Hi everyone, it's Alyssa!
If you listened to our latest podcast, you may have heard me briefly voicing that I wasn't the biggest fan of our latest book club read, All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders.
I was a bit of a weenie and didn't feel comfortable sharing my opinion of the book during our podcast. I'm afflicted by this fear of offending people; I have been groomed by society as such. But mainly, I wanted a bit more time to gather my thoughts so I could try to articulate exactly why I wasn't impressed with this book. I've thought about this for a good while now, so here are the main reasons why I didn't like this book. Please keep in mind that my assessment of the book is purely my opinion, and you are of course entitled to your own.
NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD
In my opinion, there are a few key elements that make up a good story: plot, setting, character development, themes, etc. Each of these things plays an important part in a story I would want to recommend.
This book, I felt, was lacking in many of these departments.
Let me start with my main gripe: the characters in this book are underdeveloped. We have Patricia and Laurence, two best friends who I could tell were gonna end up together pretty much from the beginning of the story.
Really, I couldn't help but wonder why their parents were such (apparently motiveless) assholes. How am I supposed to buy that without knowing anything about their parents? What happened to them to make them such awful people? I feel like if you're going to start a book with an omniscient perspective from childhood, it doesn't hurt to include a little backstory about their families. But we barely get that at all--in fact, the only inkling we get that these characters maybe are more than one-dimensional is from Laurence's tirade about his parents being complacent about their lives.
I get that that wasn't the focus of the story, but how can I buy that the two main character's parents just plain suck without any explanation? I, as a conscious human being, want a little bit more of a reason before I just declare hatred for a set of characters I know little to nothing about. Call me high maintenance.
On the sex-having:
Although it was pretty obvious they were gonna end up together, this happened pretty out of the blue. How did they go from best friends to having a tumultuous relationship, losing contact, reconnecting, recognizing their feelings, that whole journey...? The reader should not have to imagine that entire inner dialogue--it's not the reader's job to work that hard. The Laurence and Patricia thing, that's the most important relationship that the writer needs to forge in the story. There could've been more time dedicated to that that I could've lived with. It didn't need to be a bodice-ripping lusty love epic, but a little more effort to move the reader along that path could have only made the story better. It's not too much to ask to help us wrap our minds around these seemingly sudden feelings of affection. Since we didn't get that, it seemed like lazy writing to me.
Now, in that same vein, there are all these other characters who do absolutely nothing to move the story forward at all. It seems like we are supposed to believe that these other characters who are named a couple times in the book lend some sort of believability to Laurence and Patricia. But they don't. We readers don't care about the roommates, we don't care about the students they went to school with, we don't care about the girlfriend Laurence pines for unless they all do something to move the story forward. Otherwise, it's just more characters to try to keep track of while we try to figure out who is important and who isn't.
Writers sometimes do this thing where they like a name and include that name as a character in the story--but that doesn't work for character development. Personally, I don't care about someone unless they're important to the story. I recognized all the barely-there characters in the book as a lot of filler, and I don't want to read filler. Who wants to read filler?I think a lot of these characters and scenes were actually pointless and one-dimensional and could've been cut out to make for a more focused story. The plot wouldn't have been affected whatsoever by this, but the reader would've graciously gotten some brain power back by not expending so much energy cramping up trying to figure out who the important people are.
A good thing to focus on in any book is the plot, but I honestly couldn't tell what the hell the plot was for the longest time while reading this book. And at one point, I thought, why am I still trying so hard to figure out what's happening--and I was more than halfway through the book. Switching back and forth between narrators is sometimes effective, but unless done carefully, it just makes the writing seem choppy and all over the place. Things kept happening out of the blue (like when Laurence and Patricia suddenly fall into bed together and we get a spontaneous sex scene).
My other main issue with this book was the setting. Anyone who reads YA would probably agree with me that world building is a really crucial element to the story--it's the first part of suspension of disbelief. It needs to be done well, and it's not something I'm willing to be okay with being half-baked if I'm going to like the story.
Point blank: this book does a bad job of it.
Example: Eltisley School. What, in the end, do readers know about it? Can anyone describe it well? Can we picture what it was like there? For me, the answer is a really unfortunate "no."
