Tess’s review of A Thousand Pieces of You (Firebird, #1) > Likes and Comments

Comments Showing 1-27 of 27 (27 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Victoria (new)

Victoria Damn, it looked so good *sigh*

message 2: by Tess (new)

Tess Burton Victoria wrote: "Damn, it looked so good *sigh*"

May just be the disappointment of the year for me :(

message 3: by Elizabeth (new)

Elizabeth You forget, she also kills off the Beatles in two of the worlds. But then that's it.

message 4: by Tess (new)

Tess Burton Ah yes! And that ends up being a plot point.
Literally the only time she bothered with the world building (even slightly) was when it was VITAL to the plot.
Damn this book.

message 5: by Ally (new)

Ally Great review !! :D I totally get your disappointment - I wanted epic sci-fi, got pukey romance. My heart sank when she woke up in Russia. I even flicked forward to check how many pages of that I was going to have to endure. None of this book was what I was expecting. When will authors realise that YA does not legally require a love triangle and that readers are capable of grasping scientific explanations without our brains exploding ?!! Ugh ...

message 6: by Colin (new)

Colin Generally, I don't like it when reviewers are so snarky and harsh on a book, but I couldn't get through the first two chapters. Maybe I just had flawed expectations of what this book was about, but the reviewer is right. The worldbuilding was very disappointing.

message 7: by Katie.g (new)

Katie.g Aw man. I'm reading this and I can totally get where you're coming from. I'm also reading The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August which as a time-travel/parallel universe book goes is infinitely better. It's about a guy who when he dies is reborn into his child-like body. Each life is different and he then gets a warning from another person like him that the world is starting to end sooner than it should. So awesome. I was hoping A Thousand Pieces of You would be like that but now I know it won't be. So disappointing.

message 8: by R (new)

R Ahaha. You're review indeed is very good. (It's so good it made me laugh at some point)

Your memes are funny.

Anyway, I get your point, really. I agree with you. I wish the book is at least, have something good on it...

message 9: by Bridget (new)

Bridget I love this review. I felt just as angry about pretty much everything: the science cop outs, the stupid love triangle, the insipid and one-dimensional characters. So glad someone else felt this way about this book.

message 10: by Mariam (new)

Mariam K lmao the quantum physics butchering though. yikes.

message 11: by Tess (new)

Tess Burton Mariam wrote: "lmao the quantum physics butchering though. yikes."

it's just SAD...

message 12: by Jada (new)

Jada This is everything that I wanted to say about this book but couldn't conjure the words.

message 13: by Heba (new)

Heba Totally agree the book was crap.

message 14: by Rachelle (new)

Rachelle Your review puts mine to shame, you touched up on just about everything wrong with this, things I hadn't even thought of

message 15: by Brittany (new)

Brittany Stern Although you were correct that the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was originally created to debunk Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, you have misunderstood it’s current applications in physics. The Schrodinger’s cat paradox illustrates that the idea of superposition for microscopic particles (like photons) cannot be applied to the MACROSCOPIC world because the superposition wave function collapses. "Schrodinger cat states," or superposition, of photons can be achieved in the lab using harmonic oscillators in microwave fields.

The theory is still valid today in quantum mechanics and is even one of the foundations for the theory of quantum entanglement. In fact, there is now a “two-mode Schrodinger cat state” theory that has been developed specifically so that the particle can be in a state of superposition but also have two locations (quantum entanglement).

Claudia Gray is obviously not a physicist but she did touch on some pretty relevant theories in her “science,” and everyone should remember that traversing different dimensions is not possible with our current scientific knowledge so expecting her to actually EXPLAIN how it works is ludicrous.

If you were wondering, I do have a degree in particle physics.

message 16: by Ellen (new)

Ellen Baby puppies? Now I'm REALLY not going to read it.

message 18: by Bitchin' (new)

Bitchin' Reads I'm sorry you didn't like it. I really enjoyed it, but I will also admit that it was the weakest book in the trilogy and it wasn't until book 2 that it hit its stride. I hope the next book you read is much more to your liking! I had that problem earlier this year and couldn't find a book that really sang to me. Best to ya!

message 19: by Tess (new)

Tess Burton Bitchin' Reads, i think you win "nicest comment from someone who disagrees" lol
How did the trilogy improve, in your opinion?
I've been on the lookout for dimension-leaping style novels for a while now, and luckily ive found some that are more my style :) i'm glad this one worked out for you; the best feeling in the world is just to be sucked into a really good book ^^

message 20: by Bitchin' (new)

Bitchin' Reads Tess wrote: "Bitchin' Reads, i think you win "nicest comment from someone who disagrees" lol
How did the trilogy improve, in your opinion?
I've been on the lookout for dimension-leaping style novels for a while..."

Thank you! I just think there is ever reason enough to be rude when it comes to the books someone likes or dislikes--every person has their own brand.

And the philosophical aspect of what it means to be a soulmate, the exploration of the inter-dimensional worlds is better explained and the science more fully cover, and the romance gets a bit better. It comes down to being pretty philosophical and kept me thinking about what makes me me, ya know?

I'm glad you found some others that better suited you! I'm working through Song of the Current right now and I'm just not sure about it. It is a fantasy piece.

message 21: by Kris (new)

Kris Karlson Great review. If you thought the book was bad, try listening to the audiobook! Oh, the Russian accents!

message 22: by Jia (new)

Jia Oh My God! This girl is absolutely the dumbest MC I have read in YA novels. The plot is so predictable. From the very first chapter it was clear that Paul is not the killer. She jumps dimension to chase him and all he had to do was shed a tear to convince her he is innocent. I mean how can ou trust either of the dudes without giving a second thought. Use your head dammit! i am barely over 100 pages and i have to put the book down every 10 mins to facepalm. Just got to part where she is now a Russian Princess and I need a break now. Like you said, I just can't!

message 23: by Alex (new)

Alex Garcia I actually called that Theo was the one who killed her dad like by chapter 2. Too much of an early build up for the romance for the one character who was far less superior to the other. I agree though! It was such an interesting plot idea... just needed more tuning :)

message 24: by Nikol (new)

Nikol Thank you. Made my day :D

message 25: by Skyla (new)

Skyla If I wrote something like this, the alternate universes would be super fantasy with fae and magic and all that. When I picked this book up, I was hoping for supernatural fantasy worlds, not worlds that are barely different to Marguerite's original world.

message 26: by Miguel (new)

Miguel Agreed! I'm also looking for Universe hopping/ world hopping sort of like some amazing novels like "The Dark Tower" series, "The Long Earth" series, "Dark Matter", or even "The Magicians" series. Granted, the last is highly improved by its tv show counterpart, which for a bibliophile to say is quite telling.

I really really really REALLY disliked the protagonist from the start. She was super shallow and why "Kill" I get it, he may or may not have killed your dad. But you mention, you don't know why, or even if he did. I'm only a short way into the book and already all of your criticisms hold up. By reading your review, I see it only gets worse. The characters were defined by character traits and so far is all about the "attractiveness" of the male leads? I mean... UGH.

message 27: by Miguel (new)

Miguel *single character traits...

back to top