Question: How is the write?

I was surprised that I enjoyed this book as much as I did in that it is written in First Person which, in my opinion, limits fleshing out supporting characters.  However, since Ms. Tartt has such a natural way of describing a scene and possesses a wonderfully large vocabulary, this was not a problem.  The book is rather long but keeps you interested.  The only reason I gave this a 4 star rating as opposed to 5 is the last chapter.  I'll leave it at that.  I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys changing plot lines and a bit of intrigue.

Answer: it is written in First Person which

<hl> I was surprised that I enjoyed this book as much as I did in that it is written in First Person which , in my opinion, limits fleshing out supporting characters. <hl> However, since Ms. Tartt has such a natural way of describing a scene and possesses a wonderfully large vocabulary, this was not a problem. The book is rather long but keeps you interested. The only reason I gave this a 4 star rating as opposed to 5 is the last chapter. I'll leave it at that. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys changing plot lines and a bit of intrigue.

I was surprised that I enjoyed this book as much as I did in that <hl> it is written in First Person which <hl>, in my opinion, limits fleshing out supporting characters. However, since Ms. Tartt has such a natural way of describing a scene and possesses a wonderfully large vocabulary, this was not a problem. The book is rather long but keeps you interested. The only reason I gave this a 4 star rating as opposed to 5 is the last chapter. I'll leave it at that. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys changing plot lines and a bit of intrigue.

I was surprised that I enjoyed this book as much as I did in that <hl> it is written in First Person which <hl> , in my opinion, limits fleshing out supporting characters.


Question: How intense do you consider your emotion towards the education?

Overall:  I completely expected not to like this book.  I delayed buying this book for a month even at the insistence of a few close friends.  It wasn't until I discovered this title on Netgalley that I gave it a shot.  Let me also say that I don't typically read contemporary novels - ah, but this is no ordinary contemporary novel.  If you've ever wanted the poster-novel for dark fiction, Slammed is it.  Layken has a pretty shitty life who can't catch a single break as the novel progresses.  Does she give up?  No, she learns to be strong and deal with whatever life throws at her.  Slammed is definitely a novel that will compel you to read in one sitting.  It will tug at every emotion you have in your body - even the tin man would weep during sections of this book.A key part of this novel is slamming, which is performed poetry.  I rarely read poetry and I have trouble understand poetry that is very metaphorical.  These poems performed by the characters either during poetry class or at Club N9NE are best if read out loud with extra emphasis on the bolded words.  I must say that this is the first book I have ever wished to purchase on audio.  Instead, after reading this book I immediately purchased a paperback and gifted it to my mom so she can enjoy it too.Characters:  There are no cheerleaders or nerds in this book, even though it's set primarily in the high school.  Layken isn't loved at first sight by every male in the vicinity - in fact, she's largely ignored by her classmates, except for a spunky girl named Eddie and her small group of friends.  Eddie has her own demons (she's a foster child) but it's hard to tell by her cheerful demeanor.  It's refreshing to have the two teenage girls survive an entire novel without fighting - can't think of another YA that does.  In fact, there are surprisingly few cliches used to define any of the characters.  I wasn't sure what the characters would do next or what tragedy would strike next, and I think that was a major factor in my liking this book.Plot:  It's hard to explain what happens in this book without giving away an early spoiler, which is why Will can't date Layden.  At the start of the book, Layken has moved with her mother and brother across the country to snowy Michigan.  Layken meets her neighbor, Will, and they hit it off immediately.  She goes on the best date of her life and thinks that life is starting to improve.  Not so.  When Layken starts her new school she (and I) was completely shocked to find out that she and Will have to end their relationship (for reasons I won't spoil).  Her life complicates further when her brother and Will's become best friends and she sees Will almost constantly.  Not sure what his true feelings are, Layken can't help but be depressed.  At the same time, her mother is becoming increasingly distant and has a secret of her own.  One that definitely is not good for Layken or her brother.Ending:  I liked how this novel ended, and yet after experiencing all the trauma Layken dealt with in Slammed, I'm not quite sold on finding out what life throws at her in the sequel.  I like her so much that I'd rather her not have to do this all over again in the second book.  She deserves better.  This ending is sad, depressing, but you can't help but smile because Layken is optimistic about her future.

Answer: It will tug at every emotion you have in your body

Overall: I completely expected not to like this book. I delayed buying this book for a month even at the insistence of a few close friends. It wasn't until I discovered this title on Netgalley that I gave it a shot. Let me also say that I don't typically read contemporary novels - ah, but this is no ordinary contemporary novel. If you've ever wanted the poster-novel for dark fiction, Slammed is it. Layken has a pretty shitty life who can't catch a single break as the novel progresses. Does she give up? No, she learns to be strong and deal with whatever life throws at her. Slammed is definitely a novel that will compel you to read in one sitting. <hl> It will tug at every emotion you have in your body - even the tin man would weep during sections of this book. <hl> A key part of this novel is slamming, which is performed poetry. I rarely read poetry and I have trouble understand poetry that is very metaphorical. These poems performed by the characters either during poetry class or at Club N9NE are best if read out loud with extra emphasis on the bolded words. I must say that this is the first book I have ever wished to purchase on audio. Instead, after reading this book I immediately purchased a paperback and gifted it to my mom so she can enjoy it too. Characters: There are no cheerleaders or nerds in this book, even though it's set primarily in the high school. Layken isn't loved at first sight by every male in the vicinity - in fact, she's largely ignored by her classmates, except for a spunky girl named Eddie and her small group of friends. Eddie has her own demons (she's a foster child) but it's hard to tell by her cheerful demeanor. It's refreshing to have the two teenage girls survive an entire novel without fighting - can't think of another YA that does. In fact, there are surprisingly few cliches used to define any of the characters. I wasn't sure what the characters would do next or what tragedy would strike next, and I think that was a major factor in my liking this book. Plot: It's hard to explain what happens in this book without giving away an early spoiler, which is why Will can't date Layden. At the start of the book, Layken has moved with her mother and brother across the country to snowy Michigan. Layken meets her neighbor, Will, and they hit it off immediately. She goes on the best date of her life and thinks that life is starting to improve. Not so. When Layken starts her new school she (and I) was completely shocked to find out that she and Will have to end their relationship (for reasons I won't spoil). Her life complicates further when her brother and Will's become best friends and she sees Will almost constantly. Not sure what his true feelings are, Layken can't help but be depressed. At the same time, her mother is becoming increasingly distant and has a secret of her own. One that definitely is not good for Layken or her brother. Ending: I liked how this novel ended, and yet after experiencing all the trauma Layken dealt with in Slammed, I'm not quite sold on finding out what life throws at her in the sequel. I like her so much that I'd rather her not have to do this all over again in the second book. She deserves better. This ending is sad, depressing, but you can't help but smile because Layken is optimistic about her future.

Overall: I completely expected not to like this book. I delayed buying this book for a month even at the insistence of a few close friends. It wasn't until I discovered this title on Netgalley that I gave it a shot. Let me also say that I don't typically read contemporary novels - ah, but this is no ordinary contemporary novel. If you've ever wanted the poster-novel for dark fiction, Slammed is it. Layken has a pretty shitty life who can't catch a single break as the novel progresses. Does she give up? No, she learns to be strong and deal with whatever life throws at her. Slammed is definitely a novel that will compel you to read in one sitting.<hl> It will tug at every emotion you have in your body <hl> - even the tin man would weep during sections of this book.A key part of this novel is slamming, which is performed poetry. I rarely read poetry and I have trouble understand poetry that is very metaphorical. These poems performed by the characters either during poetry class or at Club N9NE are best if read out loud with extra emphasis on the bolded words. I must say that this is the first book I have ever wished to purchase on audio. Instead, after reading this book I immediately purchased a paperback and gifted it to my mom so she can enjoy it too.Characters: There are no cheerleaders or nerds in this book, even though it's set primarily in the high school. Layken isn't loved at first sight by every male in the vicinity - in fact, she's largely ignored by her classmates, except for a spunky girl named Eddie and her small group of friends. Eddie has her own demons (she's a foster child) but it's hard to tell by her cheerful demeanor. It's refreshing to have the two teenage girls survive an entire novel without fighting - can't think of another YA that does. In fact, there are surprisingly few cliches used to define any of the characters. I wasn't sure what the characters would do next or what tragedy would strike next, and I think that was a major factor in my liking this book.Plot: It's hard to explain what happens in this book without giving away an early spoiler, which is why Will can't date Layden. At the start of the book, Layken has moved with her mother and brother across the country to snowy Michigan. Layken meets her neighbor, Will, and they hit it off immediately. She goes on the best date of her life and thinks that life is starting to improve. Not so. When Layken starts her new school she (and I) was completely shocked to find out that she and Will have to end their relationship (for reasons I won't spoil). Her life complicates further when her brother and Will's become best friends and she sees Will almost constantly. Not sure what his true feelings are, Layken can't help but be depressed. At the same time, her mother is becoming increasingly distant and has a secret of her own. One that definitely is not good for Layken or her brother.Ending: I liked how this novel ended, and yet after experiencing all the trauma Layken dealt with in Slammed, I'm not quite sold on finding out what life throws at her in the sequel. I like her so much that I'd rather her not have to do this all over again in the second book. She deserves better. This ending is sad, depressing, but you can't help but smile because Layken is optimistic about her future.


Question: How was element?

