Sasha S

• Rated 2 stars

“Okay. Let's start off with one big problem I had with the book. The riddles in this novel are ridiculously easy. I was recognized the handwriting and solved many of the versed clues as soon as they appeared on the page, leaving me to wait several pages for the protagonist to figure stuff out that I already knew.

Second. Some of the 'facts' were just historically incorrect and any student who ever took an art history class could discredit some the divine symbols the author finds in the art work. And, lets get this straight. The apostle John is ALWAYS drawn a feminine. ALWAYS. And I dare you to find any major artist during the Renaissance, pagan or devout Christian, creating artwork without triangles.

Also, no one who ever loved Leonardo would ever call him Da Vinci. "Da Vinci" is not part of Leonardo's name at all but rather a description of his birth place). Leonardo Da Vinci literally means Leonardo of Vinci (a hill in Tuscany).

Third. The information dumps. All over this book. Half of the information the protagonist shares is not even important to the plot. I had the nagging feeling that the author had perused wikipedia, and he was trying to spew as much information as possible.

As an artist... I did like that the Louvre and several beautiful artworks and artists are mentioned, and I did enjoy the description of the buildings and architecture. ”

Sasha S wrote this review Sunday, March 14, 2010. ( reply | permalink )

1 of 1 members found this review helpful.

• Rated 2 stars

“Okay. Let's start off by saying that as a novel, Atlas Shrugged rather sucks, but as an objectivist piece it works.

The books biggest downfall is characterization. This novel comes with basically two character types. All of the people of the non-objective mindset are fat, formless, depraved idiots with no talent. All of the objective characters are industrious, intelligent, good-looking folks. You cannot be smart, good-looking, AND want to help the poor. You cannot be wealthy, industrious, AND ugly. All of the characters are practically interchangeable, especially since no one has any hobbies, favorite foods, little ticks, lisps, et cetera. All of the objectivists believe in the same things right down to the type of music they like. The only difference between John Galt and Henry Rearden, two major characters, is their physical appearance.

There are several holes in the book. Why does Dagny randomly know how to fly an aeroplane? Why are trains the only real form of transportation when this book was written after the automobile? How are a handful of industrious people living in a village supposed to build a power grid, roads, a plumbing system, and houses without the use of hundreds of people and sufficient equipment? Especially knowing that these people are the owners of companies and thus probably not used to physical labor? Why isn't Dagny totally creeped out Galt has been stalking her for a decade? Inquiring minds want to know.

The only thing that saves the book is Ayn's philosophical viewpoint. Could it have been presented more elegantly? Yes. Concisely? Yes. She wastes her time writing her philosophy in the character's thoughts, in the prose, in the near-monologues she gives to the characters, and in the 50 page speech by Mr. Galt. She should have chosen whether she wanted to write a story that demonstrated a philosophy or to just go on a rant about her philosophical views. She landed in some gray area that really weakened the story. The real reason the reader trudges through this novel is to learn more about the ideas behind the book.

I will say that the ideas behind the book are appealing. Ayn gives a good case for selfishness as a virtue, but the world she presents is a sterile world, where no one has any personality, no one can love their own family members, and no one has the brains to give to charity within their means.”

Sasha S wrote this review Sunday, January 3, 2010. ( reply | permalink )

• Rated 2 stars

“The story was longer than necessary. This length adds an almost whiny tone to the novel as the narrator informs us of how hard her job is again and again, and again. All I needed as a few impossible tasks to get the picture. In comparison to the movie's character development, the book's character development pales in comparison. In the novel, the reader never sees the humanity of Miranda Priestly, and so in the book, she is a hollow apathetic antagonist. I like fleshed-out villains, characters which have depth and layers, but I can't seem to crack Miranda's upper crust in this book. We never learn her motives or clarify her reason for her actions--which is something the movie strove to correct. One point that I do approve of, neglected in the movie, was the Lily's alcohol addiction, which accentuates the disconnect between the narrator and the characters which she has left behind before her pre-Runway life. All together, however, the book seemed superficial. The characters are one-dimensional, and it feels and reads like a debut novel.”

Sasha S wrote this review Tuesday, November 24, 2009. ( reply | permalink )

• Rated 5 stars

“This book starts strongly, ends strongly, and is consistent all the way through. The characters are memorable, and the narrator, Oliver, is so fleshed out, you could probably imagine him sitting in your living room. I thoroughly enjoyed every bit of this book, and that's not an exaggeration--I found myself laughing and smiling throughout the book, and I find myself chuckling at Oliver's view of humanity as well as his description of the world.”

Sasha S wrote this review Sunday, October 18, 2009. ( reply | permalink )

• Rated 2 stars

“This book was alright. It didn't leave the stunning impression I expected it to from the title. The main problem was that the characters were so flat. I wasn't able to relate to any of them, and I found myself apathetic toward the narrator, despite the use of first person. Also, I don't really understand why the author chose to transport us back in time two WWII days; the time period doesn't assist the plot, but instead introduces a lot of old time slang and references to Doris Day--how many teens can even recall Doris Day when her music is so old it's under the public domain? But that's a minor ruffle in my feathers. What I really didn't understand was why there was so much build up to the events--cliff hanger chapter endings, ominous statements--which basically amounted to the narrator not really seeing much or knowing what was going on.”

Sasha S wrote this review Thursday, July 2, 2009. ( reply | permalink )

• Rated 1 stars

“One of those books I had to push myself through. The plot and themes were scattered. You have about 6 different story lines going on here which would have been fine on their own, but as they are all given equal importance, you can't focus. It feels very thrown together to me, like the author couldn't decide what the main theme was. Also, I got the generally feeling that the writer was trying too hard. What should have been subtle, was not. I just got the feeling that this was a very debut-feeling book, though I don't know if the author has published YA novels before.

There were somethings I liked. The description of the woods, auras, and herbs, were intriguing to me. I think perhaps if you like nature a lot and enjoy Wiccan ideology, you find much to like about this book.”

Sasha S wrote this review Saturday, December 27, 2008. ( reply | permalink )

• Rated 5 stars

“One of the best books I've ever read. The narrator has a clear voice, keeps consistent style, and disperses information in a way that doesn't let it clog the narrative. The underground culture of techno-geeks feels authentic, and I found myself feeling like one of them, someone in the know, an Xnetter ready to take down homeland security. Perhaps the works most enduring quality is how much technology is explained and how interesting the explanations are, yet the tech never gets in the way of the plot, actually pushing it forward, making the reader take a second glance at their own devices in the process. This is the type of book I read and couldn't wait to tell others about, a book that kept me up reading, a book that made me think.”

Sasha S wrote this review Friday, December 19, 2008. ( reply | permalink )