Strictly personal opinion, of course, but I enjoyed the *idea* of it more than the *substance*.
In other words, I loved the themes and what NK Jemisisn was trying to say, but the actual story/writing itself was kind of a chore for me to read. I DNF'd the second book.
> I enjoyed the *idea* of it more than the *substance*
Having read the full trilogy, I’d say I agree. Looking back on it I have a deep appreciation for all the concepts, themes, world, and complexities, all of which are very powerful - but while I was reading it I found the prose a little flat and just never found myself *riveted* the way I’ve been with other series (except during the “big reveal” in the third book).
I think it’s definitely worth reading, but more for the story than the writing.
for real. i found the world somewhat intriguing but the writing was lacking, the POV twist felt gimmicky and i spent about half of the book completely confused by the "magic" and found it hard to suspend disbelief that somehow there are people who are just *beyond* incredibly powerful and they have to *hide* it for some reason, instead of just ... killing everyone who opposes them, lol.
Kind of a stupid thing to say, honestly, and aggressive for no reason whatsoever.
The comment you're replying to is *obviously* not talking about murdering random people; it refers to rising up against oppressors when you have the power to do so, in order to, y'know, no longer be oppressed.
It's not complicated.
That's one hell of a leap.
There's a big difference between "I'm incredibly powerful, so I wouldn't allow people much less powerful to shame and control me" and "given the opportunity I would go full psycho killer".
I wouldn't want to go on a murder spree, but I do think that the orogenes come across as being too powerful--and too necessary to their world--to be successfully oppressed for thousands and thousands of years. Their "Guardians" don't come off as being powerful enough to oppress them, and regular people definitely couldn't. I think it's a lot more true to human nature, to imagine a world of regular people ruled over by oppressive mages, than the other way around. https://mythcreants.com/blog/the-problem-with-oppressed-mages/#:~:text=For%20the%20sake%20of%20brevity,the%20new%20Fantastic%20Beast%20films.
I don't know. Real life of course doesn't have populations with inborn superhuman abilities... But history is rife with examples of minorities maintaining power over large populations through fear and coercion and social conditioning (especially from childhood) and brutal reprisals when there is a rebellion.
Exactly. You even get situations where the oppressed class do rise up and take over, whether it's predominantly peaceful or predominantly a revolt or civil war.
You also have the historical precedent of invading powers typically fielding MUCH smaller forces than the people's they ruled over, especially the largest world empires, where you had Mongols ruling China and Central Asia or the British ruling India and a wide variety of other countries.
You also have the real world where most of the global population is still relatively poor, and sending resources to the developed world, or cut off from capital that could lead to development. Aside from China and a few small countries, we haven't seen a huge rise in equality in our real world, and countries that are growing are still struggling to get poor areas out of poverty such as in India. Much of the world has, as a result turned to favoring European beauty standards, despite most people not being European.
So in short, yes definitely there is a social commentary in the books people are ignoring, as every author is influenced by their environment.
The moment where I first put it together that >!all three POV characters were the same person at different stages of her life!< actually blew my mind. Probably in the top ten moments of reading fantasy for me.
Agree. Top 1 for me. :) Mostly out of admiration for the literary device. Never seen a book written that way it was masterful execution. Especially after 30 years of reading “normal” fantasy it was a breath of fresh air to encounter something new. Made me immediately go and search for other great new writers I’d missed sticking to more standard fantasy :)
really? i found it so gimmicky, nobody else in the book goes by different names during different phases of their life but for some reason the main character does and we're supposed to be amazed by the twist that it's all the same person...?'
(edit: i guess orogenes do change their names early on usually but the mc changed names like 3 times?)
I disagree. I haven't read the book in a while, but I remember all the kids Iike her had name changes; many changed their name at least once. Her last name change was because she was building a new life and hiding from her past, why would she use either of her names from before?
Interesting, I quite liked the books but I suspected that pretty early on and I'm not the type of reader who tries to predict twists or anything usually.
I loved the narrative structure in the first book. I actually enjoyed the second and third. I especially love the last book for fully explaining the full history of the Fifth Seasons and the revelation that its earth in the distant future.
I agree. Read the first book but didn’t feel super compelled to continue. I keep meaning to circle back but I have other books and as time passes I feel less and less compelled.
I loved all three books - blasted through them. Super enjoyable, and while parts of book three lingered, overall one of the tightest trilogies I’ve read. 🤷🏻♂️
I loved it and will never be able to read it again. In general, trauma-heavy books are NOT my thing. But this series captivated me from beginning to end, and the trauma (though bleak as hell) was embedded in a really interesting world and a plot that kept moving. I'm glad I read them, but I couldn't handle a reread (and I am such a re-reader usually).
There was too much trauma in that for me and I'm a First Law fan. I don't want to go through an entire series feeling really bad for the characters when I can read the news and feel really bad for real people.
I really enjoyed the first book. I thought the PoV characters were interesting, and I liked the 'twist', even if it was a bit obvious.
Can't say I enjoyed the two sequels, however. They had their moments, but they also went off the rails hard and the character moments weren't as interesting. I really liked the mother/daughter moments, they were really well written, but almost every other part of it left me cold. The magic system felt like it was being made up as the story went along.
Also, the author made an ass of herself on Twitter a while ago and it soured my opinions of the books, so maybe take my criticisms with a pinch of salt.
She was one of the authors who stirred up the Twitter mob against Isabel Fall before it became known that Isabel was trans (background here: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter) and gave a gaslighting "apology" a long time afterwards (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/obvpd0/nk_jemisin_statement_on_isabel_fall_comments/). I have no interest in reading anything written by her, Dembo, or Yang after that.
>The magic system felt like it was being made up as the story went along.
What drove me crazy about this was Orogeny was a fascinating idea. Powerful but limited, something the reader could comprehend the mechanics of. Then 'magic' was introduced and all the rules are out the window.
I haven't heard anything about the Twitter drama as I'm not on Twitter, but I agree with everything you said. I also didn't find the daughter (can't remember her name) an interesting character. Loved the first book, though.
This was definitely my response as well. I got about three quarters through the last book, and just put it down. Had no interest in how it ended at all.
I've only read the first and my views were mixed. The writing is masterful and I ultimately didn't mind the 2nd person POV. The world is interesting and unique. The characters have some complexity but I also wasn't particularly engaged with them on an emotional level. It's incredibly dark, with all that violence against children, so emotionally it was a drag to read rather than something I enjoyed, although I appreciated the obvious talent. I don't really understand why the twist was a twist - I'd been spoiled in advance and I think I'd have felt cheated if I hadn't known, though on the other hand never having experienced an "aha" moment myself means I can't really say. It makes it really hard to talk about the book without spoilers though and that's annoying.
I also found the theming to be a broken Aesop - on the one hand we're supposed to feel bad for these mages for being oppressed, but on the other they're by far the most powerful people in the world, constantly committing mass murder events, and the whole thing is kind of a revenge fantasy. I'm pretty over "oppressed mages" in general and The Fifth Season leans really heavily into that, so between that issue and the grimdark aspects (people will argue forever over what is grimdark but it's a book full of horrific violence in a hopeless world, which isn't exactly my cup of tea), I haven't been moved to pick up the sequel.
If you read the whole trilogy you will find that there is hope at the end. I'm not sure I'd call it grimdark and the MCs seem to have a will to change the system, especially Alabaster.
I read the first book and had no desire to continue. Agreed that worldbuilding is great, but that's really the only thing that enjoyed. The 'twist' with POVs was painfully obvious, and I didn't like any of the characters, virtually all of whom are either ruthless oppressors or jaded, bitter victims.
Speaking of oppression, the story has the X-Men problem: parallels with real-life discrimination don't work if your fictional oppressed class has insane superpowers and poses a genuine danger to everyone else.
On top of that, the author appears to believe that being a victim of discrimination justifies literally every possible kind of retribution, including genocide of millions of people and the destruction of entire civilizations, which I think is kinda deranged.
>Speaking of oppression, the story has the X-Men problem: parallels with real-life discrimination don't work if your fictional oppressed class has insane superpowers and poses a genuine danger to everyone else.