I first read Outlander 14 years ago. I found it to be an engaging tale that drew me in and kept me reading and reading. The characters were unique, and the story revolved around the circumstances of a 20th century woman traveling through standing stones and landing in the 18th century.I found the writing to be superb. The descriptions gave a full sensory experience of the times. Some have critcized the author's wordiness. I appreciated her attention to detail, both in her writing and in her impeccable research. I also found that the first person narrative lent a more personal view. Again, some disliked this. I thought it gave more realism to the story.This, for me, was a landmark book in that it was the first work that I read that clearly crossed many genres. It's not easily categorized because it has elements of historical fiction, fantasy, action/adventure, mystery, and yes, romance. All of these qualities add up to a book, and to a series, that is not only riveting the first time through, but one that stands up extraordinarily well to re-reading, and which can, in fact, be even more enjoyable the second, or third, or fourth... time through it. It's been 14 years, and I still find myself irresistibly drawn into the world of Jamie and Claire Fraser.

Answer: The characters were unique

I first read Outlander 14 years ago. I found it to be an engaging tale that drew me in and kept me reading and reading. <hl> The characters were unique , and the story revolved around the circumstances of a 20th century woman traveling through standing stones and landing in the 18th century. <hl> I found the writing to be superb. The descriptions gave a full sensory experience of the times. Some have critcized the author's wordiness. I appreciated her attention to detail, both in her writing and in her impeccable research. I also found that the first person narrative lent a more personal view. Again, some disliked this. I thought it gave more realism to the story. This, for me, was a landmark book in that it was the first work that I read that clearly crossed many genres. It's not easily categorized because it has elements of historical fiction, fantasy, action/adventure, mystery, and yes, romance. All of these qualities add up to a book, and to a series, that is not only riveting the first time through, but one that stands up extraordinarily well to re-reading, and which can, in fact, be even more enjoyable the second, or third, or fourth... time through it. It's been 14 years, and I still find myself irresistibly drawn into the world of Jamie and Claire Fraser.

I first read Outlander 14 years ago. I found it to be an engaging tale that drew me in and kept me reading and reading. <hl> The characters were unique <hl>, and the story revolved around the circumstances of a 20th century woman traveling through standing stones and landing in the 18th century.I found the writing to be superb. The descriptions gave a full sensory experience of the times. Some have critcized the author's wordiness. I appreciated her attention to detail, both in her writing and in her impeccable research. I also found that the first person narrative lent a more personal view. Again, some disliked this. I thought it gave more realism to the story.This, for me, was a landmark book in that it was the first work that I read that clearly crossed many genres. It's not easily categorized because it has elements of historical fiction, fantasy, action/adventure, mystery, and yes, romance. All of these qualities add up to a book, and to a series, that is not only riveting the first time through, but one that stands up extraordinarily well to re-reading, and which can, in fact, be even more enjoyable the second, or third, or fourth... time through it. It's been 14 years, and I still find myself irresistibly drawn into the world of Jamie and Claire Fraser.

<hl> The characters were unique <hl> , and the story revolved around the circumstances of a 20th century woman traveling through standing stones and landing in the 18th century.


Question: Is the plot line good enough?

The book got me hooked almost immediately and then I got to the end and realized that there is another book after this one.I was unaware of this dilemma but its so good I did not care.  Characters and dialogue are good but I liked the movie better.I disliked the name because there is one part about the city of bones and the rest is about characters and how they relate to each other.  The interaction between characters are superb.  Thank you Cassandra Clare.

Answer: The book got me hooked almost immediately and then I got to the end and realized that there is another book after this one.I was unaware of this dilemma but its so good I did not care.  Characters and dialogue are good but I liked the movie better

<hl> The book got me hooked almost immediately and then I got to the end and realized that there is another book after this one.I was unaware of this dilemma but its so good I did not care. Characters and dialogue are good but I liked the movie better .I disliked the name because there is one part about the city of bones and the rest is about characters and how they relate to each other. <hl> The interaction between characters are superb. Thank you Cassandra Clare.

<hl> The book got me hooked almost immediately and then I got to the end and realized that there is another book after this one.I was unaware of this dilemma but its so good I did not care. Characters and dialogue are good but I liked the movie better <hl>.I disliked the name because there is one part about the city of bones and the rest is about characters and how they relate to each other. The interaction between characters are superb. Thank you Cassandra Clare.

<hl> The book got me hooked almost immediately and then I got to the end and realized that there is another book after this one.I was unaware of this dilemma but its so good I did not care. Characters and dialogue are good but I liked the movie better <hl> .I disliked the name because there is one part about the city of bones and the rest is about characters and how they relate to each other.


Question: Was the perspective had by the main character, according to the reviewer, one that is special?

I don't recall ever reading another novel quite like this one. Its told from the view point of an autistic teenager when he decides to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbours dog in the night.This book presents a rather alien point of view, but conveys a mindset so different from "normal" that you feel you have been given a window into a different world.This is far from you normal mystery novel and its format is different from any other mystery novel I've read - but I'm glad I took the time to sit down and read this book. Its a quick read, but well worth it if only see a world you wouldn't normally have access to.

Answer: Its told from the view point of an autistic teenager when he decides to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbours dog in the night.This book presents a rather alien point of view, but conveys a mindset so different from "normal" that you feel you have been given a window into a different world

I don't recall ever reading another novel quite like this one. <hl> Its told from the view point of an autistic teenager when he decides to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbours dog in the night.This book presents a rather alien point of view, but conveys a mindset so different from "normal" that you feel you have been given a window into a different world .This is far from you normal mystery novel and its format is different from any other mystery novel I've read - but I'm glad I took the time to sit down and read this book. <hl> Its a quick read, but well worth it if only see a world you wouldn't normally have access to.

I don't recall ever reading another novel quite like this one. <hl> Its told from the view point of an autistic teenager when he decides to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbours dog in the night.This book presents a rather alien point of view, but conveys a mindset so different from "normal" that you feel you have been given a window into a different world <hl>.This is far from you normal mystery novel and its format is different from any other mystery novel I've read - but I'm glad I took the time to sit down and read this book. Its a quick read, but well worth it if only see a world you wouldn't normally have access to.

<hl> Its told from the view point of an autistic teenager when he decides to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbours dog in the night.This book presents a rather alien point of view, but conveys a mindset so different from "normal" that you feel you have been given a window into a different world <hl> .This is far from you normal mystery novel and its format is different from any other mystery novel I've read - but I'm glad I took the time to sit down and read this book.


Question: How was the writing style?

Sixteen-year-old Jacob Portman, set to inherit a role in the family business, will never have to worry about a job or money. Of course, he has other problems—like uncool parents and almost no friends. Just before the grandfather who Jacob adores dies under mysterious circumstances, he leaves Jacob with a cryptic message about finding “The Bird.” Add this to incessant nightmares of monsters, and Jacob is soon sent to a psychiatrist. When Jacob decides he must go to a small island in the UK, Dr. Golan is supportive. Jacob’s father goes along to study the local birds. The story that Jacob begins to uncover becomes more and more complicated as he discovers that the silly stories people thought his grandfather made up were, in fact, real. And Jacob is not as boringly normal as he’s always thought.Ransom Riggs has written a very creative and entertaining story. His idea of spinning a tale based on peculiar old photographs is fresh and different. Jacob is a likeable protagonist.  The writing, particularly descriptions, is strong. There is a good bit of profanity, but it’s realistic for the way 16-year-old Americans talk among friends.As the story builds to its climax, I began to wonder if Riggs got a little hurried. One example, a European character who has spoken in rather formal 1940’s speech wants to find out who’s going to accompany her for something difficult. “Who’s in?” she asks, sounding like a current American. By the end, certain things seem to happen a little too easily, or be drawn out a little too long, and I was reading more rapidly. The ending come rather suddenly and leaves plenty of problems for Riggs and his characters to solve in the next book.Overall, a fun read for teens and many adults, too.

Answer: The writing, particularly descriptions, is strong

Sixteen-year-old Jacob Portman, set to inherit a role in the family business, will never have to worry about a job or money. Of course, he has other problems—like uncool parents and almost no friends. Just before the grandfather who Jacob adores dies under mysterious circumstances, he leaves Jacob with a cryptic message about finding “The Bird.” Add this to incessant nightmares of monsters, and Jacob is soon sent to a psychiatrist. When Jacob decides he must go to a small island in the UK, Dr. Golan is supportive. Jacob’s father goes along to study the local birds. The story that Jacob begins to uncover becomes more and more complicated as he discovers that the silly stories people thought his grandfather made up were, in fact, real. And Jacob is not as boringly normal as he’s always thought. Ransom Riggs has written a very creative and entertaining story. His idea of spinning a tale based on peculiar old photographs is fresh and different. Jacob is a likeable protagonist. <hl> The writing, particularly descriptions, is strong . <hl> There is a good bit of profanity, but it’s realistic for the way 16-year-old Americans talk among friends. As the story builds to its climax, I began to wonder if Riggs got a little hurried. One example, a European character who has spoken in rather formal 1940’s speech wants to find out who’s going to accompany her for something difficult. “Who’s in?” she asks, sounding like a current American. By the end, certain things seem to happen a little too easily, or be drawn out a little too long, and I was reading more rapidly. The ending come rather suddenly and leaves plenty of problems for Riggs and his characters to solve in the next book. Overall, a fun read for teens and many adults, too.

