![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwatersparkEnemy Within by Tal Bauer
The final book in the Executive Office series, which I enjoyed books 1 and 2 of (Enemy of the State and Enemy of My Enemy).
...Weirdly, I didn't enjoy this book as much as the prequels? I enjoyed the action scenes, even though I couldn't help nitpicking the details of the international plot. Like, I really highly doubt Canada would just roll over in the event of a land invasion. And the whole concept of land invasion of the US is...really wonky, considering our current level of technology.
What mostly bugged me was that the romance, for the first time, felt so...melodramatic and hyperbolic. I am generally not a fan of romances in which the couple (multiple couples, in this case) talk about physically hurting in the temporary absence of their partner—to me, it's less romantic and more codependent. Especially for men in their 40s, not lovesick teenagers. Also, the book kept repeating the pattern of "half of couple presumed dead -> survivor is heartbroken -> two chapters later the dead person is revealed to be alive -> much rejoicing when they reunite." Having the pattern once would be okay...repeating it three times made it incredibly tedious.
Also, I really didn't care for the Sergey/Sasha relationship, so I wasn't into all the angst about them and stuff. (Sorry not sorry.)
I guess the purply prose about being heartsick just felt kind of...off, tonally, considering the characters were literally racing to save the entire globe from burning to the ground.
I'm sort of ambivalent about the end message of the story/series, as well—the idea that we need to act extralegally in order to combat dangerous, complex threats. But doesn't it become a Catch-22, because you could say that the villain of the series had operated on the same logic? I'm not saying we have a perfect governmental system, but imperfect democracy is the price we pay for the virtue of accountability over dictatorship.
And finally, I swear almost all the characters of color got killed off in the book, and that was irritating.
Hello World by Tiffany Rose & Alexandra Tauber
(I'd meant to have this review up earlier, but LJ glitched on me and then I forgot for a while.)
I picked this up because I'd heard the main character was asexual and depressed.
Overall, it was an okay read for me (~2-3 stars out of 5). I wasn't really a fan of the writing style; despite the first-person POV, I didn't really understand protagonist Scott's characterization for the first half of the book or so. (Also, I never got how old he was. He talked like a teen/20-year-old but...I think he's older than that?) Furthermore, the action scenes were written in a way that felt very detached to me, and I didn't feel much urgency even when Scott was getting shot at.
It was also unncessary to withhold the fact that Scott was searching for his sister, since that was obvious from the cover summary and so didn't really serve the purpose of creating tension when Scott initially refused to tell other characters/the reader who he was searching for.
I didn't like the romance between Scott and Sonia; I have no idea why they went to the "I love you"s in this book, since I felt like they had very little romantic chemistry. I also felt like the authors didn't really address the fact that they met due to Scott abducting Sonia and quasi-holding her prisoner for a while.
The depression representation felt mostly nonobvious, except for the really hit-on-the-head moments. And I know "nonobvious" is a very crude oversimplification for what I'm trying to say, so let me explain:
Based on a short paragraph late in the book, it seems that Scott has chronic depression, but it's not clear whether he's depressed or not for much of the book (until a spoiler event about 3/4 through the book). For the initial part of the book, he's very driven regarding his goal of finding his sister, somewhat reckless with his personal safety, and somewhat socially isolated, but those traits by themselves, while unhealthy, aren't necessarily indicative of depression. So his mental health is kind of ambiguously portrayed (again, until the spoiler event, after which he's portrayed as clearly depressed).
I also felt like, initially, Scott was somewhat too high functioning to appear depressed, since he was going around planning complex missions and stuff. I'm told there is a thing as "high functioning depression," though I'm kind of ambivalent about that and even more ambivalent about using that kind of representation to implicitly convey that a character is depressed. I don't know exactly if I was a "high functioning" depressive; I can say that I still managed to go to class and do my readings and even take my finals even though I was severely depressed, but I was very conscious of the fact that my brain was not functioning at an optimal level, and I was cognitively much worse off than I would've been without depression. I'd be shocked if any other person with "high functioning depression" reported differently.
In regards to the "hit-over-the-head" aspect I mentioned, there was a paragraph late in the book that was preaching about how mental illness isn't associated with violence because Scott's depression doesn't make him violent. Though I agree with the principle (obviously), it felt like a really clunky way to work in that argument. Also, (1) depression is not typically associated with violence—schizophrenia and bipolar are; and (2) I hate to say this, but Scott wasn't a good example of a nonviolent mentally ill person. He shoots multiple people in the book without caring if they survive or not, and with the intent to permanently disable in at least 1 case, so when he says (slightly paraphrased) "Depression doesn't make someone violent, not caring about other people makes someone violent," he...unfortunately also counts in the latter case.
Speaking of which, the fact that Scott at least wounds and maims tons of security guards over the course of the book is never really addressed in terms of a morality standpoint, which brings the book uncomfortably close to the "killing mooks is okay because they're faceless anyway" trope.