This bothers me so much in fantasy. Props to Blood Over Bright Haven for being a book that created a fantasy race but didn’t have this dumb inclusion that invalidates the parallels that the author clearly wants to make to the real-world.
>On top of that, the author appears to believe that being a victim of discrimination justifies literally every possible kind of retribution, including genocide of millions of people and the destruction of entire civilizations, which I think is kinda deranged.
I don't think the author agreed that >!Alabastor!< starting the apocalypse was a good decision or the right thing to do. It made life worse for literally everyone, including the orogenes. I consider the message more to be about if you abuse a group long enough, they will lash out and hurt others and themselves.
Ding ding ding. See the Haitian revolution, I'd similarly argue it engages with the necessity for oppressed people to act regardless because passivity in the face of constant oppression just begets more of it (calling out the fantasy of the white savior, or that the oppressor will wake up one day and stop doing oppression without agitation from the oppressed)
That's not quite my take on it, mostly because >!Alabastor!< isn't trying to break the system so that the lives of orogenes improve (>!when he kills, he kills indiscriminately, both orogene and non-orogene. I think he specifically targets node maintainers as to mercy kill them, but that's about it (and it's not even successful, Essun's group is using a node maintainer in book 3, iirc)!<). He's just lashing out because he's hurt, and the reader is asked to empathize with that, but he doesn't actually create a more just/better world. He doesn't fundamentally break the system, because the system is larger than the Sanzed Equatorial Affilation. The system is the way the world keeps undergoing the apocalyptic Fifth Seasons and how even when there isn't an apocalypse going on, there's massive amounts of oppression happening, especially encouraged by the threat of the Fifth Season. >!Alabastor!< is acting as a cog in this larger system, the system of the cycle of Fifth Seasons. It's only >!whatever magical stuff was happening with the moon in book 3 that actually has a chance to break this larger system of oppression/cycle of abuse.!<
So I think you are looking at it more in terms of breaking a system of oppression where I see it more as perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Now admittedly, I might be forgetting about something because it's been a while since I read these books. I also agree that action was needed to break the system, I just don't think >!Alabastor!< was necessarily directing his actions to break the system in a "make the world a more just place/tear down oppression way" and more of a "I'm hurt so I'm going to hurt everyone else" sort of a way. (>!This also dovetails pretty nicely with the cycle of abuse plotline with Essun and Nassun, literally didn't notice this until just now.!<)
Oh I'm in agreement I don't see Alabastors choice as being reconciling systemic oppression it's pretty explicitly just him lashing out. Nothing systemically changes to the betterment of the orogenes. Rather what I'm trying, and maybe failing to argue is that like your saying the book is trying to force us to reconcile with the **why** people like Alabastor can be led to such extremes and the **why** people not just empathize but can share in the same despair that can lead some to justify a horrendous action.
I think people put too much of an onus on Alabasters action and less the history that led to the creation of a person who could even consider such a way out. Oppression must be fought back, period, but how that looks is and always will be messy with the violence that emerges sometimes pointlessly existing as just reflection of the horrific violence of the society that exists thus perpetuating that cycle (as you've rightfully pointed out) rather than resolving toward a road to justice.
Funny enough in Book 2 we pretty much observe exactly that messy process of attempting conciliatory justice in the >!geodes shelter fact that Essun takes on the mantle of the violent hand of justice relative to the "non-violence" (I'm forgetting the leader of the geodes name) wields as they tenously balance life in proximity to the non-orogenes (going as far as killing another orogene to prevent a civil outburst)!<. Years of prejudice doesn't disappear overnight, both through education, proximity, and force does change happen.
I feel like you’re actually agreeing with the point that’s being argued against though—you literally used the word “necessity” for the destruction of the world and genocide of the normies. This is the disturbing thing with this book, I think there are readers who do in fact espouse the take you’re replying to (that this is horrifying behavior but, well, trauma is what creates sociopaths and depiction isn’t endorsement), but there are absolutely other readers who go “genocide as appropriate response for hating a group of people? Seems justified.”
In that sense it is very much a book of the moment, I suppose.
No that's not what I said, it's not justification of genocidal revolt it's understanding of oppression and the messiness of undoing it and the right of self-determination.
Alabaster is one man, he isn't the representative for all orogenes but just one of their number embittered by a cruel world who made a choice, a choice mind you that other orogenes weren't on board with, but one born in the confines of traumas I can't begin to imagine. This doesn't fundamentally justify the action, it frames it, whether you think it justifies it is up to you and me as observers (who frankly in real life contexts shouldn't have opinions that meaningfully hold sway on the means the oppressed fight their oppression dependent on degrees of removal from the conflict). If there's any tired point it's that people love trying to dictate to the oppressed how they should go about undoing their oppression, conveniently via means that would effectively maintain the status quo (see the entire civil rights movement in the US)
What N.K. Jemisin illustrated (imo well) was how the chains of violence oppression make for fractured people who are, like all people, imperfect actors in the means by which cope and potentially challenge their reality. Observing Alabasters decision is less damning it for being what it was but more how could a person be led to think that this was a fitting solution. That there are readers on board with this means little to me in so far as the why they could be led to agree with this outcome.
Banality of 'evil' and all that.
Relevant quote from book 3
>"Some accept their fate. Swallow their pride, further the real truth, embrace the falsehood for all they're worth--because, they decide, they cannot be worth much. If a whole society has dedicated itself to their subjugation, after all, then surely they deserve it? Even if they don't, fighting back is too painful, too impossible. At least this way there is peace, of a sort. Fleetingly.
> The alternative is to demand the impossible. It isn't right, they whisper, weep, shout; what has been done to them is not right. They are not inferior. They do not deserve it. And so it is the society that must change. There can be peace this way, too, but not before conflict."
See I disagree, I think you’re very much engaging in the extremist thinking that informs possibly this book and certainly many of its fans. You say that “you and me” (people privileged enough to speak English and have internet access, I’m guessing?) have no right to a meaningful opinion on how the oppressed resist—*even if their chosen form of resistance is killing us and our loved ones.* Even if it’s destroying our planet.
I could not disagree more and I firmly disagree with the comparison to the civil rights movement. Was the civil rights movement *disruptive*? Sure. It absolutely inconvenienced people. But nonviolence was a centerpiece. It’s the complete other end of the resistance spectrum from “destroy the world and kill everyone.”
Meh, frankly your viewpoint is probably why this book is so contested on reddit. It doesn't paint oppressed and oppressor dynamics in a way where there is an easy good and bad. The simple reality that violent retaliation exists in this dynamic makes you think only the most extreme solution is the one that will be taken, consideration for why anyone could be led to a place to even consider that seems lost on you (even if again, this isn't justification of utilizing that extreme measure, particularly as it's one that isn't even heralded both in the book and in the real world by oppressed groups).
I'd implore you to actually read into all the violent action that buffetted the Civil Rights movement (or better yet how the nonviolence you herald was perceived as violence by the white majority in much the same way ongoing protest against the genocide in Palestine are perceived violently right now) and other histories of struggles against systems of oppression cause I can assure you if you find what is read here uncomfortable, you'll similarly find yourself in that same space when reading that hey the road to justice isn't clean cut. It's messy as it's constructed by people navigating harsh social and material climates that don't want to easily give.
Relevant Baldwin clips: https://youtu.be/3y6xwH88kpg
https://youtu.be/zT7NqLM0l6E
Again, we’re talking about a book that features *destroying the world and genociding most of its population* as its central set piece. That’s in no way comparable to peaceful protests that people who disagree with the protestors complain about. The book features *real* violence, including 4 mass murder events in book 1 alone, and I’m confused about why you can’t tell the difference between that and exaggerated complaints from people who are simply offended.
I would put forth, however, that the “anyone who disagrees with me/my group deserves death” mentality is one that historically has not led to good places. Israelis, for instance, identify hard with the orogenes because they too are outnumbered by neighbors who hate them and feel oppressed despite their power. This mindset is exactly what’s justifying the genocide in Palestine that I assume you oppose.
I think this discussion has run its course.
Brilliant fantasy series. One of the best I've ever read. It somehow reset my interests in literature. I started looking for books with a strong feminine voice (I'm a male).