Sixteen-year-old Jacob Portman, set to inherit a role in the family business, will never have to worry about a job or money. Of course, he has other problems—like uncool parents and almost no friends. Just before the grandfather who Jacob adores dies under mysterious circumstances, he leaves Jacob with a cryptic message about finding “The Bird.” Add this to incessant nightmares of monsters, and Jacob is soon sent to a psychiatrist. When Jacob decides he must go to a small island in the UK, Dr. Golan is supportive. Jacob’s father goes along to study the local birds. The story that Jacob begins to uncover becomes more and more complicated as he discovers that the silly stories people thought his grandfather made up were, in fact, real. And Jacob is not as boringly normal as he’s always thought.Ransom Riggs has written a very creative and entertaining story. His idea of spinning a tale based on peculiar old photographs is fresh and different. Jacob is a likeable protagonist. <hl> The writing, particularly descriptions, is strong <hl>. There is a good bit of profanity, but it’s realistic for the way 16-year-old Americans talk among friends.As the story builds to its climax, I began to wonder if Riggs got a little hurried. One example, a European character who has spoken in rather formal 1940’s speech wants to find out who’s going to accompany her for something difficult. “Who’s in?” she asks, sounding like a current American. By the end, certain things seem to happen a little too easily, or be drawn out a little too long, and I was reading more rapidly. The ending come rather suddenly and leaves plenty of problems for Riggs and his characters to solve in the next book.Overall, a fun read for teens and many adults, too.

<hl> The writing, particularly descriptions, is strong <hl> .


Question: How is the book?

If you begin to read a book and the first two pages are set aside for an apology from the author for writing about secondary characters throughout, you might want to reconsider.It's amazing that even George Martin realized what he was doing was going to frustrate and infuriate readers. It made me wonder what the makers of the television series based on the books are going to do in season four. Good luck, guys.That being said, favorite characters included or not, the book is dull. It has a few moments of flash, but it feels like a place-keeper to me -- Martin just writes about the day-do-day trudgery of life with no payoff at the end. No cliff-hanger. No momentum-turning battle.Just go on with your lives and wait until the next chapter.

Answer: amazing

If you begin to read a book and the first two pages are set aside for an apology from the author for writing about secondary characters throughout, you might want to reconsider. <hl> It's amazing that even George Martin realized what he was doing was going to frustrate and infuriate readers. <hl> It made me wonder what the makers of the television series based on the books are going to do in season four. Good luck, guys. That being said, favorite characters included or not, the book is dull. It has a few moments of flash, but it feels like a place-keeper to me -- Martin just writes about the day-do-day trudgery of life with no payoff at the end. No cliff-hanger. No momentum-turning battle. Just go on with your lives and wait until the next chapter.

If you begin to read a book and the first two pages are set aside for an apology from the author for writing about secondary characters throughout, you might want to reconsider.It's <hl> amazing <hl> that even George Martin realized what he was doing was going to frustrate and infuriate readers. It made me wonder what the makers of the television series based on the books are going to do in season four. Good luck, guys.That being said, favorite characters included or not, the book is dull. It has a few moments of flash, but it feels like a place-keeper to me -- Martin just writes about the day-do-day trudgery of life with no payoff at the end. No cliff-hanger. No momentum-turning battle.Just go on with your lives and wait until the next chapter.


Question: How is the quality of the book?

I loved this book. LOVED.I went into it a bit wary because of the hype - I'd heard so much about it, so many GOOD things, that I was afraid my expectations were too high. In the end, my expectations WERE high, but the book met them, if not quite in the ways I thought.I saw Erin Morgenstern say on Twitter and in interviews many times (to the point where she started to sound annoyed, but I don't blame her) that the book is neither YA nor a series, despite how it has been portrayed in some reviews/stories. Both of these things is true. It is not YA, though a teen would certainly enjoy it since it's not like teens read nothing but YA (or that adults DON'T read YA). And to me, it utterly stands alone. I can't even see where a sequel would go, with the caveat that there is such a beautiful world here that it could be explored in perhaps entirely different stories. What I would like to see more than a sequel would be short stories, honestly.Because it is truly the world in this book that is magnificent - not the "world" at large as in Harry Potter or Dresden Files or other books with complicated mechanics of magic, but instead the microcosm of the circus that is painted so beautiful. In all honesty the characters fell much flatter for me than I would typically tolerate in my fiction, but I came to realize that they were really playing second fiddle to the setting as the protagonist.My one serious complaint would be that the time jumping makes it difficult to follow - a problem that was exacerbated by the fact that I was listening to the book on audio and couldn't flip back to see how much time had passed, what time period I was in, etc. For that reason, even though the narration is beautifully done by Jim Dale, I might recommend reading it in hardcopy.Though reviews liked to compare the book to Harry Potter, it reminds me much more in feel if to anything, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. It's very adult (in terms of maturity, not theme) and very Victorian. The book picks up momentum as it goes along, not unlike a train, and all of the loose ends begin to tie together at the end masterfully.Don't get scared away by the hype - read this because it's gorgeous.

Answer: expectations WERE high, but the book met them

I loved this book. LOVED.I went into it a bit wary because of the hype - I'd heard so much about it, so many GOOD things, that I was afraid my expectations were too high. <hl> In the end, my expectations WERE high, but the book met them , if not quite in the ways I thought. <hl> I saw Erin Morgenstern say on Twitter and in interviews many times (to the point where she started to sound annoyed, but I don't blame her) that the book is neither YA nor a series, despite how it has been portrayed in some reviews/stories. Both of these things is true. It is not YA, though a teen would certainly enjoy it since it's not like teens read nothing but YA (or that adults DON'T read YA). And to me, it utterly stands alone. I can't even see where a sequel would go, with the caveat that there is such a beautiful world here that it could be explored in perhaps entirely different stories. What I would like to see more than a sequel would be short stories, honestly. Because it is truly the world in this book that is magnificent - not the "world" at large as in Harry Potter or Dresden Files or other books with complicated mechanics of magic, but instead the microcosm of the circus that is painted so beautiful. In all honesty the characters fell much flatter for me than I would typically tolerate in my fiction, but I came to realize that they were really playing second fiddle to the setting as the protagonist. My one serious complaint would be that the time jumping makes it difficult to follow - a problem that was exacerbated by the fact that I was listening to the book on audio and couldn't flip back to see how much time had passed, what time period I was in, etc. For that reason, even though the narration is beautifully done by Jim Dale, I might recommend reading it in hardcopy. Though reviews liked to compare the book to Harry Potter, it reminds me much more in feel if to anything, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. It's very adult (in terms of maturity, not theme) and very Victorian. The book picks up momentum as it goes along, not unlike a train, and all of the loose ends begin to tie together at the end masterfully. Don't get scared away by the hype - read this because it's gorgeous.

I loved this book. LOVED.I went into it a bit wary because of the hype - I'd heard so much about it, so many GOOD things, that I was afraid my expectations were too high. In the end, my <hl> expectations WERE high, but the book met them <hl>, if not quite in the ways I thought.I saw Erin Morgenstern say on Twitter and in interviews many times (to the point where she started to sound annoyed, but I don't blame her) that the book is neither YA nor a series, despite how it has been portrayed in some reviews/stories. Both of these things is true. It is not YA, though a teen would certainly enjoy it since it's not like teens read nothing but YA (or that adults DON'T read YA). And to me, it utterly stands alone. I can't even see where a sequel would go, with the caveat that there is such a beautiful world here that it could be explored in perhaps entirely different stories. What I would like to see more than a sequel would be short stories, honestly.Because it is truly the world in this book that is magnificent - not the "world" at large as in Harry Potter or Dresden Files or other books with complicated mechanics of magic, but instead the microcosm of the circus that is painted so beautiful. In all honesty the characters fell much flatter for me than I would typically tolerate in my fiction, but I came to realize that they were really playing second fiddle to the setting as the protagonist.My one serious complaint would be that the time jumping makes it difficult to follow - a problem that was exacerbated by the fact that I was listening to the book on audio and couldn't flip back to see how much time had passed, what time period I was in, etc. For that reason, even though the narration is beautifully done by Jim Dale, I might recommend reading it in hardcopy.Though reviews liked to compare the book to Harry Potter, it reminds me much more in feel if to anything, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. It's very adult (in terms of maturity, not theme) and very Victorian. The book picks up momentum as it goes along, not unlike a train, and all of the loose ends begin to tie together at the end masterfully.Don't get scared away by the hype - read this because it's gorgeous.

In the end, my <hl> expectations WERE high, but the book met them <hl> , if not quite in the ways I thought.


Question: How can I write something terrifying?

So this is actually the third book I read by Gillian Flynn and I think her other two ruined this one for me. Sharp Objects, and Gone Girlwere both such captivating stories that when I got around to this one I was rather bored. My expectations were higher than they should have been going into this.Before I get into the heart of my review I must comment that Gillian Flynn is a wonderful writer and her talents clearly show in this book. It is very well written and the characters are well developed, but when it came to the characters, I didn't like a single one of them. Her dark and disturbing style is clearly evident and I like that about her. I like the dark tone of her stories and when I pick up one of her books I have come to expect that. This book was just not my favorite.One of the reasons I didn't like this books was just that the characters are not likable. I couldn't connect with any of the characters and to be honest I didn't care to much about what happened to them in the end. I actually think I would have enjoyed this better if they all had been wiped out in the end. Again I think her other books, with characters that were interesting and a more in-depth, ruined this book for me. I kept comparing the other books, even thought I know I shouldn'tThe other issue I had with this story was the plot itself. There was a lot of potential to be one heck of a mystery while Libby tries to figure out who actually murdered her family. Half way through the book I was bored and not really interested in going further. Still I am stubborn and powered through this audio book. The ending was less thrilling because my interest had wandered and I just wanted it to be over. Still, I can see that Gillian Flynn is a great writer and I loved her other works. I look forward to her next book when ever that is and still think highly of her as an author, this was just one book I didn't enjoy.