I mean, when writers write YA books, they should know the audience a little. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a clear description of this school where Patricia learns witchcraft? Instead, we readers only know about it through lukewarm, half-baked flashbacks through a really moody character's memories of how much she hates her life. Can we just have a couple pages about it?? You know why everyone is batshit crazy over Harry Potter? Because J.K. Rowling spent sufficient time and energy on world building. I mean, if the book is a dystopian/paranormal/sci-fi/
And a word on the birds. The birds seemed really trite a thing to name a story like this after. We have a story about two best friends who get torn apart, the story is infused with witchcraft, saving the world from total destruction, super advanced futuristic technology, other dimensions, a prophecy, a borderline apocalypse, even a self-aware AI (which, by the way, I knew caddies = Peregrine as soon as "caddies" happened, which was another letdown--this big reveal was too easy to figure out). But I fail to see why the association of caddies = Peregrines = all the birds in the sky was supposed to be the big thing that was supposed to tie everything together. Who saved the world, then? Patricia? Laurence? Caddies? Artificial Intelligence? Witchcraft? What???
Overall, the book was a big disappointment for me. There were so many promising things at first, but all in all, the delivery was flat. The book could've used a lot more workshopping to trim the fat, iron out the plot, decide who was important to the story, and spend more effort on the characters. I really did want to like the book, but in the end, I felt like I should've used the time to read something else.
So there you have it (if you read it). These were my most prominent thoughts while reading, and I didn't want to force any listeners to hear me give a negative review on the book--I, for one, don't like to listen to people bitch about something. But let me know if you want me to be more open about what I think in the future! I'm trying to be more cognizant of social conditioning like people-pleasing behaviors (like clamming up when I don't like something) and would welcome the chance for personal growth.
Pinkies out!
--Alyssa
I was a bit of a weenie and didn't feel comfortable sharing my opinion of the book during our podcast. I'm afflicted by this fear of offending people; I have been groomed by society as such. But mainly, I wanted a bit more time to gather my thoughts so I could try to articulate exactly why I wasn't impressed with this book. I've thought about this for a good while now, so here are the main reasons why I didn't like this book. Please keep in mind that my assessment of the book is purely my opinion, and you are of course entitled to your own.
NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD
In my opinion, there are a few key elements that make up a good story: plot, setting, character development, themes, etc. Each of these things plays an important part in a story I would want to recommend.
This book, I felt, was lacking in many of these departments.
Let me start with my main gripe: the characters in this book are underdeveloped. We have Patricia and Laurence, two best friends who I could tell were gonna end up together pretty much from the beginning of the story.
- Patricia = witch, symbolizes nature, magic, and the supernatural.
- Laurence = ultra nerd, symbolizes science and technology.
Really, I couldn't help but wonder why their parents were such (apparently motiveless) assholes. How am I supposed to buy that without knowing anything about their parents? What happened to them to make them such awful people? I feel like if you're going to start a book with an omniscient perspective from childhood, it doesn't hurt to include a little backstory about their families. But we barely get that at all--in fact, the only inkling we get that these characters maybe are more than one-dimensional is from Laurence's tirade about his parents being complacent about their lives.
I get that that wasn't the focus of the story, but how can I buy that the two main character's parents just plain suck without any explanation? I, as a conscious human being, want a little bit more of a reason before I just declare hatred for a set of characters I know little to nothing about. Call me high maintenance.
On the sex-having:
Although it was pretty obvious they were gonna end up together, this happened pretty out of the blue. How did they go from best friends to having a tumultuous relationship, losing contact, reconnecting, recognizing their feelings, that whole journey...? The reader should not have to imagine that entire inner dialogue--it's not the reader's job to work that hard. The Laurence and Patricia thing, that's the most important relationship that the writer needs to forge in the story. There could've been more time dedicated to that that I could've lived with. It didn't need to be a bodice-ripping lusty love epic, but a little more effort to move the reader along that path could have only made the story better. It's not too much to ask to help us wrap our minds around these seemingly sudden feelings of affection. Since we didn't get that, it seemed like lazy writing to me.
