I loved Middlesex (it reminded me a lot of Salman Rushie's books). For me, though, Virgin Suicides is that perfect rare gem of a book that doesn't have any real analogues. I read Virgin Suicides when much younger and it impacted me in this unexpected emotionally resonant way. It's hard to step outside oneself when judging books!

Eugenides hasn't written much after his first two literary darlings. I couldn't really get into The Marriage Plot and that's his only other novel since 1993. I hope to read more by him one day!

Ha, yes, I forgot to include the author. It's Jeffrey Eugenides!

I'll respond with a "good" throwing a book across the room so this isn't just a hate thread.

For me it was the Virgin Suicides, which I read many years before the movie came out so it was more of an unknown novel back then. (It was a popular literary novel upon first publication, so I'm not saying it was truly unknown, just less so.)

I really loved (and still do love) that book. But it's a complex narrative voice, the first person plural, and it's the voice of all the boys of a town, now adults, looking back on these girls they were obsessed with. It's a really interesting way of writing, just a little bit creepy, but also sad, because the narrative "we" voice is writing from adulthood, reminiscing about their youth.

So throughout the book I was thinking why are they so obsessed, still obsessed after so many years, in many ways their lives ruined by this obsession. But it's "they" because there is no clear narrator. It's all of them.

And then I got to the climactic scene and I was so... mad. Mad that the titular event pretty much took a whole town with it. It was beautiful and infuriating to me.

The movie, for what it's worth, was also very good. But in the end I feel like the movie was about the girls and the book was about the boys. Which makes sense. It's hard to capture that first person plural narrative voice in a film.

As my spoiler-filled comment elsewhere in this thread makes clear, I agree that CoR isn't as good of a book as CoT. However, I still think it's a very good book. And, more importantly to your point, I don't think it detracts from CoT in any way.

I know what you mean where sometimes a sequel can ruin (pun!) one's feelings about the first book in a series. This sometimes happens because a sequel is so awful that it leaves a bad taste about the entire series, and it sometimes happens because new information is revealed that retrospectively messes up plot points one liked in the first book. I don't think either of those things are true about CoR.

So even if you don't like it as much as CoT, I don't think it will impact how much you liked CoT. In fact, I think it's still additive even if it's not quite as great.

Good to hear and thank you. I haven't read CoM one yet. (I needed a break after CoT and CoR back-to-back.) But your comment makes me more interested in putting it back into my reading list!

I read both of these books recently and I feel very similarly to you. Both very good books that I enjoyed, but the second one had some clearer flaws. Those flaws didn't ruin the reading experience, but did mean after it was over I felt less satisfied.

I agree with your review, and have one thing to add. (And thank you for giving me the opportunity! I've been mulling this over for a while and didn't know where to share my thoughts.)

Spoilers follow! [Edit: MAJOR spoilers. Do not click and read the below if you haven't read the books and don't want them spoiled.]

>!The OP has pointed out how the structures have some parallels. One more major parallel is how a technology introduced earlier on in the book is then responsible for the climatic ending where multiple sentient species are able to come to a joint understanding. In Time it's the "smart virus" that is used to help the humans feel kinship with the spiders and avert disaster. In Ruin it's the brain interface that allows Kern to make real contact with the The Many and avert disaster.!<

>!In the first CoT book, the virus is fundamental to the plot. It drives the entire novel, since it's what allows the spiders to evolve into an advanced species and contributes to their whole memory-transfer ability. So when that virus is used to bring the humans into a feeling of kinship with the spiders it feels like a really logical conclusion to the storyline.!<

>!The problem in the second CoR book is that the brain-interface technology is not fundamental to the plot. In fact, many if not most of the scenes where the book explores that technology feel ancillary from what is going on. Yes, it's interesting and important how that technology gives Kern the ability to "feel" emotions again, and the way she those emotions distract her does have plot relevancy. But the whole book could have definitely been written with all of these scenes removed, except for (of course) the climax.!<

>!So, the conclusion of the second book felt less satisfying to me than that of the first. In retrospect it became clear that the author had added this technological diversion side-plot in order to deliver that conclusion, rather than having told an organic story with an organic conclusion. (In other terms, it made the "author's hand" a little too obvious.) !<

Anyway, that's not saying the second book wasn't a good book or that I didn't enjoy it. Just a plot point (a major one) that didn't work for me as well as it did in the first book.