Answer: Her dark and disturbing style is clearly evident and I like that about her

So this is actually the third book I read by Gillian Flynn and I think her other two ruined this one for me. Sharp Objects, and Gone Girlwere both such captivating stories that when I got around to this one I was rather bored. My expectations were higher than they should have been going into this. Before I get into the heart of my review I must comment that Gillian Flynn is a wonderful writer and her talents clearly show in this book. It is very well written and the characters are well developed, but when it came to the characters, I didn't like a single one of them. <hl> Her dark and disturbing style is clearly evident and I like that about her . <hl> I like the dark tone of her stories and when I pick up one of her books I have come to expect that. This book was just not my favorite. One of the reasons I didn't like this books was just that the characters are not likable. I couldn't connect with any of the characters and to be honest I didn't care to much about what happened to them in the end. I actually think I would have enjoyed this better if they all had been wiped out in the end. Again I think her other books, with characters that were interesting and a more in-depth, ruined this book for me. I kept comparing the other books, even thought I know I shouldn'tThe other issue I had with this story was the plot itself. There was a lot of potential to be one heck of a mystery while Libby tries to figure out who actually murdered her family. Half way through the book I was bored and not really interested in going further. Still I am stubborn and powered through this audio book. The ending was less thrilling because my interest had wandered and I just wanted it to be over. Still, I can see that Gillian Flynn is a great writer and I loved her other works. I look forward to her next book when ever that is and still think highly of her as an author, this was just one book I didn't enjoy.

So this is actually the third book I read by Gillian Flynn and I think her other two ruined this one for me. Sharp Objects, and Gone Girlwere both such captivating stories that when I got around to this one I was rather bored. My expectations were higher than they should have been going into this.Before I get into the heart of my review I must comment that Gillian Flynn is a wonderful writer and her talents clearly show in this book. It is very well written and the characters are well developed, but when it came to the characters, I didn't like a single one of them. <hl> Her dark and disturbing style is clearly evident and I like that about her <hl>. I like the dark tone of her stories and when I pick up one of her books I have come to expect that. This book was just not my favorite.One of the reasons I didn't like this books was just that the characters are not likable. I couldn't connect with any of the characters and to be honest I didn't care to much about what happened to them in the end. I actually think I would have enjoyed this better if they all had been wiped out in the end. Again I think her other books, with characters that were interesting and a more in-depth, ruined this book for me. I kept comparing the other books, even thought I know I shouldn'tThe other issue I had with this story was the plot itself. There was a lot of potential to be one heck of a mystery while Libby tries to figure out who actually murdered her family. Half way through the book I was bored and not really interested in going further. Still I am stubborn and powered through this audio book. The ending was less thrilling because my interest had wandered and I just wanted it to be over. Still, I can see that Gillian Flynn is a great writer and I loved her other works. I look forward to her next book when ever that is and still think highly of her as an author, this was just one book I didn't enjoy.

<hl> Her dark and disturbing style is clearly evident and I like that about her <hl> .


Question: How is story?

While the plot was decent, the characters seemed to be stereotypes, rather than real people. Maybe I've forgotten what it is like to be a kid, but this just wasn't my cup of tea.  I guess I won't be reading the rest of the series or seeing the movie when it comes out.

Answer: the plot was decent

<hl> While the plot was decent , the characters seemed to be stereotypes, rather than real people. <hl> Maybe I've forgotten what it is like to be a kid, but this just wasn't my cup of tea. I guess I won't be reading the rest of the series or seeing the movie when it comes out.

While <hl> the plot was decent <hl>, the characters seemed to be stereotypes, rather than real people. Maybe I've forgotten what it is like to be a kid, but this just wasn't my cup of tea. I guess I won't be reading the rest of the series or seeing the movie when it comes out.

While <hl> the plot was decent <hl> , the characters seemed to be stereotypes, rather than real people.


Question: How is the end?

The last surviving work of a Dutch master is stolen by a child, a terrorist bomb, a coming of age in New York & the lost suburbs of Las Vegas, the good & shady worlds of antique furniture restoration & the underground market for stolen & fake art are the ingredients of this intriguing novel.  The characters are well drawn, but for this reader "The Goldfinch" suffered from the weight of expectations that book reviewers have piled on it.The book moves at the pace of a slow Sunday afternoon. Less would have been more.  The ending, while appropriate, was slightly flat.  Not in my top for for 2013.

Answer: The ending, while appropriate, was slightly flat

The last surviving work of a Dutch master is stolen by a child, a terrorist bomb, a coming of age in New York & the lost suburbs of Las Vegas, the good & shady worlds of antique furniture restoration & the underground market for stolen & fake art are the ingredients of this intriguing novel. The characters are well drawn, but for this reader "The Goldfinch" suffered from the weight of expectations that book reviewers have piled on it. The book moves at the pace of a slow Sunday afternoon. Less would have been more. <hl> The ending, while appropriate, was slightly flat . <hl> Not in my top for for 2013.

The last surviving work of a Dutch master is stolen by a child, a terrorist bomb, a coming of age in New York & the lost suburbs of Las Vegas, the good & shady worlds of antique furniture restoration & the underground market for stolen & fake art are the ingredients of this intriguing novel. The characters are well drawn, but for this reader "The Goldfinch" suffered from the weight of expectations that book reviewers have piled on it.The book moves at the pace of a slow Sunday afternoon. Less would have been more. <hl> The ending, while appropriate, was slightly flat <hl>. Not in my top for for 2013.

<hl> The ending, while appropriate, was slightly flat <hl> .


Question: How relevant is the story?

The Invention of Wings: A Novel  by Sue Monk KiddWhile writing the book, the author states that she was inspired by the words of professor Julius Lester, which she kept propped up on her desk: “History is not just facts and events. History is also pain in the heart, and we repeat history until we are able to make another's pain in the heart our own.”This story was comprised of many true people, and events in history. Knowing she wanting to write about sister in her next book, and living in Charleston, SC she came across some information on a pair of sisters, who became well known for their work as abolitionist and speakers for the equality of women.  Sarah and Angelina Grimké, were ahead of their times, but having grown up in a slave owning society it took them awhile to be able to change their lives and to help others. Besides the sisters, other great characters were slaves, Hetty, aka handful, and her mother also very strong woman that, happened to be born at the wrong time in history.  The author brings all of the characters to life in fascinating ways, we are able to see both sides of this time in history and see the different viewpoints. I loved the pieces told of African folklore which mainly were told through Handfuls mother, and the beautiful story quilt she made.This story is so well written, you are swept up right away into these peoples lives.I am glad I got the (Original Publisher's Edition-No Annotations) with no distractions. This book is really worth reading.

Answer: story was comprised of many true people

The Invention of Wings: A Novel by Sue Monk KiddWhile writing the book, the author states that she was inspired by the words of professor Julius Lester, which she kept propped up on her desk: “History is not just facts and events. <hl> History is also pain in the heart, and we repeat history until we are able to make another's pain in the heart our own.”This story was comprised of many true people , and events in history. <hl> Knowing she wanting to write about sister in her next book, and living in Charleston, SC she came across some information on a pair of sisters, who became well known for their work as abolitionist and speakers for the equality of women. Sarah and Angelina Grimké, were ahead of their times, but having grown up in a slave owning society it took them awhile to be able to change their lives and to help others. Besides the sisters, other great characters were slaves, Hetty, aka handful, and her mother also very strong woman that, happened to be born at the wrong time in history. The author brings all of the characters to life in fascinating ways, we are able to see both sides of this time in history and see the different viewpoints. I loved the pieces told of African folklore which mainly were told through Handfuls mother, and the beautiful story quilt she made. This story is so well written, you are swept up right away into these peoples lives. I am glad I got the (Original Publisher's Edition-No Annotations) with no distractions. This book is really worth reading.

The Invention of Wings: A Novel by Sue Monk KiddWhile writing the book, the author states that she was inspired by the words of professor Julius Lester, which she kept propped up on her desk: “History is not just facts and events. History is also pain in the heart, and we repeat history until we are able to make another's pain in the heart our own.”This <hl> story was comprised of many true people <hl>, and events in history. Knowing she wanting to write about sister in her next book, and living in Charleston, SC she came across some information on a pair of sisters, who became well known for their work as abolitionist and speakers for the equality of women. Sarah and Angelina Grimké, were ahead of their times, but having grown up in a slave owning society it took them awhile to be able to change their lives and to help others. Besides the sisters, other great characters were slaves, Hetty, aka handful, and her mother also very strong woman that, happened to be born at the wrong time in history. The author brings all of the characters to life in fascinating ways, we are able to see both sides of this time in history and see the different viewpoints. I loved the pieces told of African folklore which mainly were told through Handfuls mother, and the beautiful story quilt she made.This story is so well written, you are swept up right away into these peoples lives.I am glad I got the (Original Publisher's Edition-No Annotations) with no distractions. This book is really worth reading.

History is also pain in the heart, and we repeat history until we are able to make another's pain in the heart our own.”This <hl> story was comprised of many true people <hl> , and events in history.


Question: Where else can I get an emotion like this?

This book is so touching. BEWARE, 26% into it you better have tissue. I cried, felt the hurt and the pain coming from all characters.  OMG! Jasinda Wilder, you knocked it out of the park on this one.  I LOVED your Big Girls Do It Better series, but this¡K¡K¡Kwow, wow, wow, is all I can say.Nell Hawthorne is a teenager trying to find her way through life. Her best friend is Kyle Calloway. They are a typical teenage couple going through all their firsts together and I mean firsts.  Best friends, to dating, making out, becoming lovers to almost being¡K¡K¡K..you¡ll have to read to find out what was next I loved the chemistry between them. They had their whole lives ahead of them and they were SO IN LOVE. Unfortunately tragedy strikes and leaves Nell emotionally disturbed and broken (see, I gave it away).Every review you read is all stating the same thing.  This is CLEARLY a MUST READ book.  To sum it up best, someone wrote: QUOTE: Falling Into You was an incredibly graphic, deeply sorrow filled story. It wasn't just a love story, even though it contained not one, but two. It was a narrative about the dark struggles you have to fight through to move on with your life. It was about the hardship of letting go of someone you were never ready to give up. Letting go of the other part of your soul. Feeling whole when part of you will never be remedied.Wilder stresses the importance of accepting support from others. She makes us ask the hard answered questions. Can you have more than one true love in a lifetime? Kyle and Colton were nothing alike, but brothers none the less. Is it okay to love someone in spite of how they are linked to you, in spite of the person that they innately are, because of who they come from?

