Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#81

Post by biophysboy »

mjburgess wrote: post #76
doug_durham wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the book and at no time did I think "Christianity". It seems like motivated reasoning on your part. At no time did the book ever preach, or was even moralistic.

I'm referring to the ending of the published version, which is quite different than v1, which ends abburptly, in particular the sections before and after: > “She steps back from him. She flexes what could be wings.” > “In ideatic space everything is possible and everything is real and every metaphor is apt. She sees a galaxy of shining points: people, all the people who have ever existed, packed almost densely enough…

Is this book just riffing about embedding space? I thought about reading it eventually, but the quoted passage is kind of annoying/tedious

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#83

Post by subjectsigma »

I listened to the Audible version and either I read a completely different book or the anti-memetic effects are real, because the main character in the article has a different name and the plot synopsis doesn’t seem to match up.

My short review would be: the book is very one-note, it’s like a horror movie that keeps doing the same jumpscare over and over again. Despite this I managed to enjoy it.

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#85

Post by Grambo »

munificent wrote: post #49

I liked this one a lot. If you like weird fiction and enjoyed Jeff Vandermeer's Annhilation, there's a good chance you'll like this. If you don't like weird fiction, odds are you'll bounce off it.

I loved the Southern Reach trilogy but didn't finish TINAD. I thought the premise was pushed too far and that less would've been more. OTOH the atmosphere of oppressive bureaucracy of Authority is still one my all time favorite scifi reads.

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#86

Post by rapnie »

swanson wrote: post #73
cws wrote: post #42

This article says “Book Review:” but then doesn’t provide the title of a book. I’m confused. :)

I tried making this joke to the author when the book was released ("I purchased the book, but the link just took me to an empty page") and, unfortunately, they didn't get it and tried to give me customer support

What are you talking about? Did you perhaps cross-post by accident to the wrong thread?

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#87

Post by mjg2 »

I just finished this book and complained about it the whole time. The prose is amateur and peppered with cliches (e.g. you should be fined for publishing the phrase "their suit was so sharp it could cut"). His attempt to write about the inner thoughts of the characters was pretty simple. The descriptions of violence and horror also felt child-like, especially the dialogue during those moments (e.g. Redd's introduction). The landscapes are bland, with lots of repetition. Personally, the redaction technique got boring fast when he would take up entire pages of the book to convey absent memories. He could use his words to convey this instead of black-boxes.

I will give the author credit on how they deal with their characters' memories and the re-development of their thoughts, and the usage of time-jumping was reasonable (some books jump around too much, as if these time-skips improve a boring plot). Also the convention for how they solve their dilemma was enjoyable.

Overall, I think the author relies too much on a vocal fandom around the SCP Foundation to glorify the book. I think there is potential for a saga of books but there needs to be more effort in the drafting and editing process to raise the quality of the books to the level the universe deserves.

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#88

Post by pessimizer »

doug_durham wrote: post #66
throw4847285 wrote: post #64

This review is just a plot synopsis. There are no quotes from the book to give me a sense of the quality of the writing. The review feels targeted at somebody who is already bought into the premise, not somebody from the outside who wants to know if "There Is No Antimemetics Division" is a good book or not. In that sense, it totally fails as a book review.

I have never read a review and got a true notion of whether the prose is good or not. Is that really why you read reviews? I thought this was a great review because it very concisely described what is an unorthodox book. If you want to see if the prose is any good, read the book. It is a good book by the way.

> If you want to see if the prose is any good, read the book.

I don't read complete plot summaries of books that I ever plan to read. That's why I look for "reviews." The only reason it's hard to write a review is because you can't give away the plot, but you have to give a sense of the appeal and the quality of the book. Otherwise, it's just a summary.

I can't know what books are available on the market through introspection. The only way I can know about them is through being informed. I don't want to read a complete plot summary of a book I have yet to read. If the only way I can find out about the existence of books is by having the plot spoiled, that's not optimal.

edit: Also, tbh, if a book's plot is good, I don't need you to tell it to me. The person who came up with the plot already carefully came up with the way they wanted to tell it to me. Not sure why you think you can do better if you think the book is good. If the book is awful to read but the plot is interesting, feel free.

> It is a good book by the way.

The reason this doesn't work as a review is because I don't know you, and I don't know what you like. If you can say this in a way in which it doesn't matter whether I know you or what you like, and give away the least plot possible to accomplish this, you've written what most people are looking for in a review.

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#89

Post by satvikpendem »

throw4847285 wrote: post #64

This review is just a plot synopsis. There are no quotes from the book to give me a sense of the quality of the writing. The review feels targeted at somebody who is already bought into the premise, not somebody from the outside who wants to know if "There Is No Antimemetics Division" is a good book or not. In that sense, it totally fails as a book review.

I've noticed this too online and on YouTube, where "reviewers" conflate a plot summary with an actual review of the pros and cons and often deeper analysis of a work. These days I need to go to specific subreddits to get true reviews beyond surface level details, such as at r/TrueFilm.

Re: Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division

#90

Post by satvikpendem »

doug_durham wrote: post #66
throw4847285 wrote: post #64

This review is just a plot synopsis. There are no quotes from the book to give me a sense of the quality of the writing. The review feels targeted at somebody who is already bought into the premise, not somebody from the outside who wants to know if "There Is No Antimemetics Division" is a good book or not. In that sense, it totally fails as a book review.

I have never read a review and got a true notion of whether the prose is good or not. Is that really why you read reviews? I thought this was a great review because it very concisely described what is an unorthodox book. If you want to see if the prose is any good, read the book. It is a good book by the way.

If you say to just read the book then what's even the point of writing a review? I could say the same about any book which renders the advice meaningless.
Post reply on HN