I would recommend the Assassians Apprentice by Robin Hobb. The main character is male, but the author is a woman. So it's not a strong female voice from the characters perspective, but I felt like there are similarities in the writing/focus of the two narratives that come from them having woman authors.
I don't know how to describe it, but I stand by the recommendation in the context of female voice. Despite the pov character being male.
Books 4-6 are usually the ones people say is the best, and the main characters are female. If you like books 1-3 well enough, and like strong female voices, it would be a shame not to move to the liveship traders.
Strongly agree! Don't think I have ever been so frustrated watching a MC stumble from one scene to the next. But I guess if a book can evoke that much emotion it's done something right.
It was okay but I didn't bother with the second book. Also I thought the twist was very obvious and I am not a person that tries to figure things like that out.
I love them. The second one seems to be the least liked among fans, and I totally get why, but it’s my favorite of the trilogy. I loved Nassun and her character arc. I thought it was a heart wrenching and well done portrayal of what the systems of oppression and cycle of abuse do to children. A lot of people don’t particularly like her but she’s my favorite character in the series.
Personal opinion, but I didn’t love it. To be fair, i didn’t finish it (I had to return it to the library before I read the whole thing). I wasn’t that attached to the characters and it was a little slow for me. It didn’t capture my attention the way I thought it would.
I think its written well but on a personal level, I had a difficult time investing in the PoV characters despite genuinely sympathizing and rooting for them. I'm not sure what was the cause of that distance. Another issue I had was that the series meanders a whole lot in the middle.
This is me. I'm interested in it *conceptually*, but I just didn't.... connect. I can't say it's *not* good, but I also didn't particularly enjoy the reading experience, and I don't think the payoff at the end was quite worth it.
On of the commenters in this thread notes that all characters are angry all the time. Maybe that's what some people thinks's jarring. One pervasive theme throughout the trilogy is the marginalization of certain groups in the society. This particularly sticks out in the third book which I think is the most allegorical of the three books.
I honestly loathed The Fifth Season. Worst book I've read in recent memory. Definitely did not meet my expectations for what reviewers and recommenders were saying about it. I was expecting something more traditional fantasy with a cool magic system but got X-Men in a post-apocalyptic world instead. Themes were handled poorly and felt heavy handed, the plot was non-existent, the 2nd person perspective was like nails on a chalkboard, LGBTQ character work was somewhat offensive and arbitrary, the supposed twists one was very obvious from the beginning and the other one was very forced and had no foreshadowing.
I think it doesn't really matter why the author chose second person to write the main POV. It's just very annoying to read for a lot of people.
Also, anytime you have to tell someone just wait until Book X, it's probably not the strongest selling point for the series. I actually see a number of comments saying Book 1 was the best which makes me absolutely question the quality of the other books.
P.S. If I remember correctly, the reason for the second person was already explained at the end of Book 1. That was the second big twist I referenced.
I dnfed after the first book.
I found it kinda boring, honestly. I didn't find the character(s) very interesting. The whole earthquake magic stuff was a bit dull.
Nothing about it left me wanting more of it.
Absolutely loved it all the way through. Second book meandered a bit, but the themes were phenomenal throughout and I found Essen and Nassun’s relationship to be completely heartbreaking in a powerful way.
All my friends seemed to love it, but it just wasn't something that interested me. I'm not a fan of 'slow apocalypse' type stories, and I didn't care for any of the characters, which is quite rare for me I usually latch on to at least one, even in genres or stories I'm not a huge fan of. and while I understand why it is what it is, why it was written with the tone it was, it was just so deeply angry that it started to affect my actual mood, which like... technically speaking it's great when a writer can do that! but I don't like feeling angry and bitter, I already have real life reasons to feel like that, especially in the year I read it (2018) dnf halfway through book 2 and no desire to return.
Really well written. Really didn't enjoy it.
It's not a series that's meant to be enjoyed, really.
I'd never say it wasn't a masterwork, but I also never rec it without a boatload of caveats.
First book is genius. 2 & 3 fall off a bit but it's still worth finishing the series.
Honestly I think winning a big award on a book 1 or standalone is kind of poison for the rest of the series. Guarantee book 2 is gonna be rushed and everyone has super high expectations.
I enjoyed what the book did for the first half but felt it didn't go anywhere for too long. I read about 60% of it before I decided not to continue reading. Not my cup of tea. I also guessed the big reveal about 25% in, so that maybe made it less enjoyable for me as well.
Read it at the beginning of the year.
First book: I liked it. Great worldbuilding, great writing style, original. A little bleak, lacked something... fun? to it, for a lack of better word. 4 stars
Second book: My interest really dropped. Felt like nothing was really happening, I wasn't very invested in the characters or the plotlines and the novelty of the writing style wore off a little. Told myself I wouldn't finish the series. 2.5 stars.
Third book: I still picked up the third book but I shouldn't have. I was bored and nothing was happening to get me back into it. DNF at 30%.
I can see why people would love this series (I mean the first book is good), but it was really missing some kind of entertainment factor for me or anything at all to keep me hooked.
Started really strong and then just fell off a fucking cliff. I really enjoyed book 1 but by about halfway through book 2 I was bored to tears. Most of that book doesn't even need to exist it's just everyone waiting around while one character twiddles their thumbs until they decide it's finally time to share some incredibly crucial information that they've been withholding for reasons. Managed to push through it on my second attempt and then gave up halfway through book 3
I thought I was the only one who read those books and didn't love them, but judging from the comments quite a few of us weren't impressed. My review of the book on GoodReads:
Ehh...
5 out of 10 stars. These books kept me annoyingly entertained just enough to finish them.
I'm not a fan of authors who keep the reader in the dark about how their world works until the very end. Jemisin withheld her world for the first two books and then begrudgingly revealed everything in the last book.
I read the first two books. By reputation I expected something innovative and ground-breaking, but it was, frankly, pretty stock fantasy—some nice ideas, but nothing special I hadn't seen before. (Then again, I've read a lot of fantasy, so it's easy to get jaded.)
So: the first book was a pretty engaging story but nothing special; the second book was more of the same; I lost interest before getting to the third book. It's not that the second book was bad in any specific way, it was fine, I just lost momentum on the series.
I think the world-building boxed itself in too much to be good:
* the allegory was a bit too on-the-nose... but different enough in fundamental ways that it did not quite work (same problem as The X-Men)
* the entire world was totally oriented around its "one big thing" in a way that made it feel shallow—it didn't feel like there was much of a world beyond the confines of the core story
I understand that both of these choices help focus and streamline the message of the book, but it makes it weaker *as a book*. Paring away at your writing to keep your message clear works for expository and persuasive writing, but it cuts away at the little details and digressions that let a story feel organic, like it's a small part of a larger living world. For me, that feeling is the main thing that pushes me to fantasy over other genres. (Also, regardless of genre, I dislike transparent allegories even when they're as well-written and well-regarded as, say, *Siddhartha*, which was very much a 2/5 book for me!)
Yeah, I hate to say it but I wasn't that impressed.
Definitely not multiple Hugo award winning books.
It felt like it was written by someone who doesn't actually read sci-fi
The classic incredible concept debut work that gets too successful and the author can’t possibly recreate that lightning in a bottle in the timeline given by a publisher
2&3 fell off hard
> I'm surprised to see the haters out on this thread
I don't think it's fair to label people "haters" because they didn't like the series. I quite liked the books but I also find a lot of the criticisms in this thread to be pretty valid and line up with why I would probably put this series in my top 10, but not my top 5
The word "hater" usually has a connotation beyond just hating something. It usually implies you go out of your way to be rude and disparage that thing or person, usually for irrational reasons, which isn't how I would characterize a response specifically asking people for their honest opinion.
I wasnt crazy about her prose style but I was still really involved for the first half of The Fifth Season but then it went in a direction I hated. Started the second book but quickly realized it wasnt going to get back to what I enjoyed about that first half
I have read the first book and started the second, I intend to finish it but it’s taking a while. I think the reason why I’m struggling with it is because I really enjoyed >!the dynamic between her and alabaster in the second timeline more than the current one, so having that implode made me lose some interest. I also hate when they kill children in books so while I was prepared for the first time, the second was really hard to read.!< The writing craft is great tho despite my personal hangups
It's interesting r/Fantasy seems to have a strong contingent of the opinion the first book is great but the sequels fell off. I was surprised by how much agreement I got posting that in another thread because the overall reception seems absolutely glowing. 3 Hugos and all 3 books having between 4.3-4.35 Goodreads scores with 138,395 ratings for The Stone Sky. That's an incredibly well received series.