Answer: Big Girls

This book is so touching. BEWARE, 26% into it you better have tissue. I cried, felt the hurt and the pain coming from all characters. OMG! Jasinda Wilder, you knocked it out of the park on this one. <hl> I LOVED your Big Girls Do It Better series, but this¡K¡K¡Kwow, wow, wow, is all I can say. <hl> Nell Hawthorne is a teenager trying to find her way through life. Her best friend is Kyle Calloway. They are a typical teenage couple going through all their firsts together and I mean firsts. Best friends, to dating, making out, becoming lovers to almost being¡K¡K¡K..you¡ll have to read to find out what was next I loved the chemistry between them. They had their whole lives ahead of them and they were SO IN LOVE. Unfortunately tragedy strikes and leaves Nell emotionally disturbed and broken (see, I gave it away).Every review you read is all stating the same thing. This is CLEARLY a MUST READ book. To sum it up best, someone wrote: QUOTE: Falling Into You was an incredibly graphic, deeply sorrow filled story. It wasn't just a love story, even though it contained not one, but two. It was a narrative about the dark struggles you have to fight through to move on with your life. It was about the hardship of letting go of someone you were never ready to give up. Letting go of the other part of your soul. Feeling whole when part of you will never be remedied. Wilder stresses the importance of accepting support from others. She makes us ask the hard answered questions. Can you have more than one true love in a lifetime? Kyle and Colton were nothing alike, but brothers none the less. Is it okay to love someone in spite of how they are linked to you, in spite of the person that they innately are, because of who they come from?

This book is so touching. BEWARE, 26% into it you better have tissue. I cried, felt the hurt and the pain coming from all characters. OMG! Jasinda Wilder, you knocked it out of the park on this one. I LOVED your <hl> Big Girls <hl> Do It Better series, but this¡K¡K¡Kwow, wow, wow, is all I can say.Nell Hawthorne is a teenager trying to find her way through life. Her best friend is Kyle Calloway. They are a typical teenage couple going through all their firsts together and I mean firsts. Best friends, to dating, making out, becoming lovers to almost being¡K¡K¡K..you¡ll have to read to find out what was next I loved the chemistry between them. They had their whole lives ahead of them and they were SO IN LOVE. Unfortunately tragedy strikes and leaves Nell emotionally disturbed and broken (see, I gave it away).Every review you read is all stating the same thing. This is CLEARLY a MUST READ book. To sum it up best, someone wrote: QUOTE: Falling Into You was an incredibly graphic, deeply sorrow filled story. It wasn't just a love story, even though it contained not one, but two. It was a narrative about the dark struggles you have to fight through to move on with your life. It was about the hardship of letting go of someone you were never ready to give up. Letting go of the other part of your soul. Feeling whole when part of you will never be remedied.Wilder stresses the importance of accepting support from others. She makes us ask the hard answered questions. Can you have more than one true love in a lifetime? Kyle and Colton were nothing alike, but brothers none the less. Is it okay to love someone in spite of how they are linked to you, in spite of the person that they innately are, because of who they come from?


Question: How is the attraction?

If you are looking for steamy sex scenes that rival those of 50 shades, this book is for you, 5 stars for that!  I had to take away a star because I just got so irritated with Jocelyn, she had so many issues and the entire book she did not let anyone in and shut everyone out, she had such nice people surrounding her, Braden was a real stand-up guy and her friend Ellie was so supportive of her, yet she did not open up to anyone until the very end.  While the sex was great, it would have been better if she had opened herself up emotionally and accepted her feelings for Braden so the love would have been more mutual for a bigger part of the book.  Also, she sees a therapist and they put way too much of that dialogue in the book -- those parts were bOOOring!

Answer: If you are looking for steamy sex scenes that rival those of 50 shades

<hl> If you are looking for steamy sex scenes that rival those of 50 shades , this book is for you, 5 stars for that! <hl> I had to take away a star because I just got so irritated with Jocelyn, she had so many issues and the entire book she did not let anyone in and shut everyone out, she had such nice people surrounding her, Braden was a real stand-up guy and her friend Ellie was so supportive of her, yet she did not open up to anyone until the very end. While the sex was great, it would have been better if she had opened herself up emotionally and accepted her feelings for Braden so the love would have been more mutual for a bigger part of the book. Also, she sees a therapist and they put way too much of that dialogue in the book -- those parts were bOOOring!

<hl> If you are looking for steamy sex scenes that rival those of 50 shades <hl>, this book is for you, 5 stars for that! I had to take away a star because I just got so irritated with Jocelyn, she had so many issues and the entire book she did not let anyone in and shut everyone out, she had such nice people surrounding her, Braden was a real stand-up guy and her friend Ellie was so supportive of her, yet she did not open up to anyone until the very end. While the sex was great, it would have been better if she had opened herself up emotionally and accepted her feelings for Braden so the love would have been more mutual for a bigger part of the book. Also, she sees a therapist and they put way too much of that dialogue in the book -- those parts were bOOOring!

<hl> If you are looking for steamy sex scenes that rival those of 50 shades <hl> , this book is for you, 5 stars for that!


Question: What can you say about the book?

One of my new favorite books of all time!!! Colleen Hoover just writes perfection. My words cannot accurately describe how I feel about this book. It's brilliant. I loved it, everything about it. Holder is freaking amazing. Sky is the perfect book heroine. The story is fresh. I would recommend to anyone and everyone. So butterflying fantastic!

Answer: One of my new favorite books of all time

<hl> One of my new favorite books of all time !!! <hl> Colleen Hoover just writes perfection. My words cannot accurately describe how I feel about this book. It's brilliant. I loved it, everything about it. Holder is freaking amazing. Sky is the perfect book heroine. The story is fresh. I would recommend to anyone and everyone. So butterflying fantastic!

<hl> One of my new favorite books of all time <hl>!!! Colleen Hoover just writes perfection. My words cannot accurately describe how I feel about this book. It's brilliant. I loved it, everything about it. Holder is freaking amazing. Sky is the perfect book heroine. The story is fresh. I would recommend to anyone and everyone. So butterflying fantastic!

<hl> One of my new favorite books of all time <hl> !!!


Question: How is the book?

I loved the first book so this was a little bit of a let down. It answered some questions from the first book and gave you a few conclusions to some of the story-line that was left hanging. Over all I struggled to re-engage with the characters. The repetition of Tris being immature, running off on tangents with horrifying ramifications and over all being annoying were frustrating. The love/hate relationship got old fast. A lot of filler and setting up for the next book. Had I known where the story was going I would have been satisfied stopping with the first book. I have already bought the third so I will read it but I don't have high expectations for a story that started out so well. I would consider stopping after the first book.

Answer: the first book and gave you a few conclusions to some of the story

I loved the first book so this was a little bit of a let down. <hl> It answered some questions from the first book and gave you a few conclusions to some of the story -line that was left hanging. <hl> Over all I struggled to re-engage with the characters. The repetition of Tris being immature, running off on tangents with horrifying ramifications and over all being annoying were frustrating. The love/hate relationship got old fast. A lot of filler and setting up for the next book. Had I known where the story was going I would have been satisfied stopping with the first book. I have already bought the third so I will read it but I don't have high expectations for a story that started out so well. I would consider stopping after the first book.

I loved the first book so this was a little bit of a let down. It answered some questions from <hl> the first book and gave you a few conclusions to some of the story <hl>-line that was left hanging. Over all I struggled to re-engage with the characters. The repetition of Tris being immature, running off on tangents with horrifying ramifications and over all being annoying were frustrating. The love/hate relationship got old fast. A lot of filler and setting up for the next book. Had I known where the story was going I would have been satisfied stopping with the first book. I have already bought the third so I will read it but I don't have high expectations for a story that started out so well. I would consider stopping after the first book.

It answered some questions from <hl> the first book and gave you a few conclusions to some of the story <hl> -line that was left hanging.


Question: Who is the story about?

This story is just perfect. I am so glad I was sick so I got to lay around and just read this! I think I might just reread right now. Next wait for the next!

Answer: This story is just perfect

This story is just perfect .

<hl> This story is just perfect . <hl> I am so glad I was sick so I got to lay around and just read this! I think I might just reread right now. Next wait for the next!

<hl> This story is just perfect <hl>. I am so glad I was sick so I got to lay around and just read this! I think I might just reread right now. Next wait for the next!


Question: What do you think about the concept of the serie?

Answer: This book was beautifully written and I recommend it to all. The plot  is incredibly unique and unpredictable. I was as when I  was over

<hl> This book was beautifully written and I recommend it to all. The plot is incredibly unique and unpredictable. I was as when I was over <hl>


Question: Can you solve the whole problem?

I read this book in my teens, and just now re-read it 20-plus years later. The only part I remembered from before turns out not to be in the book, to tell you the truth. Hmm... (maybe it was Midnight Cowboy"?). I'm really crazy, the craziest guy.Anyways, this guy Holden Caulfield is a whiney loser prep-school expellee and all, and walks around NYC for a few days complaining about everything and everybody, he really does. Funny that the way the book is written you know, in the sort of phoney realistic manner that some notorious writers use, is pretty good and all, but Holden can't really put together a grammatically correct sentence, although he was supposed to be good at English, at least he didn't fail that at school.Anyway, I did like the book a little - I really did, but I did not much care for Holden or his problems. I suppose this book would have been better in the fifties when it came out. The notorious "cursing" - oh, my! - is tame. Mostly GD this and GD that, and only gets into the F word at the end.I would not recommend it, but I would not keep anyone from reading it. Sort of like Holden, he takes both sides.