And can I say how annoyed I was every time there was a description of what Patricia was wearing? Do we ever get that same kind of attention about Laurence? Like, I know that Patricia wore these mini dresses and over-the-knee boots--and I know that after she had sex with Laurence, she threw on her clothes but didn't bother to put a bra or panties back on--but why do I know that? What is that adding to the story??? That's now how you build character development, any college-level creative writing course will teach you that. If it doesn't further the story, why do I need to know so much about what Patricia looks like but it's okay for me not to know as much about Laurence?
Now, in that same vein, there are all these other characters who do absolutely nothing to move the story forward at all. It seems like we are supposed to believe that these other characters who are named a couple times in the book lend some sort of believability to Laurence and Patricia. But they don't. We readers don't care about the roommates, we don't care about the students they went to school with, we don't care about the girlfriend Laurence pines for unless they all do something to move the story forward. Otherwise, it's just more characters to try to keep track of while we try to figure out who is important and who isn't.
Writers sometimes do this thing where they like a name and include that name as a character in the story--but that doesn't work for character development. Personally, I don't care about someone unless they're important to the story. I recognized all the barely-there characters in the book as a lot of filler, and I don't want to read filler. Who wants to read filler?I think a lot of these characters and scenes were actually pointless and one-dimensional and could've been cut out to make for a more focused story. The plot wouldn't have been affected whatsoever by this, but the reader would've graciously gotten some brain power back by not expending so much energy cramping up trying to figure out who the important people are.
A good thing to focus on in any book is the plot, but I honestly couldn't tell what the hell the plot was for the longest time while reading this book. And at one point, I thought, why am I still trying so hard to figure out what's happening--and I was more than halfway through the book. Switching back and forth between narrators is sometimes effective, but unless done carefully, it just makes the writing seem choppy and all over the place. Things kept happening out of the blue (like when Laurence and Patricia suddenly fall into bed together and we get a spontaneous sex scene).
My other main issue with this book was the setting. Anyone who reads YA would probably agree with me that world building is a really crucial element to the story--it's the first part of suspension of disbelief. It needs to be done well, and it's not something I'm willing to be okay with being half-baked if I'm going to like the story.
Point blank: this book does a bad job of it.
Example: Eltisley School. What, in the end, do readers know about it? Can anyone describe it well? Can we picture what it was like there? For me, the answer is a really unfortunate "no."
I mean, when writers write YA books, they should know the audience a little. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a clear description of this school where Patricia learns witchcraft? Instead, we readers only know about it through lukewarm, half-baked flashbacks through a really moody character's memories of how much she hates her life. Can we just have a couple pages about it?? You know why everyone is batshit crazy over Harry Potter? Because J.K. Rowling spent sufficient time and energy on world building. I mean, if the book is a dystopian/paranormal/sci-fi/
And a word on the birds. The birds seemed really trite a thing to name a story like this after. We have a story about two best friends who get torn apart, the story is infused with witchcraft, saving the world from total destruction, super advanced futuristic technology, other dimensions, a prophecy, a borderline apocalypse, even a self-aware AI (which, by the way, I knew caddies = Peregrine as soon as "caddies" happened, which was another letdown--this big reveal was too easy to figure out). But I fail to see why the association of caddies = Peregrines = all the birds in the sky was supposed to be the big thing that was supposed to tie everything together. Who saved the world, then? Patricia? Laurence? Caddies? Artificial Intelligence? Witchcraft? What???
Overall, the book was a big disappointment for me. There were so many promising things at first, but all in all, the delivery was flat. The book could've used a lot more workshopping to trim the fat, iron out the plot, decide who was important to the story, and spend more effort on the characters. I really did want to like the book, but in the end, I felt like I should've used the time to read something else.
So there you have it (if you read it). These were my most prominent thoughts while reading, and I didn't want to force any listeners to hear me give a negative review on the book--I, for one, don't like to listen to people bitch about something. But let me know if you want me to be more open about what I think in the future! I'm trying to be more cognizant of social conditioning like people-pleasing behaviors (like clamming up when I don't like something) and would welcome the chance for personal growth.
Pinkies out!
--Alyssa