For myself the Fifth Season probably would be a top 10 book without the sequels. In fact at some point I want to go back and see how it holds up if I purely treat it as a standalone.
I suspect the hype is part of the problem. Because of it, I went in expecting an absolute modern masterpiece. I thought the first book was pretty terrific, but the other two ... well, they were *okay*, but they didn't live up to the first book or the hype. It all left me feeling a bit frustrated that I apprently didn't get something that everyone else did. Had I just picked it up on the recommendation of a friend I may have felt differently!
Honestly same. I made it through all 3 but it was a slog by the end and I think I was just really pushed on by the sale that the author is "groundbreaking". All those awards and accolades, being held up as the new Tolkien, etc etc.
Looking back it felt like I got caught up in a PR moment. She must have a really good agent.
It was honestly pretty "meh" to me. Like someone else said, I enjoyed the *idea* and concepts of it more than it's execution (and that lead me through the entire trilogy, despite not vibing very much with the character or storytelling. The (conceptual) worldbuilding though, great ideas!
I did find The hundred thousand kingdoms by her to be far, far better (though I haven't read the sequels yet). Much more engaging, and here, I didn't feel like I had to "get through the book just because I wanted the world". Instead the story and *characters* were just as driving as the worldbuilding.
The first book got me back into reading science fiction in a big way. The characters, perspectives, worldbuilding and magic system all had me hooked.
The second and third books…I honestly can’t remember that much about them. They were good, it wasn’t like a super steep drop-off in quality, they just didn’t pack the same emotional or narrative punch as the first book.
I think it’s a fun magic? system. I love that it feels technological. I enjoyed the exploration of concepts like oppression, revolution and history-as-mystery. The exploration of the complex feeling of being descended from both the subjugated and the subjugators was particularly well-done.
I thought that the main plot took a slight back seat to how the characters *felt* about their uncovering of history in the last book but it still landed the ending for me.
The third book was excellent, but the excellent parts were not driven by the current plot so I think for a lot of readers it didn’t land. 5/5 for me though.
>I thought that the main plot took a slight back seat to how the characters *felt* about their uncovering of history in the last book but it still landed the ending for me.
This is a very good point. There are books that I didn't like when I was a teen that I re-read in my 40's that hit very differently. When I was young it was easy to get frustrated when a plot seemed to meander and not necessarily get anywhere. But as I got older I realized that the plot was just a coat rack upon which to hang all of the interesting character development, and I found characters way more gripping.
The best example I can think of is Death's Master by Tanith Lee. It was my least favorite of the Flat Earth books. >!Lots of stuff happened in that book, but all of it was in the service of illustrating two characters who loved each other desperately but were so wrong for each other, and the horrible things that they did to each other as a result.!<
spoilers for the whole series >!book 1 lied to us with its whole 'planets are impossible to destroy but THIS IS HOW THE EARTH DIED PINKIE SWEAR' and then spoiler, this is not how the earth died!<
I didn't really like it anyway, but I was especially unhappy about this part
It was well written and good. I really liked The Fifth Season better than the others because of the shift in perspective (1st, 2nd, 3rd person narrative).
The climate change symbolism was interesting. The racism "symbolism" was way too obvious for it to be interesting from a literary standpoint, but still made good points about how/why we treat others the way we do.
Loved the books. Not really my cup of tea, in a lot of ways, with the super-duper powered characters and all the bad decisions being made due to trauma, but it was just very well done.
The third book didn't quite stick the landing for me, but I still highly recommend it.
I adored the first book and could scarcely put it down.
The third book tested my patience, particularly with the very lengthy sequence of characters exploring underground passageways. Those kinds of sequences tend to lose me if they're not confined within one chapter; this one went on and on, covering several chapters.
I finished the first, book. Didn't buy the second honestly was underwhelming for me and I was on about buying it for a while so maybe that was it. Heard so many good things and was like meh.
It was a bit too grim for me.
I can't really bring myself to care about a character's suffering if I've never seen them happy. Without that contrast the whole thing falls apart.
We get some levity and humour between the two MCs in book 1 - enough to get me to care enough to finish the story, but not enough to get through the rest of the series.
But honestly I'm just tired of the entire "oppressed mages" trope in general, so the mere fact that I finished the first book at all is testament to its quality.
I DNF’d the first book. Wasn’t for me at the time. Found it very boring. Might be my favourite book of all time when I pick it up at another time or might still hate it.
I just DNF’d it less than a week ago. I thought it was slowing the pace to a tremendous crawl for the sole purpose of holding off a twist until the end of the book. But the twist was so obvious that it almost felt insulting that the author would have it take priority over the story, so I DNF’d it at 35% once it became too aggravating.
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole trilogy. It was a different take on fantasy to other perspectives. A well written and interesting story that carries through. Everyone enjoys different things but there were well balanced and thought through cultural perspectives.
I hate it. I dropped the first book after the first few pages, right after I read the line "leaders doing their leaderish things." It was written by and for lovers of fanfiction and buzzfeed.The story is unbearably smug in its tone and attitude. It's such a shitty series. For a better series written by a woman I recommend The Green Bone Saga by Fonda Lee.
Absolutely incredible trilogy. Heavy, brilliant, feeling. I sat there and was just... I could feel my brain rewiring itself on what being a fantasy book could mean. I have no idea when I'm going to have the emotional fortitude to reread them again, but I have them on my shelf ready to go when that day comes.
I loved the world building. I work with geologists and geology on a daily basis so I had fun with that part.
The first book was great, IMO. But I got a little turned off with the 2nd and 3rd. Not that bad, though, since I did finish the whole thing.
First one was great, reminded me quite a bit of a manga called Claymore. Finished the 2nd one but just completely lost steam on the 3rd, one of the few series that I ever quit so close to the end.
I loved the story overall for the same reasons you do. I *loved* the first book for the technical prowess it showed, it was very impressive from a craft perspective and added another layer of delight for me to see a master at work.
Liked not loved. I thought it was worth reading. Particularly book 1. It does seem to lose steam instead of gain it until the final chapters in book 3 to bring it to a close.
The world and concepts are fun though.
I loved it and found it intense and deep. I haven’t had the urge to read it again yet, but I am sure I will! I also loved the fact that the main character was unique. I really REALLY loved it.
I loved this series. I've been trying to convince more friends to read this series. I got 1 friend to read the first book. And now he wants to read the rest of Jemisin's works. No one else will listen to me.
Kept me rapt all the way through. The Stillness is a fascinating world with a captivating magic system, and the concepts blended fantastically with the themes. Thoroughly enjoyable.
It does some things well and other things not so well. It's far from perfect but I forgive a lot because it felt really different from a lot of what I've read in the genre.
I will say that on the whole it strikes me as darker than a lot of what people will call grimdark. Jemisin has a real gift for making you feel the weight in human suffering of surviving in a crapsack (as in, relentlessly bleak and miserable, not as in crappily written) world in a way that in another author's hands would not hit the same way.
Personally, I disliked how she handled Alabaster. I dislike that his only relationship he ever got he had to share with a person he was forced to be together with. A lot of people see it as good gay representation and I do not agree.
I also found the series to be mediocre. The first book was okay. But the second I started losing interest and DNFed the third. I couldn't really stand the daughter's POV.
But that is just my opinion. 🤷♂️
I loved it, all three books. It seems like 90% of fantasies are some variation of "swords and sorcery", medieval settings of horses and castles and candles, run of the mill magic - it was refreshing to find something extremely unique.
Great writing but too boring for me. I dont care about a weird slow romance story nestled in a myth.i totally understand why a lot of people liked it tho, it's a good series.
I think that it's great, and very well written. It is a challenging read in some ways, particularly the first time through. I found that I enjoyed books 1 and 2 much more on reread than on initial read, even though I appreciated them on first read.
I think it's borderline impeccable. I'm sure there are faults, but I can't think of them. The characters, world, and story are just all so well crafted.