Answer: I did not much care for Holden or his problems

I read this book in my teens, and just now re-read it 20-plus years later. The only part I remembered from before turns out not to be in the book, to tell you the truth. Hmm... (maybe it was Midnight Cowboy"?). I'm really crazy, the craziest guy. Anyways, this guy Holden Caulfield is a whiney loser prep-school expellee and all, and walks around NYC for a few days complaining about everything and everybody, he really does. Funny that the way the book is written you know, in the sort of phoney realistic manner that some notorious writers use, is pretty good and all, but Holden can't really put together a grammatically correct sentence, although he was supposed to be good at English, at least he didn't fail that at school. <hl> Anyway, I did like the book a little - I really did, but I did not much care for Holden or his problems . <hl> I suppose this book would have been better in the fifties when it came out. The notorious "cursing" - oh, my! - is tame. Mostly GD this and GD that, and only gets into the F word at the end. I would not recommend it, but I would not keep anyone from reading it. Sort of like Holden, he takes both sides.

I read this book in my teens, and just now re-read it 20-plus years later. The only part I remembered from before turns out not to be in the book, to tell you the truth. Hmm... (maybe it was Midnight Cowboy"?). I'm really crazy, the craziest guy.Anyways, this guy Holden Caulfield is a whiney loser prep-school expellee and all, and walks around NYC for a few days complaining about everything and everybody, he really does. Funny that the way the book is written you know, in the sort of phoney realistic manner that some notorious writers use, is pretty good and all, but Holden can't really put together a grammatically correct sentence, although he was supposed to be good at English, at least he didn't fail that at school.Anyway, I did like the book a little - I really did, but <hl> I did not much care for Holden or his problems <hl>. I suppose this book would have been better in the fifties when it came out. The notorious "cursing" - oh, my! - is tame. Mostly GD this and GD that, and only gets into the F word at the end.I would not recommend it, but I would not keep anyone from reading it. Sort of like Holden, he takes both sides.

Anyway, I did like the book a little - I really did, but <hl> I did not much care for Holden or his problems <hl> .


Question: How is the great deal?

This book took me a whole month to finish, though all things considered, it was a not a complicated or difficult book to read. The story of an aspiring young magician, Kvothe, who seeks entry to the prestigious University to become an arcanist, does seem rather Harry Potterish, though this is by no means a disparaging comparison.What distinguishes this fantasy novel from others of its ilk is the rather believable magic the author conjures. For instance, this first of a trilogy introduces us to "sympathy", a magical force which boasts elements of scientific concepts like thermodynamics, in the way objects can be moved by creating a sympathetic link between them to transfer energy.To Rothfuss's credit, he manages to create a fictional world that runs rather consistently according to a system he imagines. Kvothe's musical background is established by his childhood as part of the Edema Ruh, a troupe of people very much like the travelling minstrels, and music features as much as magic in the story. The inciting incident that throws young Kvothe into action is perhaps the murder of his parents and entire troupe by the Chandrian, a mythical evil force that is the stuff of faerie tales even in Kvothe's world, which complicates his quest to avenge his parents. Do the Chanrians exist or don't they? In the process, he becomes a street urchin for a period of three years, during which he learns a little about the Chandrian, and confirms his resolve to learn as much as he can about them by setting out for the University.However, the reader becomes very aware of the narrative lapsing into that of pre-pubescent boy, who is suitably enamoured with the first mysterious beauty, Denna, whom he meets enroute to the University, and who continues to appear in his life years later. Our young hero is caught gawking at women's bodies like a hormonal teen in parts of his narrative, while at the same time becoming obsessed with Denna despite her cruelty and contrary signals to him. One can't help but be irritated by Kvothe's willingness to explain her irresponsible behaviour away to his two best friends at the Uni in a very unconvincing conversation near the close of the book.The action in the novel is tempered by these distractions, especially in an episode with a draccus (a mythical dragonlike lizard) where he and Denna flirt, while also plotting to slay the creature. Arguably, the narrative structure also serves to distract, rather than add to the telling of the tale. I couldn't help but feel that the narrative frame of the adult Kvothe narrating the story to a Chronicler at an inn, is an unnecessary complication. Perhaps I would be proven wrong after reading the other two books in the trilogy (the third book still pending release at the time of this review). In the meantime, most of the other characters feel flat and undeveloped, largely owing, I feel, to the singular perspective Rothfuss gives to Kvothe throughout his recount of his past.Nonetheless, the story is entertaining, even if the writing is uneven in some parts, with overused phrases like "safe as houses". I look forward to Kvothe learning the name of the wind in the next book.

Answer: the novel is tempered

This book took me a whole month to finish, though all things considered, it was a not a complicated or difficult book to read. The story of an aspiring young magician, Kvothe, who seeks entry to the prestigious University to become an arcanist, does seem rather Harry Potterish, though this is by no means a disparaging comparison. What distinguishes this fantasy novel from others of its ilk is the rather believable magic the author conjures. For instance, this first of a trilogy introduces us to "sympathy", a magical force which boasts elements of scientific concepts like thermodynamics, in the way objects can be moved by creating a sympathetic link between them to transfer energy. To Rothfuss's credit, he manages to create a fictional world that runs rather consistently according to a system he imagines. Kvothe's musical background is established by his childhood as part of the Edema Ruh, a troupe of people very much like the travelling minstrels, and music features as much as magic in the story. The inciting incident that throws young Kvothe into action is perhaps the murder of his parents and entire troupe by the Chandrian, a mythical evil force that is the stuff of faerie tales even in Kvothe's world, which complicates his quest to avenge his parents. Do the Chanrians exist or don't they? In the process, he becomes a street urchin for a period of three years, during which he learns a little about the Chandrian, and confirms his resolve to learn as much as he can about them by setting out for the University. However, the reader becomes very aware of the narrative lapsing into that of pre-pubescent boy, who is suitably enamoured with the first mysterious beauty, Denna, whom he meets enroute to the University, and who continues to appear in his life years later. Our young hero is caught gawking at women's bodies like a hormonal teen in parts of his narrative, while at the same time becoming obsessed with Denna despite her cruelty and contrary signals to him. One can't help but be irritated by Kvothe's willingness to explain her irresponsible behaviour away to his two best friends at the Uni in a very unconvincing conversation near the close of the book. <hl> The action in the novel is tempered by these distractions, especially in an episode with a draccus (a mythical dragonlike lizard) where he and Denna flirt, while also plotting to slay the creature. <hl> Arguably, the narrative structure also serves to distract, rather than add to the telling of the tale. I couldn't help but feel that the narrative frame of the adult Kvothe narrating the story to a Chronicler at an inn, is an unnecessary complication. Perhaps I would be proven wrong after reading the other two books in the trilogy (the third book still pending release at the time of this review). In the meantime, most of the other characters feel flat and undeveloped, largely owing, I feel, to the singular perspective Rothfuss gives to Kvothe throughout his recount of his past. Nonetheless, the story is entertaining, even if the writing is uneven in some parts, with overused phrases like "safe as houses". I look forward to Kvothe learning the name of the wind in the next book.

This book took me a whole month to finish, though all things considered, it was a not a complicated or difficult book to read. The story of an aspiring young magician, Kvothe, who seeks entry to the prestigious University to become an arcanist, does seem rather Harry Potterish, though this is by no means a disparaging comparison.What distinguishes this fantasy novel from others of its ilk is the rather believable magic the author conjures. For instance, this first of a trilogy introduces us to "sympathy", a magical force which boasts elements of scientific concepts like thermodynamics, in the way objects can be moved by creating a sympathetic link between them to transfer energy.To Rothfuss's credit, he manages to create a fictional world that runs rather consistently according to a system he imagines. Kvothe's musical background is established by his childhood as part of the Edema Ruh, a troupe of people very much like the travelling minstrels, and music features as much as magic in the story. The inciting incident that throws young Kvothe into action is perhaps the murder of his parents and entire troupe by the Chandrian, a mythical evil force that is the stuff of faerie tales even in Kvothe's world, which complicates his quest to avenge his parents. Do the Chanrians exist or don't they? In the process, he becomes a street urchin for a period of three years, during which he learns a little about the Chandrian, and confirms his resolve to learn as much as he can about them by setting out for the University.However, the reader becomes very aware of the narrative lapsing into that of pre-pubescent boy, who is suitably enamoured with the first mysterious beauty, Denna, whom he meets enroute to the University, and who continues to appear in his life years later. Our young hero is caught gawking at women's bodies like a hormonal teen in parts of his narrative, while at the same time becoming obsessed with Denna despite her cruelty and contrary signals to him. One can't help but be irritated by Kvothe's willingness to explain her irresponsible behaviour away to his two best friends at the Uni in a very unconvincing conversation near the close of the book.The action in <hl> the novel is tempered <hl> by these distractions, especially in an episode with a draccus (a mythical dragonlike lizard) where he and Denna flirt, while also plotting to slay the creature. Arguably, the narrative structure also serves to distract, rather than add to the telling of the tale. I couldn't help but feel that the narrative frame of the adult Kvothe narrating the story to a Chronicler at an inn, is an unnecessary complication. Perhaps I would be proven wrong after reading the other two books in the trilogy (the third book still pending release at the time of this review). In the meantime, most of the other characters feel flat and undeveloped, largely owing, I feel, to the singular perspective Rothfuss gives to Kvothe throughout his recount of his past.Nonetheless, the story is entertaining, even if the writing is uneven in some parts, with overused phrases like "safe as houses". I look forward to Kvothe learning the name of the wind in the next book.