Ha, no. I was just making something random up.

Here's a real-world example: I enjoyed Hench by Natalie Zina Walschots, which is a parody of the superhero genre where the lead character takes an actuarial science* approach to challenging superheroes. My review was that I liked the book but thought it could use a little less action and spend more time on the satirical mathematical analysis of superheroes.

"More math" was not the general take from the other reviews.

* In the book it's framed as accounting rather than actuarial, but it's clearly insurance math.**

** And that footnote gives you a good idea what my reviews are like.

I think that is definitely true for some people and the books they like! But it's clearly not universally true since 100+ people on this thread have already said they tend to prefer books with a lower-than-4 rating.

(Also... maybe it is different between Kindle ratings and GoodReads ratings. Maybe Kindle is more nakedly promotional and curves ratings upwards in order to encourage sales? So stuff on Kindle that is <4 is actually more like a <2 rating? I don't know!)

Ha, I can't promise to leave all emotion on the cutting room floor! :)

But, yes, I tend to be very analytical when I review a book so we are aligned. Often I leave any "I liked this book" statement for the end. Whether "I liked" a book or not is only partially connected to the assessment of key themes, how the book was structured, what I felt worked or did not work, and how the book fits into the context of other books in its genre/space.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that my emotional response to the book is tied to my analytical response to a book. So I hesitate to say that the analytical review isn't actually emotional, even though that makes me sound like a robot. It's also probably why I often find what I like about a book is the opposite of what the majority of people liked.

I'm surprised by how often the 1 star reviews are what convince me to read a book. "There was no action in this boring piece of crap! It was all just people talking about philosophy while exploring an underwater civilization. Where were the sea monsters and romance? It felt like reading the terrible [BOOK I LOVE] all over again."

One funny thing I find is that when I write a 3 star review I often say something like "I really liked X part of this book, but didn't like Y, I wish it had been more of X," and all the other reviews are saying "I really liked Y part of this book, but didn't like X, I wish it had been more of Y."

I will qualify that when I said "great anti-colonial novels" I didn't mean "great" as in "this is a book I love" but as in "great example of a important literary work." :) :) :)

True! Heart of Darkness, one of the great anti-colonial novels, definitely plays on the white savior myth as well. In fact, it's often misinterpreted as a pro-colonialist novel, or at least one that is non-critical of colonialism, because of this. Well, and also because of other reasons, but I think many interpretations that use a modern point of view lose sight of Conrad's intent.

I think Dune is more anti-colonialist literature than it is environmental. However, the anti-colonialist nature of the book suffers from the fact that it's a typical "white savior" style storyline--although I'm not actually sure of the race of the characters, but you hopefully know what I mean: person from outside the minority group comes in to lead minority group to freedom.

As for the environmental side, "environment" is a big part of it, but I wouldn't consider it an "environmental novel." Though, maybe? There are plot points about the future livability of the planet and how the spice farming empire has conflicting goals in that regard.

I guess my question is: are Dune and LotR alluding to environmental and colonialist themes (a) as a way of adding depth/color to the plot, or (b) as a way of commenting on our current society?

I think a lot of SFF uses allusions to deepen and richen the story being told, but without attempting to make specific commentary on those themes. (Which is fine! It makes books better for different reasons!)

Based on the books the OP listed, it feels like they are looking for books built around these topics as a commentary on modern society. (However, whatever, you can't go wrong reading Dune or LotR.)

Ha! Yeah, you definitely need to read The Sympathizer first. The Sympathizer is a standalone/complete novel, but The Committed is very much a not-standalone continuation. It has constant references to the first book and very little handholding about it--by which I mean it doesn't waste time explaining what happened and expects you to remember. :D

Check out The Sympathizer by Vietnamese-American professor Viet Thanh Nguyen. Amazing book.

It's more about post-colonialism and anti-racism, less about environmentalism/queerness.

Edit to add: His follow up, The Committed, continues the story in France, and is even more explicitly a post-colonialism story.