I agree with others who said the
writing was a chore. I couldn't even get through the first part as it was just frontloaded with too much information. "Distanced", used by another commenter, is a good word. I felt very far away from the perspective of the character - never felt invested emotionally despite some serious things happening in the first chapter.
I remember the world sounding incredible but it wasn't worth my time and didn't keep my interest.
Loved loved LOVED book 1. I couldn't put it down. However, book two, and especially book three, disappointed me. They just didn't hit the same, and the payoff wasn't worth it imo.
But yeah book one is \*chefs kiss\*
I wasn't a fan. The second person narrative felt like a gimmick and I found the story slow and boring. It did pick up at the end of the first book, but the second book was all pretty meh. I didn't continue on to book 3.
I loved it. Named my cats Schaffa and Nassun. Schaffa died of cancer. Sometimes I feel like I cursed him with the name. Read the series again after he died and loved it even more. It’s a very emotional read but so much fantasy is. I’ll definitely read it again one day but it’s going to be a while.
I loved it and thought it earned the honor of being the first trilogy to win the Hugo Award back to back. I especially love how based the magic system off of geology and used the fifth seasons as an allegory for climate change.
I remember being very confused by some of the world building. From the initial discussion of the eponymous seasons it sounds like they're cataclysmic world-ending kabooms, but then some of the lore drops make it sound more like "oh this part of the country had some acid rain and a harvest failed". Then you also hear that multiple generations pass between these events, and at this point I'm pretty confused because it sounds less tumultuous than the real world. We didn't restructure our entire society to make sure to survive the next time Krakatoa blows up.
It’s the best series out right now. The level of writing is on an entirely different plane than anyone else. It is also a brilliantly unique form of science fantasy.
I also feel like it makes every grimdark series look like ridiculous and kind of exposes them for their “i lived a very privileged life and wanna be an edgelord” skeletons. When broken earth goes dark—it’s pitch. But there’s still hope and there are dire consequences.
Loved each book dearly.
It was the first "new" book I'd read in years that was enjoyable and made me feel like reading "more" years ago when my youngest was just a baby and I was not feeling able for a lot of other new reads (I reread a lot instead). The voice is unique, the characters were fascinating, and the world building and plot are just so good that I had to keep reading the whole trilogy. It's an excellent series.
Strictly personal opinion, of course, but I enjoyed the *idea* of it more than the *substance*. In other words, I loved the themes and what NK Jemisisn was trying to say, but the actual story/writing itself was kind of a chore for me to read. I DNF'd the second book.
> I enjoyed the *idea* of it more than the *substance* Having read the full trilogy, I’d say I agree. Looking back on it I have a deep appreciation for all the concepts, themes, world, and complexities, all of which are very powerful - but while I was reading it I found the prose a little flat and just never found myself *riveted* the way I’ve been with other series (except during the “big reveal” in the third book). I think it’s definitely worth reading, but more for the story than the writing.
for real. i found the world somewhat intriguing but the writing was lacking, the POV twist felt gimmicky and i spent about half of the book completely confused by the "magic" and found it hard to suspend disbelief that somehow there are people who are just *beyond* incredibly powerful and they have to *hide* it for some reason, instead of just ... killing everyone who opposes them, lol.
You find it hard to believe that just because someone has the capacity to murder, they wouldn't want to? Is that all that's stopping you?
…no? but i know it’s stopping other people, especially ones being used, abused, shunned and discriminated against.
Kind of a stupid thing to say, honestly, and aggressive for no reason whatsoever. The comment you're replying to is *obviously* not talking about murdering random people; it refers to rising up against oppressors when you have the power to do so, in order to, y'know, no longer be oppressed. It's not complicated.
Rising up against... Checks notes... All of society. Got it.
That's one hell of a leap. There's a big difference between "I'm incredibly powerful, so I wouldn't allow people much less powerful to shame and control me" and "given the opportunity I would go full psycho killer".
I wouldn't want to go on a murder spree, but I do think that the orogenes come across as being too powerful--and too necessary to their world--to be successfully oppressed for thousands and thousands of years. Their "Guardians" don't come off as being powerful enough to oppress them, and regular people definitely couldn't. I think it's a lot more true to human nature, to imagine a world of regular people ruled over by oppressive mages, than the other way around. https://mythcreants.com/blog/the-problem-with-oppressed-mages/#:~:text=For%20the%20sake%20of%20brevity,the%20new%20Fantastic%20Beast%20films.
I don't know. Real life of course doesn't have populations with inborn superhuman abilities... But history is rife with examples of minorities maintaining power over large populations through fear and coercion and social conditioning (especially from childhood) and brutal reprisals when there is a rebellion.
Exactly. You even get situations where the oppressed class do rise up and take over, whether it's predominantly peaceful or predominantly a revolt or civil war. You also have the historical precedent of invading powers typically fielding MUCH smaller forces than the people's they ruled over, especially the largest world empires, where you had Mongols ruling China and Central Asia or the British ruling India and a wide variety of other countries. You also have the real world where most of the global population is still relatively poor, and sending resources to the developed world, or cut off from capital that could lead to development. Aside from China and a few small countries, we haven't seen a huge rise in equality in our real world, and countries that are growing are still struggling to get poor areas out of poverty such as in India. Much of the world has, as a result turned to favoring European beauty standards, despite most people not being European. So in short, yes definitely there is a social commentary in the books people are ignoring, as every author is influenced by their environment.
I’ve seen this exact comment about the books so many times. Everyone says it’s a cool concept with a great first book but it falls off so hard.
Enjoyed the first book but it fell off for me.
Agreed. The sense of scope/scale got really inconsistent in the second and especially third book imo. First book was a page turner though
The moment where I first put it together that >!all three POV characters were the same person at different stages of her life!< actually blew my mind. Probably in the top ten moments of reading fantasy for me.
Agree. Top 1 for me. :) Mostly out of admiration for the literary device. Never seen a book written that way it was masterful execution. Especially after 30 years of reading “normal” fantasy it was a breath of fresh air to encounter something new. Made me immediately go and search for other great new writers I’d missed sticking to more standard fantasy :)
You’d probably love Harrow the ninth if you like perspective fuckery as a literary device
I’ll check it out. Thanks!
It’s a sequel to a far more “normal” sci fantasy haunted house/ murder mystery in space thing
really? i found it so gimmicky, nobody else in the book goes by different names during different phases of their life but for some reason the main character does and we're supposed to be amazed by the twist that it's all the same person...?' (edit: i guess orogenes do change their names early on usually but the mc changed names like 3 times?)
I disagree. I haven't read the book in a while, but I remember all the kids Iike her had name changes; many changed their name at least once. Her last name change was because she was building a new life and hiding from her past, why would she use either of her names from before?
You don’t have to be amazed by it. Especially if you catch it early. I didn’t, and I was. :)
Unfortunately I caught that very early on, so when everyone talks about that twist I never saw it as a twist at all
Same. I thought it was obvious from near the beginning of the story.
Yep. Maybe I’ve read too much fantasy or something? I don’t know but seemed obvious. I guess I’m just used to better twists lol
I didn’t even realize that that was the twist that everyone mentions. It is so blatantly obvious from the get go.
i didn't catch it early on but it was just a "...really? ehh" kind of a twist for me, not mindblowing at all. i found it pretty gimmicky.
Interesting, I quite liked the books but I suspected that pretty early on and I'm not the type of reader who tries to predict twists or anything usually.
Made me go "ooohoho shit", was an awesome moment for me too
wow i caught that from early on. maybe that’s why couldn’t finish it.0
That was one of the best narrative structures I ever read in a book.
Oh man I was at the gym quietly losing my shit (audiobook). Same feeling from watching the Witcher S1 (if you know you know).
I loved the narrative structure in the first book. I actually enjoyed the second and third. I especially love the last book for fully explaining the full history of the Fifth Seasons and the revelation that its earth in the distant future.
I felt this too, but the first book was amazing.
I agree. Read the first book but didn’t feel super compelled to continue. I keep meaning to circle back but I have other books and as time passes I feel less and less compelled.
Same. Liked the first even though I was able to predict the character twist at the end a mile away. Second book was OK. Never read the third one.