Question: Does this one bugs registered like a valid point?

For reasons of space, I shall pass over the routine recital, now given in hundreds of the reviews, of most of the points in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, and concentrate my review on one point only, which he deals with on pages 339,340.  His position is, unambiguously, that there cannot be any such thing as `human' ethics or morality, and he tells us why:  there is no real, meaningful distinction between a human being and a brute beast.  I am astonished that this passage is not more frequently commented on.Dawkins simply ignores the critical issue of human rationality. Flying in the face of all the evidence, he assumes (I insist, he assumes, he does not prove) that Homo sapiens, absolutely like every other form of life on earth, is simply a bundle of cells.  He says (p. 340):  "The evolutionary point is very simple.  The humanness (italicised) of an embryo's cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status."  I must underline what Dawkins is saying.  He is not saying that man is `like' the brute beast in some ways ('Intelligent Design' authors like Antony Latham, Alister McGrath and Michael Behe who attack Dawkins' atheism have no difficulty in accepting common descent, shared cellular similarities with the rest of creation, in varying degrees).  He is saying that man is `no more than' a brute beast in any way, is no more than a collection of cells.Dawkins explicitly rejects the idea that any moral consideration can apply to humans simply as humans. He rejects the idea that there is anything that clearly separates human beings from non-human animals. This follows from his view that limits everything to pure Darwinian evolution of matter from matter.  He believes in the evolution of the non-human animal into the human animal, body, mind, 'spirit', 'soul', religion, science, and all.  He tells us (p. 339):  "Notice now that 'pro-life' doesn't exactly mean pro-life ('life' is italicised) at all.  It means pro-human('human' is italicised)-life."  Of necessity this must mean that he views all merely brute animal life as equal with human life.Notice the monstrous conclusion that follows from this.  It destroys any possibility that Dawkins' version of Darwinism can be right.  "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution" (p. 339).  I repeat this:  "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution."  I conclude:  It is not only hard, it is impossible (which is what Dawkins clearly means us to understand).  And therefore, for me, on the grounds of the evidence provided to any observer (even a Darwinian observer) that Homo sapiens and the brute beast are not the same, Dawkins' 'fact of evolution' must be abandoned.  I see no alternative to this.  Dawkins is utterly indefensible here.  But his arrogance blinds him to the absurdity of his own position, for he goes on immediately:  "Admittedly, this [irreconcilability between the pro-lifers and the Darwinists] will not worry those many anti-abortionists who don't understand that evolution is a fact!" (Dawkins is responsible for the exclamation mark.)  Dawkins has just proved, to my satisfaction, that 'the fact of evolution' cannot be a 'fact' because of the manifest monstrousness of the conclusion that he sees as necessarily following from his position.  Surely the idea that a human being is fully and exhaustively defined by its having "cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' ", to use Dawkins' own words, in exactly the same way as any other living organism is fully and exhaustively defined by its having cells of its own species, is an intolerable assumption that, I repeat, will not stand one moment's observation of the world about us.  This Dawkinsism must be exploded for the absurdity that it is.Dawkins takes as proved (but doesn't prove) the existence of 'intermediate species' (Dawkins' words) between man and any brute beast you care to name.  So Dawkins asks the question: "Would these [intermediate] creatures 'count as human' or not?" Dawkins replies (p. 340) that only 'absolutists' "must answer the question, in order to apply the moral principle of granting humans unique and special status because they are human" (Dawkins puts the last four words in italics (p.340). Dawkins scorns this 'absolutist' position.  He says:  "To a consequentialist like me, the question doesn't deserve an answer, for nothing turns on it."  Can Dawkins be really aware of what he is saying?  He tells us that it doesn't matter if we are humans or brute beasts, "for nothing turns on it".  Once again, this must be exploded for the absurdity that it is.He goes on (p.340): "Even if a clear answer [as to whether a living being is a human or a brute beast] might be attempted for Australopithecus, the gradual continuity that is an inescapable feature of biological evolution [another glib assumption of Dawkins that he doesn't prove] tells us that there must be some intermediate who would lie sufficiently close to the 'borderline' to blur the moral principle and destroy its absoluteness. A better way to say this is that there are no natural borderlines in evolution. The illusion of a borderline is created by the fact that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Of course, it could be argued that humans are more capable of, for example, suffering than other species. This could well be true, and we might legitimately give humans special status by virtue of it." (Understand what Dawkins is saying: the only reason that he can find for granting human beings any 'unique and special status' 'because they are human', is that the human may be more conscious of suffering than the brute beast.  Dawkins continues: "But evolutionary continuity shows that there is no absolute (in italics) distinction."  Yet again, an absurdity to be addressed and condemned.Understand again what Dawkins is saying: There is no absolute distinction between human beings and brute beasts - or any other of the now-lost 'intermediate species'.  He goes on: "Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution.  [I riposte:  Exactly the opposite statement is true:  'The fact of evolution is devastatingly undermined by absolutist moral discrimination'.] An uneasy awareness of this fact might, indeed, underlie one of the main motives creationists have for opposing evolution: they fear what they believe to be its moral consequences. They are wrong to do so" [Are they really? Am I then free to judge Dawkins the same way that I judge a brute beast? Does Dawkins accept that it is acceptable for a human being to be a carnivore?  Where do I draw the line in my choice of meat meals?]  "but", Dawkins goes on, "in any case, it is surely very odd to think that a truth about the real world can be reversed by considerations of what would be morally desirable." Really?  This is intolerable reasoning.  It is not odd, it is essential, that what is 'morally desirable' must rule the world.  Law and order would collapse otherwise. Murder and lying and stealing and adultery are 'truths about the real world'. Morality is a truth of the real world. Without 'morally desirable' judgments, which Dawkins' Darwinism considers to be impossible, the quiet world of scholarship (and even scholarship is impossible as a strict Darwinian evolution from matter) that Dawkins inhabits would collapse into sheer barbarism, '(human) nature red in tooth and claw'. Dawkins' philosophical ramblings here are simply derisory.Ruse and Wilson, `respected giants in this field' of moral philosophy and science, find it "easy to conceive of an alien intelligent species evolving rules its members consider highly moral but which are repugnant to human beings, such as cannibalism, incest, the love of darkness and decay, parricide and the eating of faeces ... " (quoted in Latham's The Naked Emperor, pp, 154,155). Dawkins' reasoning above forces him to accept such a scenario as unobjectionable morally for us humans now.

