What do you think?
Rate this book
No More Amber
The Baltic Literary Review
226-leheküljeline suures formaadis ning pehmes köites raamat (92170 keeles) 2. osa
226-leheküljeline suures formaadis ning pehmes köites raamat (92170 keeles) 2. osa
226 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2022
1 person is currently reading
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 12, 2023
I liked this anthology a lot, though overall I think the first volume of No More Amber was better. One thing I will say is that the quality is more even in this one - I the first volume I found that the Estonian writers tended to be... well, better. Here, all three countries present both stronger writers, and authors where I wasn't as taken.
Some authors wrote well, but maybe the texts weren't so well chosen. For example Laurynas Katkus' prose was an excerpt from a longer work. Maybe in the context of that work, it makes more sense. But out of that work - or in this anthology anyways - I couldn't really see the point. in three parts: the first part gives a setting, the second part is in a complete other setting, and the third part is back in pt.1 setting, and comprises mostly of the description of a football game. What was the point of part 2? I don't know. What was the point of part 3? Well, it establishes that the "new guy" likes football, but that's not particularly interesting in itself. Bottom line, if the whole work is good, this excerpt fell besides the mark.
I had another feeling of missing the mark with M. Kangro's text, in the sense that it was relatively well written, but by the end I just wondered "what was the point of this?". It struck me maybe harder because in her answers, she stated that she wanted to write things "with a point"... so... yea... I would really like to know if someone else reads this review, tell me what you thought the point was. Maybe my opinion of the piece can be salvaged yet!
In itself, there would be fewer authors in this volume whose books I would buy. I would definitely buy L. Liutkevicius' (he was one of my favourites overall), as well as Kasemaa's. Inga Zolude wasn't necessarily my stile, but I would like to know the rest of the story, and I wouldn't hesitate to read her again (though seriously, why were the two characters together in the first place!?! I want to know this!). E. Frank had some huge clichés, or overly and unnecessarily explained symbols, but I did enjoy it, and I even recommended it to someone. I'd be happy to read more by Ala and Zegners (Zegners, with his very noticeable homage to Ginsberg - I liked that his work had social motivation, some engagement). M. Lohmus was also one of the most engaging I found. Filimonov I would also read again gladly.
I liked Sara Poisson's poems a good deal, though the answers she gave really scared me away at first (they really gave the impression of "needing to seem"). Purisana was quite decent, and I'd be glad to read her again. Rangoys' was cute/nice. Rangoy's hit me as the kind of poetry that can be enjoyed by most anyone.
The one's I liked the least were probably Juskune and Nekramatnaja. Juskune's for me, were diary entries, and to be honest I didn't really see what they were doing in this anthology. Or to be completely honest, I had a hard time believing that it was published. Nekramatnaja was a somewhat better, but I found still fell in the same genre.
I wasn't really taken by Vinberg's, but I felt a bit like some of his texts needed cultural context. Maybe they just don't translate/export well. Draguns' had one or two lines I liked now and then, but to be frank, I wasn't sure if some parts were voluntarily ridiculous, a bit like an exploitation film made to be a b-movie, or if there were just to really bad passages. But then the fact that I couldn't really tell if the ridiculous metaphors, etc. were on purpose (ironic-like) or not, turned me off.
I had a bit the same beef with Vilimaite and Striogaite. On some levels I found Striogaite's was almost not poetry, more like "a thought cut up into verse". But there was okay stuff here and there. The point where I found them similar is that the texts felt half finished. It's okay to write something with holes in it, that the reader should fill in - I'm a fan of that - but here, it just felt like the texts were half finished. I could read both authors some more though; I didn't not like what they wrote. theirs for me would be a 3/5 - middle of the road, neither really like nor dislike. More reading needed to get a feel for their work.
The rest was okay. Not much to say. Some interesting parts, some less interesting parts.
In general, I'm satisfied and looking forward to volume three.
Some authors wrote well, but maybe the texts weren't so well chosen. For example Laurynas Katkus' prose was an excerpt from a longer work. Maybe in the context of that work, it makes more sense. But out of that work - or in this anthology anyways - I couldn't really see the point. in three parts: the first part gives a setting, the second part is in a complete other setting, and the third part is back in pt.1 setting, and comprises mostly of the description of a football game. What was the point of part 2? I don't know. What was the point of part 3? Well, it establishes that the "new guy" likes football, but that's not particularly interesting in itself. Bottom line, if the whole work is good, this excerpt fell besides the mark.
I had another feeling of missing the mark with M. Kangro's text, in the sense that it was relatively well written, but by the end I just wondered "what was the point of this?". It struck me maybe harder because in her answers, she stated that she wanted to write things "with a point"... so... yea... I would really like to know if someone else reads this review, tell me what you thought the point was. Maybe my opinion of the piece can be salvaged yet!
In itself, there would be fewer authors in this volume whose books I would buy. I would definitely buy L. Liutkevicius' (he was one of my favourites overall), as well as Kasemaa's. Inga Zolude wasn't necessarily my stile, but I would like to know the rest of the story, and I wouldn't hesitate to read her again (though seriously, why were the two characters together in the first place!?! I want to know this!). E. Frank had some huge clichés, or overly and unnecessarily explained symbols, but I did enjoy it, and I even recommended it to someone. I'd be happy to read more by Ala and Zegners (Zegners, with his very noticeable homage to Ginsberg - I liked that his work had social motivation, some engagement). M. Lohmus was also one of the most engaging I found. Filimonov I would also read again gladly.
I liked Sara Poisson's poems a good deal, though the answers she gave really scared me away at first (they really gave the impression of "needing to seem"). Purisana was quite decent, and I'd be glad to read her again. Rangoys' was cute/nice. Rangoy's hit me as the kind of poetry that can be enjoyed by most anyone.
The one's I liked the least were probably Juskune and Nekramatnaja. Juskune's for me, were diary entries, and to be honest I didn't really see what they were doing in this anthology. Or to be completely honest, I had a hard time believing that it was published. Nekramatnaja was a somewhat better, but I found still fell in the same genre.
I wasn't really taken by Vinberg's, but I felt a bit like some of his texts needed cultural context. Maybe they just don't translate/export well. Draguns' had one or two lines I liked now and then, but to be frank, I wasn't sure if some parts were voluntarily ridiculous, a bit like an exploitation film made to be a b-movie, or if there were just to really bad passages. But then the fact that I couldn't really tell if the ridiculous metaphors, etc. were on purpose (ironic-like) or not, turned me off.
I had a bit the same beef with Vilimaite and Striogaite. On some levels I found Striogaite's was almost not poetry, more like "a thought cut up into verse". But there was okay stuff here and there. The point where I found them similar is that the texts felt half finished. It's okay to write something with holes in it, that the reader should fill in - I'm a fan of that - but here, it just felt like the texts were half finished. I could read both authors some more though; I didn't not like what they wrote. theirs for me would be a 3/5 - middle of the road, neither really like nor dislike. More reading needed to get a feel for their work.
The rest was okay. Not much to say. Some interesting parts, some less interesting parts.
In general, I'm satisfied and looking forward to volume three.
Displaying 1 of 1 review