a way to add that as a template for all future reviews? It would be helpful for goodreads members who wish to comply with the new "tone" of community guidelines and avoid posting any negative comments that might hurt an author's feelings.


message 12: by Koeeoaddi (last edited Sep 21, 2013 05:16PM) (new)

Koeeoaddi We appreciate your conciliatory tone, Mr. B, but I'm afraid our new civility mandate requires us to insist that you to rethink that first sentence. And the unbolded bits. Thank you.


message 13: by Paul (last edited Sep 21, 2013 11:32PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul It's true that the first sentence might cause more pain to Geoff Ryman than if I had called him a goat sacrificing pedophilic Nazi sympathiser - you know how sensitive these authors can be about their books. Hmm. What a conundrum.

Memo to GR staff : Mr Ryman is NOT a goat sacrificing pedophilic Nazi sympathiser, that was just a hypothetical. Well, the be strictly honest, which I believe is the new policy round here, as far as I know he isn't a goat sacrificing pedophilic Nazi sympathiser. Wow, these new guidelines are tricky.


message 14: by Loederkoningin (last edited Sep 22, 2013 01:19AM) (new)

Loederkoningin Actually, that 1 star rating seems like a form of bullying too and I will consider flagging your review for it.


message 15: by Darth Fierce (last edited Sep 22, 2013 01:24AM) (new)

Darth Fierce Paul wrote: "It's true that the first sentence might cause more pain to Geoff Ryman than if I had called him a goat sacrificing pedophilic Nazi sympathiser - you know how sensitive these authors can be about th..."

I'm worried though that this review will be taken down...oh wait! Are the comments subject to the same policy as the review itself? Because, I remember reading that you must FINISH the book and clearly, from your comment, message 3 "I did read (most) of this", you did not. I dunno. It's a controversial debate on policy requirements, rules, restrictions, regulations and other words that might star with r. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.
;)


message 16: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul You're right Michael. I should not have let that slip. Okay - what I really meant by "most" was - I might have dozed off and skipped a paragraph here and there. Is that okay, GR ? Same thing happened with the Bible, which I also claim to have read! Does everybody do that? Or have Bible-read claimants really churned their way through all the genealogical lists and things you can't do with food in Leviticus?

The more I think about these rules the more paranoid I'm getting.


message 17: by Moloch (last edited Sep 22, 2013 01:36AM) (new)

Moloch If you wanted to make a statement about the new policy, in my opinion this completely misses the point and adds to the confusion (already many users are over worrying about it). The joke is, 1-star reviews are "in danger" of being deleted, so you "have to" sugarcoat them by ridiculously praising the author. This is not the point: harsh criticism of the book, like your review without the sentences in bold, is clearly allowed.


message 18: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Sometimes really nice people create really crap books/ reviews/ posts/ rules/ policies.


message 19: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul Hi Moloch - the point is, I'm getting the point everyone else seems to have got, even if that is not actually the point which was intended. Even with the best will in the world, you can't describe the new rules as a public relations success, can you?


message 20: by Moloch (last edited Sep 22, 2013 03:52AM) (new)

Moloch Not at all: I believe they should better explain this policy first thing Monday morning. Also, it was wrong to delete without warning.


message 21: by Mizuki (new)

Mizuki Your review is so made of win!


message 22: by Stephanie (new)

Stephanie Sun It's okay guys! Kara knows all about ironic reviewing! It's all going to be okay!

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

*exports content for the second time in an hour and cries*


message 23: by Darth Fierce (last edited Sep 22, 2013 03:17PM) (new)

Darth Fierce Paul wrote: "You're right Michael. I should not have let that slip. Okay - what I really meant by "most" was - I might have dozed off and skipped a paragraph here and there. Is that okay, GR ? Same thing happen..."

I think you've now found a loophole in the new rules dictated by the most recent GR political regime. Not bad, Paul.
:)

*And as far as your Bible query, I've read it twice all the way thru, however, I can only remember the good parts.
;)


message 24: by Darth Fierce (last edited Sep 22, 2013 03:14PM) (new)

Darth Fierce Moloch wrote: "If you wanted to make a statement about the new policy, in my opinion this completely misses the point and adds to the confusion (already many users are over worrying about it). The joke is, 1-star..."

Well now. That is a very bold remark.
:D


message 25: by Manny (last edited Sep 23, 2013 02:04AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Manny I dunno, Paul. It's a nice try, but I do wonder if you've looked at the Terms of Use recently. I have, and I'm afraid that several of your reviews are WAY over the line. More about that in a moment.


message 26: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul no, I am good - as, indeed, are you too - see my last note on The Wind Up Bird Chronicle. And as you know, some of your reviews are so far over the line that to them, the line is just a distant memory - what, was that a line we passed last week? Oh maybe... But you are free too! Let's celebrate by reviving the Celebrity Death Match, which no one can mistake for an actual review.


message 27: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Can't we revive something I can win?


message 28: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul what would you like to revive Ian?


message 29: by S. (new)

S. J. Sorry. I just now found this. This review is so full of win...and so extremely sad at the same time. Is this what Goodreads is going to be about, saying nice things about authors and ignoring critical review? Eugh.

...And your review didn't work cuz now I have to read this and found out about this 'experimental crap'. ;]


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Paul wrote: "what would you like to revive Ian?"

Some sort of competition I could win. Which excludes Celebrity Death Match reviews. Mind you, in those days, I was trying to be good rather than popular. I could change if the prize was bigger.


message 31: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul We should organise the "Best Review by Ian Graye Competition" - you might win that one.


message 32: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Paul wrote: "We should organise the "Best Review by Ian Graye Competition" - you might win that one."

If you hosted a best parody of Ian Graye competition , I wonder whether I could equal Graham Greene and win it pseudonymously?


message 33: by Paul (new) - rated it 1 star

Paul But Ian, this is not possible, as your reviews are beyond parody.


message 34: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Paul wrote: "But Ian, this is not possible, as your reviews are beyond parody."

Maybe we could make it a self-parody competition?


message 35: by Stephanie (new)

Stephanie Sun Ian wrote: "Paul wrote: "But Ian, this is not possible, as your reviews are beyond parody."

Maybe we could make it a self-parody competition?"


A lot of levels going on here.


message 36: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Stephanie wrote: "A lot of levels going on here."

We like to level with each other ;)


message 37: by Stephanie (new)

Stephanie Sun Ian wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "A lot of levels going on here."

We like to level with each other ;)"


Also, at the risk of starting another level of GR conflict, I thought your contribution the best bit of Off-Topic (by a hair over Ceridwen's Afterword). But that might just be because I had already seen a lot of the other ones, like Paul's. I assume you posted your Drive review here a month ago or so, but I must have missed it.


message 38: by Ian (new)

Ian Heidin[+]Fisch Stephanie wrote: "Also, at the risk of starting another level of GR conflict..."

Haha, thanks, I haven't read them all yet, so it would be premature of me to agree with you ;)


back to top