Answer: His position is, unambiguously

For reasons of space, I shall pass over the routine recital, now given in hundreds of the reviews, of most of the points in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, and concentrate my review on one point only, which he deals with on pages 339,340. <hl> His position is, unambiguously , that there cannot be any such thing as `human' ethics or morality, and he tells us why: there is no real, meaningful distinction between a human being and a brute beast. <hl> I am astonished that this passage is not more frequently commented on. Dawkins simply ignores the critical issue of human rationality. Flying in the face of all the evidence, he assumes (I insist, he assumes, he does not prove) that Homo sapiens, absolutely like every other form of life on earth, is simply a bundle of cells. He says (p. 340): "The evolutionary point is very simple. The humanness (italicised) of an embryo's cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status." I must underline what Dawkins is saying. He is not saying that man is `like' the brute beast in some ways ('Intelligent Design' authors like Antony Latham, Alister McGrath and Michael Behe who attack Dawkins' atheism have no difficulty in accepting common descent, shared cellular similarities with the rest of creation, in varying degrees). He is saying that man is `no more than' a brute beast in any way, is no more than a collection of cells. Dawkins explicitly rejects the idea that any moral consideration can apply to humans simply as humans. He rejects the idea that there is anything that clearly separates human beings from non-human animals. This follows from his view that limits everything to pure Darwinian evolution of matter from matter. He believes in the evolution of the non-human animal into the human animal, body, mind, 'spirit', 'soul', religion, science, and all. He tells us (p. 339): "Notice now that 'pro-life' doesn't exactly mean pro-life ('life' is italicised) at all. It means pro-human('human' is italicised)-life." Of necessity this must mean that he views all merely brute animal life as equal with human life. Notice the monstrous conclusion that follows from this. It destroys any possibility that Dawkins' version of Darwinism can be right. "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution" (p. 339). I repeat this: "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution." I conclude: It is not only hard, it is impossible (which is what Dawkins clearly means us to understand). And therefore, for me, on the grounds of the evidence provided to any observer (even a Darwinian observer) that Homo sapiens and the brute beast are not the same, Dawkins' 'fact of evolution' must be abandoned. I see no alternative to this. Dawkins is utterly indefensible here. But his arrogance blinds him to the absurdity of his own position, for he goes on immediately: "Admittedly, this [irreconcilability between the pro-lifers and the Darwinists] will not worry those many anti-abortionists who don't understand that evolution is a fact!" (Dawkins is responsible for the exclamation mark.) Dawkins has just proved, to my satisfaction, that 'the fact of evolution' cannot be a 'fact' because of the manifest monstrousness of the conclusion that he sees as necessarily following from his position. Surely the idea that a human being is fully and exhaustively defined by its having "cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' ", to use Dawkins' own words, in exactly the same way as any other living organism is fully and exhaustively defined by its having cells of its own species, is an intolerable assumption that, I repeat, will not stand one moment's observation of the world about us. This Dawkinsism must be exploded for the absurdity that it is. Dawkins takes as proved (but doesn't prove) the existence of 'intermediate species' (Dawkins' words) between man and any brute beast you care to name. So Dawkins asks the question: "Would these [intermediate] creatures 'count as human' or not?" Dawkins replies (p. 340) that only 'absolutists' "must answer the question, in order to apply the moral principle of granting humans unique and special status because they are human" (Dawkins puts the last four words in italics (p.340). Dawkins scorns this 'absolutist' position. He says: "To a consequentialist like me, the question doesn't deserve an answer, for nothing turns on it." Can Dawkins be really aware of what he is saying? He tells us that it doesn't matter if we are humans or brute beasts, "for nothing turns on it". Once again, this must be exploded for the absurdity that it is. He goes on (p.340): "Even if a clear answer [as to whether a living being is a human or a brute beast] might be attempted for Australopithecus, the gradual continuity that is an inescapable feature of biological evolution [another glib assumption of Dawkins that he doesn't prove] tells us that there must be some intermediate who would lie sufficiently close to the 'borderline' to blur the moral principle and destroy its absoluteness. A better way to say this is that there are no natural borderlines in evolution. The illusion of a borderline is created by the fact that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Of course, it could be argued that humans are more capable of, for example, suffering than other species. This could well be true, and we might legitimately give humans special status by virtue of it." (Understand what Dawkins is saying: the only reason that he can find for granting human beings any 'unique and special status' 'because they are human', is that the human may be more conscious of suffering than the brute beast. Dawkins continues: "But evolutionary continuity shows that there is no absolute (in italics) distinction." Yet again, an absurdity to be addressed and condemned. Understand again what Dawkins is saying: There is no absolute distinction between human beings and brute beasts - or any other of the now-lost 'intermediate species'. He goes on: "Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution. [I riposte: Exactly the opposite statement is true: 'The fact of evolution is devastatingly undermined by absolutist moral discrimination'.] An uneasy awareness of this fact might, indeed, underlie one of the main motives creationists have for opposing evolution: they fear what they believe to be its moral consequences. They are wrong to do so" [Are they really? Am I then free to judge Dawkins the same way that I judge a brute beast? Does Dawkins accept that it is acceptable for a human being to be a carnivore? Where do I draw the line in my choice of meat meals?] "but", Dawkins goes on, "in any case, it is surely very odd to think that a truth about the real world can be reversed by considerations of what would be morally desirable." Really? This is intolerable reasoning. It is not odd, it is essential, that what is 'morally desirable' must rule the world. Law and order would collapse otherwise. Murder and lying and stealing and adultery are 'truths about the real world'. Morality is a truth of the real world. Without 'morally desirable' judgments, which Dawkins' Darwinism considers to be impossible, the quiet world of scholarship (and even scholarship is impossible as a strict Darwinian evolution from matter) that Dawkins inhabits would collapse into sheer barbarism, '(human) nature red in tooth and claw'. Dawkins' philosophical ramblings here are simply derisory. Ruse and Wilson, `respected giants in this field' of moral philosophy and science, find it "easy to conceive of an alien intelligent species evolving rules its members consider highly moral but which are repugnant to human beings, such as cannibalism, incest, the love of darkness and decay, parricide and the eating of faeces ... " (quoted in Latham's The Naked Emperor, pp, 154,155). Dawkins' reasoning above forces him to accept such a scenario as unobjectionable morally for us humans now.

For reasons of space, I shall pass over the routine recital, now given in hundreds of the reviews, of most of the points in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, and concentrate my review on one point only, which he deals with on pages 339,340. <hl> His position is, unambiguously <hl>, that there cannot be any such thing as `human' ethics or morality, and he tells us why: there is no real, meaningful distinction between a human being and a brute beast. I am astonished that this passage is not more frequently commented on.Dawkins simply ignores the critical issue of human rationality. Flying in the face of all the evidence, he assumes (I insist, he assumes, he does not prove) that Homo sapiens, absolutely like every other form of life on earth, is simply a bundle of cells. He says (p. 340): "The evolutionary point is very simple. The humanness (italicised) of an embryo's cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status." I must underline what Dawkins is saying. He is not saying that man is `like' the brute beast in some ways ('Intelligent Design' authors like Antony Latham, Alister McGrath and Michael Behe who attack Dawkins' atheism have no difficulty in accepting common descent, shared cellular similarities with the rest of creation, in varying degrees). He is saying that man is `no more than' a brute beast in any way, is no more than a collection of cells.Dawkins explicitly rejects the idea that any moral consideration can apply to humans simply as humans. He rejects the idea that there is anything that clearly separates human beings from non-human animals. This follows from his view that limits everything to pure Darwinian evolution of matter from matter. He believes in the evolution of the non-human animal into the human animal, body, mind, 'spirit', 'soul', religion, science, and all. He tells us (p. 339): "Notice now that 'pro-life' doesn't exactly mean pro-life ('life' is italicised) at all. It means pro-human('human' is italicised)-life." Of necessity this must mean that he views all merely brute animal life as equal with human life.Notice the monstrous conclusion that follows from this. It destroys any possibility that Dawkins' version of Darwinism can be right. "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution" (p. 339). I repeat this: "The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution." I conclude: It is not only hard, it is impossible (which is what Dawkins clearly means us to understand). And therefore, for me, on the grounds of the evidence provided to any observer (even a Darwinian observer) that Homo sapiens and the brute beast are not the same, Dawkins' 'fact of evolution' must be abandoned. I see no alternative to this. Dawkins is utterly indefensible here. But his arrogance blinds him to the absurdity of his own position, for he goes on immediately: "Admittedly, this [irreconcilability between the pro-lifers and the Darwinists] will not worry those many anti-abortionists who don't understand that evolution is a fact!" (Dawkins is responsible for the exclamation mark.) Dawkins has just proved, to my satisfaction, that 'the fact of evolution' cannot be a 'fact' because of the manifest monstrousness of the conclusion that he sees as necessarily following from his position. Surely the idea that a human being is fully and exhaustively defined by its having "cells of the species 'Homo sapiens' ", to use Dawkins' own words, in exactly the same way as any other living organism is fully and exhaustively defined by its having cells of its own species, is an intolerable assumption that, I repeat, will not stand one moment's observation of the world about us. This Dawkinsism must be exploded for the absurdity that it is.Dawkins takes as proved (but doesn't prove) the existence of 'intermediate species' (Dawkins' words) between man and any brute beast you care to name. So Dawkins asks the question: "Would these [intermediate] creatures 'count as human' or not?" Dawkins replies (p. 340) that only 'absolutists' "must answer the question, in order to apply the moral principle of granting humans unique and special status because they are human" (Dawkins puts the last four words in italics (p.340). Dawkins scorns this 'absolutist' position. He says: "To a consequentialist like me, the question doesn't deserve an answer, for nothing turns on it." Can Dawkins be really aware of what he is saying? He tells us that it doesn't matter if we are humans or brute beasts, "for nothing turns on it". Once again, this must be exploded for the absurdity that it is.He goes on (p.340): "Even if a clear answer [as to whether a living being is a human or a brute beast] might be attempted for Australopithecus, the gradual continuity that is an inescapable feature of biological evolution [another glib assumption of Dawkins that he doesn't prove] tells us that there must be some intermediate who would lie sufficiently close to the 'borderline' to blur the moral principle and destroy its absoluteness. A better way to say this is that there are no natural borderlines in evolution. The illusion of a borderline is created by the fact that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Of course, it could be argued that humans are more capable of, for example, suffering than other species. This could well be true, and we might legitimately give humans special status by virtue of it." (Understand what Dawkins is saying: the only reason that he can find for granting human beings any 'unique and special status' 'because they are human', is that the human may be more conscious of suffering than the brute beast. Dawkins continues: "But evolutionary continuity shows that there is no absolute (in italics) distinction." Yet again, an absurdity to be addressed and condemned.Understand again what Dawkins is saying: There is no absolute distinction between human beings and brute beasts - or any other of the now-lost 'intermediate species'. He goes on: "Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution. [I riposte: Exactly the opposite statement is true: 'The fact of evolution is devastatingly undermined by absolutist moral discrimination'.] An uneasy awareness of this fact might, indeed, underlie one of the main motives creationists have for opposing evolution: they fear what they believe to be its moral consequences. They are wrong to do so" [Are they really? Am I then free to judge Dawkins the same way that I judge a brute beast? Does Dawkins accept that it is acceptable for a human being to be a carnivore? Where do I draw the line in my choice of meat meals?] "but", Dawkins goes on, "in any case, it is surely very odd to think that a truth about the real world can be reversed by considerations of what would be morally desirable." Really? This is intolerable reasoning. It is not odd, it is essential, that what is 'morally desirable' must rule the world. Law and order would collapse otherwise. Murder and lying and stealing and adultery are 'truths about the real world'. Morality is a truth of the real world. Without 'morally desirable' judgments, which Dawkins' Darwinism considers to be impossible, the quiet world of scholarship (and even scholarship is impossible as a strict Darwinian evolution from matter) that Dawkins inhabits would collapse into sheer barbarism, '(human) nature red in tooth and claw'. Dawkins' philosophical ramblings here are simply derisory.Ruse and Wilson, `respected giants in this field' of moral philosophy and science, find it "easy to conceive of an alien intelligent species evolving rules its members consider highly moral but which are repugnant to human beings, such as cannibalism, incest, the love of darkness and decay, parricide and the eating of faeces ... " (quoted in Latham's The Naked Emperor, pp, 154,155). Dawkins' reasoning above forces him to accept such a scenario as unobjectionable morally for us humans now.

<hl> His position is, unambiguously <hl> , that there cannot be any such thing as `human' ethics or morality, and he tells us why: there is no real, meaningful distinction between a human being and a brute beast.