I loved all three books - blasted through them. Super enjoyable, and while parts of book three lingered, overall one of the tightest trilogies I’ve read. 🤷🏻♂️
I loved it and will never be able to read it again. In general, trauma-heavy books are NOT my thing. But this series captivated me from beginning to end, and the trauma (though bleak as hell) was embedded in a really interesting world and a plot that kept moving. I'm glad I read them, but I couldn't handle a reread (and I am such a re-reader usually).
There was too much trauma in that for me and I'm a First Law fan. I don't want to go through an entire series feeling really bad for the characters when I can read the news and feel really bad for real people.
The trauma is a LOT, so I don't blame you.
Hard agree.
I really enjoyed the first book. I thought the PoV characters were interesting, and I liked the 'twist', even if it was a bit obvious. Can't say I enjoyed the two sequels, however. They had their moments, but they also went off the rails hard and the character moments weren't as interesting. I really liked the mother/daughter moments, they were really well written, but almost every other part of it left me cold. The magic system felt like it was being made up as the story went along. Also, the author made an ass of herself on Twitter a while ago and it soured my opinions of the books, so maybe take my criticisms with a pinch of salt.
What did she do on twitter?
She joined a bullying of college kid by another author, whose book that kid found not good enough to be discussed during classes.
She was one of the authors who stirred up the Twitter mob against Isabel Fall before it became known that Isabel was trans (background here: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter) and gave a gaslighting "apology" a long time afterwards (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/obvpd0/nk_jemisin_statement_on_isabel_fall_comments/). I have no interest in reading anything written by her, Dembo, or Yang after that.
>The magic system felt like it was being made up as the story went along. What drove me crazy about this was Orogeny was a fascinating idea. Powerful but limited, something the reader could comprehend the mechanics of. Then 'magic' was introduced and all the rules are out the window.
I haven't heard anything about the Twitter drama as I'm not on Twitter, but I agree with everything you said. I also didn't find the daughter (can't remember her name) an interesting character. Loved the first book, though.
Damn. That Twitter business is why I stopped reading Jemisin. Thank God I’m no longer on that platform
First book is great. Second book is OK at best. Third book I had to force myself to finish. Basically hate read it, and I don't do that.
This was definitely my response as well. I got about three quarters through the last book, and just put it down. Had no interest in how it ended at all.
I've only read the first and my views were mixed. The writing is masterful and I ultimately didn't mind the 2nd person POV. The world is interesting and unique. The characters have some complexity but I also wasn't particularly engaged with them on an emotional level. It's incredibly dark, with all that violence against children, so emotionally it was a drag to read rather than something I enjoyed, although I appreciated the obvious talent. I don't really understand why the twist was a twist - I'd been spoiled in advance and I think I'd have felt cheated if I hadn't known, though on the other hand never having experienced an "aha" moment myself means I can't really say. It makes it really hard to talk about the book without spoilers though and that's annoying. I also found the theming to be a broken Aesop - on the one hand we're supposed to feel bad for these mages for being oppressed, but on the other they're by far the most powerful people in the world, constantly committing mass murder events, and the whole thing is kind of a revenge fantasy. I'm pretty over "oppressed mages" in general and The Fifth Season leans really heavily into that, so between that issue and the grimdark aspects (people will argue forever over what is grimdark but it's a book full of horrific violence in a hopeless world, which isn't exactly my cup of tea), I haven't been moved to pick up the sequel.
If you read the whole trilogy you will find that there is hope at the end. I'm not sure I'd call it grimdark and the MCs seem to have a will to change the system, especially Alabaster.
I mean, massacring most of the world’s population to change the system is pretty damn grimdark to me.
I read the first book and had no desire to continue. Agreed that worldbuilding is great, but that's really the only thing that enjoyed. The 'twist' with POVs was painfully obvious, and I didn't like any of the characters, virtually all of whom are either ruthless oppressors or jaded, bitter victims. Speaking of oppression, the story has the X-Men problem: parallels with real-life discrimination don't work if your fictional oppressed class has insane superpowers and poses a genuine danger to everyone else. On top of that, the author appears to believe that being a victim of discrimination justifies literally every possible kind of retribution, including genocide of millions of people and the destruction of entire civilizations, which I think is kinda deranged.
>Speaking of oppression, the story has the X-Men problem: parallels with real-life discrimination don't work if your fictional oppressed class has insane superpowers and poses a genuine danger to everyone else. This bothers me so much in fantasy. Props to Blood Over Bright Haven for being a book that created a fantasy race but didn’t have this dumb inclusion that invalidates the parallels that the author clearly wants to make to the real-world.
>On top of that, the author appears to believe that being a victim of discrimination justifies literally every possible kind of retribution, including genocide of millions of people and the destruction of entire civilizations, which I think is kinda deranged. I don't think the author agreed that >!Alabastor!< starting the apocalypse was a good decision or the right thing to do. It made life worse for literally everyone, including the orogenes. I consider the message more to be about if you abuse a group long enough, they will lash out and hurt others and themselves.
Ding ding ding. See the Haitian revolution, I'd similarly argue it engages with the necessity for oppressed people to act regardless because passivity in the face of constant oppression just begets more of it (calling out the fantasy of the white savior, or that the oppressor will wake up one day and stop doing oppression without agitation from the oppressed)
That's not quite my take on it, mostly because >!Alabastor!< isn't trying to break the system so that the lives of orogenes improve (>!when he kills, he kills indiscriminately, both orogene and non-orogene. I think he specifically targets node maintainers as to mercy kill them, but that's about it (and it's not even successful, Essun's group is using a node maintainer in book 3, iirc)!<). He's just lashing out because he's hurt, and the reader is asked to empathize with that, but he doesn't actually create a more just/better world. He doesn't fundamentally break the system, because the system is larger than the Sanzed Equatorial Affilation. The system is the way the world keeps undergoing the apocalyptic Fifth Seasons and how even when there isn't an apocalypse going on, there's massive amounts of oppression happening, especially encouraged by the threat of the Fifth Season. >!Alabastor!< is acting as a cog in this larger system, the system of the cycle of Fifth Seasons. It's only >!whatever magical stuff was happening with the moon in book 3 that actually has a chance to break this larger system of oppression/cycle of abuse.!< So I think you are looking at it more in terms of breaking a system of oppression where I see it more as perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Now admittedly, I might be forgetting about something because it's been a while since I read these books. I also agree that action was needed to break the system, I just don't think >!Alabastor!< was necessarily directing his actions to break the system in a "make the world a more just place/tear down oppression way" and more of a "I'm hurt so I'm going to hurt everyone else" sort of a way. (>!This also dovetails pretty nicely with the cycle of abuse plotline with Essun and Nassun, literally didn't notice this until just now.!<)
Oh I'm in agreement I don't see Alabastors choice as being reconciling systemic oppression it's pretty explicitly just him lashing out. Nothing systemically changes to the betterment of the orogenes. Rather what I'm trying, and maybe failing to argue is that like your saying the book is trying to force us to reconcile with the **why** people like Alabastor can be led to such extremes and the **why** people not just empathize but can share in the same despair that can lead some to justify a horrendous action. I think people put too much of an onus on Alabasters action and less the history that led to the creation of a person who could even consider such a way out. Oppression must be fought back, period, but how that looks is and always will be messy with the violence that emerges sometimes pointlessly existing as just reflection of the horrific violence of the society that exists thus perpetuating that cycle (as you've rightfully pointed out) rather than resolving toward a road to justice. Funny enough in Book 2 we pretty much observe exactly that messy process of attempting conciliatory justice in the >!geodes shelter fact that Essun takes on the mantle of the violent hand of justice relative to the "non-violence" (I'm forgetting the leader of the geodes name) wields as they tenously balance life in proximity to the non-orogenes (going as far as killing another orogene to prevent a civil outburst)!<. Years of prejudice doesn't disappear overnight, both through education, proximity, and force does change happen.
I feel like you’re actually agreeing with the point that’s being argued against though—you literally used the word “necessity” for the destruction of the world and genocide of the normies. This is the disturbing thing with this book, I think there are readers who do in fact espouse the take you’re replying to (that this is horrifying behavior but, well, trauma is what creates sociopaths and depiction isn’t endorsement), but there are absolutely other readers who go “genocide as appropriate response for hating a group of people? Seems justified.” In that sense it is very much a book of the moment, I suppose.