The final book in the Executive Office series, which I enjoyed books 1 and 2 of (Enemy of the State and Enemy of My Enemy).
...Weirdly, I didn't enjoy this book as much as the prequels? I enjoyed the action scenes, even though I couldn't help nitpicking the details of the international plot. Like, I really highly doubt Canada would just roll over in the event of a land invasion. And the whole concept of land invasion of the US is...really wonky, considering our current level of technology.
What mostly bugged me was that the romance, for the first time, felt so...melodramatic and hyperbolic. I am generally not a fan of romances in which the couple (multiple couples, in this case) talk about physically hurting in the temporary absence of their partner—to me, it's less romantic and more codependent. Especially for men in their 40s, not lovesick teenagers. Also, the book kept repeating the pattern of "half of couple presumed dead -> survivor is heartbroken -> two chapters later the dead person is revealed to be alive -> much rejoicing when they reunite." Having the pattern once would be okay...repeating it three times made it incredibly tedious.
Also, I really didn't care for the Sergey/Sasha relationship, so I wasn't into all the angst about them and stuff. (Sorry not sorry.)
I guess the purply prose about being heartsick just felt kind of...off, tonally, considering the characters were literally racing to save the entire globe from burning to the ground.
I'm sort of ambivalent about the end message of the story/series, as well—the idea that we need to act extralegally in order to combat dangerous, complex threats. But doesn't it become a Catch-22, because you could say that the villain of the series had operated on the same logic? I'm not saying we have a perfect governmental system, but imperfect democracy is the price we pay for the virtue of accountability over dictatorship.
And finally, I swear almost all the characters of color got killed off in the book, and that was irritating.
Hello World by Tiffany Rose & Alexandra Tauber
(I'd meant to have this review up earlier, but LJ glitched on me and then I forgot for a while.)
I picked this up because I'd heard the main character was asexual and depressed.
Overall, it was an okay read for me (~2-3 stars out of 5). I wasn't really a fan of the writing style; despite the first-person POV, I didn't really understand protagonist Scott's characterization for the first half of the book or so. (Also, I never got how old he was. He talked like a teen/20-year-old but...I think he's older than that?) Furthermore, the action scenes were written in a way that felt very detached to me, and I didn't feel much urgency even when Scott was getting shot at.
It was also unncessary to withhold the fact that Scott was searching for his sister, since that was obvious from the cover summary and so didn't really serve the purpose of creating tension when Scott initially refused to tell other characters/the reader who he was searching for.
I didn't like the romance between Scott and Sonia; I have no idea why they went to the "I love you"s in this book, since I felt like they had very little romantic chemistry. I also felt like the authors didn't really address the fact that they met due to Scott abducting Sonia and quasi-holding her prisoner for a while.
The depression representation felt mostly nonobvious, except for the really hit-on-the-head moments. And I know "nonobvious" is a very crude oversimplification for what I'm trying to say, so let me explain:
Based on a short paragraph late in the book, it seems that Scott has chronic depression, but it's not clear whether he's depressed or not for much of the book (until a spoiler event about 3/4 through the book). For the initial part of the book, he's very driven regarding his goal of finding his sister, somewhat reckless with his personal safety, and somewhat socially isolated, but those traits by themselves, while unhealthy, aren't necessarily indicative of depression. So his mental health is kind of ambiguously portrayed (again, until the spoiler event, after which he's portrayed as clearly depressed).
I also felt like, initially, Scott was somewhat too high functioning to appear depressed, since he was going around planning complex missions and stuff. I'm told there is a thing as "high functioning depression," though I'm kind of ambivalent about that and even more ambivalent about using that kind of representation to implicitly convey that a character is depressed. I don't know exactly if I was a "high functioning" depressive; I can say that I still managed to go to class and do my readings and even take my finals even though I was severely depressed, but I was very conscious of the fact that my brain was not functioning at an optimal level, and I was cognitively much worse off than I would've been without depression. I'd be shocked if any other person with "high functioning depression" reported differently.
In regards to the "hit-over-the-head" aspect I mentioned, there was a paragraph late in the book that was preaching about how mental illness isn't associated with violence because Scott's depression doesn't make him violent. Though I agree with the principle (obviously), it felt like a really clunky way to work in that argument. Also, (1) depression is not typically associated with violence—schizophrenia and bipolar are; and (2) I hate to say this, but Scott wasn't a good example of a nonviolent mentally ill person. He shoots multiple people in the book without caring if they survive or not, and with the intent to permanently disable in at least 1 case, so when he says (slightly paraphrased) "Depression doesn't make someone violent, not caring about other people makes someone violent," he...unfortunately also counts in the latter case.
Speaking of which, the fact that Scott at least wounds and maims tons of security guards over the course of the book is never really addressed in terms of a morality standpoint, which brings the book uncomfortably close to the "killing mooks is okay because they're faceless anyway" trope.