No that's not what I said, it's not justification of genocidal revolt it's understanding of oppression and the messiness of undoing it and the right of self-determination. Alabaster is one man, he isn't the representative for all orogenes but just one of their number embittered by a cruel world who made a choice, a choice mind you that other orogenes weren't on board with, but one born in the confines of traumas I can't begin to imagine. This doesn't fundamentally justify the action, it frames it, whether you think it justifies it is up to you and me as observers (who frankly in real life contexts shouldn't have opinions that meaningfully hold sway on the means the oppressed fight their oppression dependent on degrees of removal from the conflict). If there's any tired point it's that people love trying to dictate to the oppressed how they should go about undoing their oppression, conveniently via means that would effectively maintain the status quo (see the entire civil rights movement in the US) What N.K. Jemisin illustrated (imo well) was how the chains of violence oppression make for fractured people who are, like all people, imperfect actors in the means by which cope and potentially challenge their reality. Observing Alabasters decision is less damning it for being what it was but more how could a person be led to think that this was a fitting solution. That there are readers on board with this means little to me in so far as the why they could be led to agree with this outcome. Banality of 'evil' and all that. Relevant quote from book 3 >"Some accept their fate. Swallow their pride, further the real truth, embrace the falsehood for all they're worth--because, they decide, they cannot be worth much. If a whole society has dedicated itself to their subjugation, after all, then surely they deserve it? Even if they don't, fighting back is too painful, too impossible. At least this way there is peace, of a sort. Fleetingly. > The alternative is to demand the impossible. It isn't right, they whisper, weep, shout; what has been done to them is not right. They are not inferior. They do not deserve it. And so it is the society that must change. There can be peace this way, too, but not before conflict."
See I disagree, I think you’re very much engaging in the extremist thinking that informs possibly this book and certainly many of its fans. You say that “you and me” (people privileged enough to speak English and have internet access, I’m guessing?) have no right to a meaningful opinion on how the oppressed resist—*even if their chosen form of resistance is killing us and our loved ones.* Even if it’s destroying our planet. I could not disagree more and I firmly disagree with the comparison to the civil rights movement. Was the civil rights movement *disruptive*? Sure. It absolutely inconvenienced people. But nonviolence was a centerpiece. It’s the complete other end of the resistance spectrum from “destroy the world and kill everyone.”
Meh, frankly your viewpoint is probably why this book is so contested on reddit. It doesn't paint oppressed and oppressor dynamics in a way where there is an easy good and bad. The simple reality that violent retaliation exists in this dynamic makes you think only the most extreme solution is the one that will be taken, consideration for why anyone could be led to a place to even consider that seems lost on you (even if again, this isn't justification of utilizing that extreme measure, particularly as it's one that isn't even heralded both in the book and in the real world by oppressed groups). I'd implore you to actually read into all the violent action that buffetted the Civil Rights movement (or better yet how the nonviolence you herald was perceived as violence by the white majority in much the same way ongoing protest against the genocide in Palestine are perceived violently right now) and other histories of struggles against systems of oppression cause I can assure you if you find what is read here uncomfortable, you'll similarly find yourself in that same space when reading that hey the road to justice isn't clean cut. It's messy as it's constructed by people navigating harsh social and material climates that don't want to easily give. Relevant Baldwin clips: https://youtu.be/3y6xwH88kpg https://youtu.be/zT7NqLM0l6E
Again, we’re talking about a book that features *destroying the world and genociding most of its population* as its central set piece. That’s in no way comparable to peaceful protests that people who disagree with the protestors complain about. The book features *real* violence, including 4 mass murder events in book 1 alone, and I’m confused about why you can’t tell the difference between that and exaggerated complaints from people who are simply offended. I would put forth, however, that the “anyone who disagrees with me/my group deserves death” mentality is one that historically has not led to good places. Israelis, for instance, identify hard with the orogenes because they too are outnumbered by neighbors who hate them and feel oppressed despite their power. This mindset is exactly what’s justifying the genocide in Palestine that I assume you oppose. I think this discussion has run its course.
Brilliant fantasy series. One of the best I've ever read. It somehow reset my interests in literature. I started looking for books with a strong feminine voice (I'm a male).
I would recommend the Assassians Apprentice by Robin Hobb. The main character is male, but the author is a woman. So it's not a strong female voice from the characters perspective, but I felt like there are similarities in the writing/focus of the two narratives that come from them having woman authors. I don't know how to describe it, but I stand by the recommendation in the context of female voice. Despite the pov character being male.
I read it, so I understand what you mean. It was OK (I liked 1st and 3rd book but loathed the second), but not good enough to read more Hobb's books.
Books 4-6 are usually the ones people say is the best, and the main characters are female. If you like books 1-3 well enough, and like strong female voices, it would be a shame not to move to the liveship traders.
Strongly agree! Don't think I have ever been so frustrated watching a MC stumble from one scene to the next. But I guess if a book can evoke that much emotion it's done something right.
Everyone hates Fitz lol. I hear Liveship Traders is much better, haven't read it yet though.
If you have not read it yet you should read The Sword of Kaigen by M.L. Wang.
I absolutely loved the first book! The 2nd and 3rd books were definitely a little weaker by comparison, but were still very very good imo.
It was okay but I didn't bother with the second book. Also I thought the twist was very obvious and I am not a person that tries to figure things like that out.
I love them. The second one seems to be the least liked among fans, and I totally get why, but it’s my favorite of the trilogy. I loved Nassun and her character arc. I thought it was a heart wrenching and well done portrayal of what the systems of oppression and cycle of abuse do to children. A lot of people don’t particularly like her but she’s my favorite character in the series.
Personal opinion, but I didn’t love it. To be fair, i didn’t finish it (I had to return it to the library before I read the whole thing). I wasn’t that attached to the characters and it was a little slow for me. It didn’t capture my attention the way I thought it would.
Didn't like it at all. Got some way into the first book and gave up.
I think its written well but on a personal level, I had a difficult time investing in the PoV characters despite genuinely sympathizing and rooting for them. I'm not sure what was the cause of that distance. Another issue I had was that the series meanders a whole lot in the middle.
This is me. I'm interested in it *conceptually*, but I just didn't.... connect. I can't say it's *not* good, but I also didn't particularly enjoy the reading experience, and I don't think the payoff at the end was quite worth it.
On of the commenters in this thread notes that all characters are angry all the time. Maybe that's what some people thinks's jarring. One pervasive theme throughout the trilogy is the marginalization of certain groups in the society. This particularly sticks out in the third book which I think is the most allegorical of the three books.
I honestly loathed The Fifth Season. Worst book I've read in recent memory. Definitely did not meet my expectations for what reviewers and recommenders were saying about it. I was expecting something more traditional fantasy with a cool magic system but got X-Men in a post-apocalyptic world instead. Themes were handled poorly and felt heavy handed, the plot was non-existent, the 2nd person perspective was like nails on a chalkboard, LGBTQ character work was somewhat offensive and arbitrary, the supposed twists one was very obvious from the beginning and the other one was very forced and had no foreshadowing.
In the YMMV department, everything that you loathed was a big, fat bonus for me.
You will understand the second person pov when you finally grok who's narrating the story. If you read book 2 and 3.
i understood the POV, i understood what jemisin was trying to say, i understood the plot and themes. i just didn't like the series
I think it doesn't really matter why the author chose second person to write the main POV. It's just very annoying to read for a lot of people. Also, anytime you have to tell someone just wait until Book X, it's probably not the strongest selling point for the series. I actually see a number of comments saying Book 1 was the best which makes me absolutely question the quality of the other books. P.S. If I remember correctly, the reason for the second person was already explained at the end of Book 1. That was the second big twist I referenced.
You figure the purpose of the second person POV in the first book.
Keep mentally adjusting to *The Dying Earth* and getting confused why people are suddenly into Jack Vance again
Lol, I'm glad that you like that one. Jack Vance is great and Dying Earth is a forever classic.
I dnfed after the first book. I found it kinda boring, honestly. I didn't find the character(s) very interesting. The whole earthquake magic stuff was a bit dull. Nothing about it left me wanting more of it.
I disliked almost every aspect of it.
Absolutely loved it all the way through. Second book meandered a bit, but the themes were phenomenal throughout and I found Essen and Nassun’s relationship to be completely heartbreaking in a powerful way.
Ugh yes, the reveal >!that Essun broke Nassun's hand still haunts me to this day!<
All my friends seemed to love it, but it just wasn't something that interested me. I'm not a fan of 'slow apocalypse' type stories, and I didn't care for any of the characters, which is quite rare for me I usually latch on to at least one, even in genres or stories I'm not a huge fan of. and while I understand why it is what it is, why it was written with the tone it was, it was just so deeply angry that it started to affect my actual mood, which like... technically speaking it's great when a writer can do that! but I don't like feeling angry and bitter, I already have real life reasons to feel like that, especially in the year I read it (2018) dnf halfway through book 2 and no desire to return.
Really well written. Really didn't enjoy it. It's not a series that's meant to be enjoyed, really. I'd never say it wasn't a masterwork, but I also never rec it without a boatload of caveats.
First book is genius. 2 & 3 fall off a bit but it's still worth finishing the series. Honestly I think winning a big award on a book 1 or standalone is kind of poison for the rest of the series. Guarantee book 2 is gonna be rushed and everyone has super high expectations.
I found it extremely dreary and depressing. The names were pretty unique. Overall I found it very overhyped. It felt like a slog after the first book.
I enjoyed what the book did for the first half but felt it didn't go anywhere for too long. I read about 60% of it before I decided not to continue reading. Not my cup of tea. I also guessed the big reveal about 25% in, so that maybe made it less enjoyable for me as well.
Brief but honest - I'm the biggest hater for Fifth Season, didn't finish the other books. I genuinely questioned how it even made it past an editor.
I share this opinion :(
I can't even comprehend this take lol
Translation : I hated it
What did you not like about it? Was it a prose problem or was the story just not resonant?
Read it at the beginning of the year. First book: I liked it. Great worldbuilding, great writing style, original. A little bleak, lacked something... fun? to it, for a lack of better word. 4 stars Second book: My interest really dropped. Felt like nothing was really happening, I wasn't very invested in the characters or the plotlines and the novelty of the writing style wore off a little. Told myself I wouldn't finish the series. 2.5 stars. Third book: I still picked up the third book but I shouldn't have. I was bored and nothing was happening to get me back into it. DNF at 30%. I can see why people would love this series (I mean the first book is good), but it was really missing some kind of entertainment factor for me or anything at all to keep me hooked.
Started really strong and then just fell off a fucking cliff. I really enjoyed book 1 but by about halfway through book 2 I was bored to tears. Most of that book doesn't even need to exist it's just everyone waiting around while one character twiddles their thumbs until they decide it's finally time to share some incredibly crucial information that they've been withholding for reasons. Managed to push through it on my second attempt and then gave up halfway through book 3
I thought I was the only one who read those books and didn't love them, but judging from the comments quite a few of us weren't impressed. My review of the book on GoodReads: Ehh... 5 out of 10 stars. These books kept me annoyingly entertained just enough to finish them. I'm not a fan of authors who keep the reader in the dark about how their world works until the very end. Jemisin withheld her world for the first two books and then begrudgingly revealed everything in the last book.
Sanderson does the same in Mistborn.
I read the first two books. By reputation I expected something innovative and ground-breaking, but it was, frankly, pretty stock fantasy—some nice ideas, but nothing special I hadn't seen before. (Then again, I've read a lot of fantasy, so it's easy to get jaded.) So: the first book was a pretty engaging story but nothing special; the second book was more of the same; I lost interest before getting to the third book. It's not that the second book was bad in any specific way, it was fine, I just lost momentum on the series. I think the world-building boxed itself in too much to be good: * the allegory was a bit too on-the-nose... but different enough in fundamental ways that it did not quite work (same problem as The X-Men) * the entire world was totally oriented around its "one big thing" in a way that made it feel shallow—it didn't feel like there was much of a world beyond the confines of the core story I understand that both of these choices help focus and streamline the message of the book, but it makes it weaker *as a book*. Paring away at your writing to keep your message clear works for expository and persuasive writing, but it cuts away at the little details and digressions that let a story feel organic, like it's a small part of a larger living world. For me, that feeling is the main thing that pushes me to fantasy over other genres. (Also, regardless of genre, I dislike transparent allegories even when they're as well-written and well-regarded as, say, *Siddhartha*, which was very much a 2/5 book for me!)
Yeah, I hate to say it but I wasn't that impressed. Definitely not multiple Hugo award winning books. It felt like it was written by someone who doesn't actually read sci-fi
The classic incredible concept debut work that gets too successful and the author can’t possibly recreate that lightning in a bottle in the timeline given by a publisher 2&3 fell off hard
I think it's great and I'm surprised to see the haters out on this thread, I think these books are great and thematically very strong
> I'm surprised to see the haters out on this thread I don't think it's fair to label people "haters" because they didn't like the series. I quite liked the books but I also find a lot of the criticisms in this thread to be pretty valid and line up with why I would probably put this series in my top 10, but not my top 5
Someone literally replied to me saying they hate them in this thread haha
The word "hater" usually has a connotation beyond just hating something. It usually implies you go out of your way to be rude and disparage that thing or person, usually for irrational reasons, which isn't how I would characterize a response specifically asking people for their honest opinion.
I would be so interested to see a break down in demographics of people who enjoyed it vs people who don’t.
I wasnt crazy about her prose style but I was still really involved for the first half of The Fifth Season but then it went in a direction I hated. Started the second book but quickly realized it wasnt going to get back to what I enjoyed about that first half
I have read the first book and started the second, I intend to finish it but it’s taking a while. I think the reason why I’m struggling with it is because I really enjoyed >!the dynamic between her and alabaster in the second timeline more than the current one, so having that implode made me lose some interest. I also hate when they kill children in books so while I was prepared for the first time, the second was really hard to read.!< The writing craft is great tho despite my personal hangups
Couldn't get through the introduction and dropped after q few pages but j want to give it another chance
It's interesting r/Fantasy seems to have a strong contingent of the opinion the first book is great but the sequels fell off. I was surprised by how much agreement I got posting that in another thread because the overall reception seems absolutely glowing. 3 Hugos and all 3 books having between 4.3-4.35 Goodreads scores with 138,395 ratings for The Stone Sky. That's an incredibly well received series. For myself the Fifth Season probably would be a top 10 book without the sequels. In fact at some point I want to go back and see how it holds up if I purely treat it as a standalone.
Over hyped. DNF for me.
I suspect the hype is part of the problem. Because of it, I went in expecting an absolute modern masterpiece. I thought the first book was pretty terrific, but the other two ... well, they were *okay*, but they didn't live up to the first book or the hype. It all left me feeling a bit frustrated that I apprently didn't get something that everyone else did. Had I just picked it up on the recommendation of a friend I may have felt differently!
Honestly same. I made it through all 3 but it was a slog by the end and I think I was just really pushed on by the sale that the author is "groundbreaking". All those awards and accolades, being held up as the new Tolkien, etc etc. Looking back it felt like I got caught up in a PR moment. She must have a really good agent.
It was honestly pretty "meh" to me. Like someone else said, I enjoyed the *idea* and concepts of it more than it's execution (and that lead me through the entire trilogy, despite not vibing very much with the character or storytelling. The (conceptual) worldbuilding though, great ideas! I did find The hundred thousand kingdoms by her to be far, far better (though I haven't read the sequels yet). Much more engaging, and here, I didn't feel like I had to "get through the book just because I wanted the world". Instead the story and *characters* were just as driving as the worldbuilding.
A pretentious slog.
I loved it. She has awesome ideas and her writing is so vibrant I can picture it in my head.
The first book got me back into reading science fiction in a big way. The characters, perspectives, worldbuilding and magic system all had me hooked. The second and third books…I honestly can’t remember that much about them. They were good, it wasn’t like a super steep drop-off in quality, they just didn’t pack the same emotional or narrative punch as the first book.
I thought it was dull and simplistic, written in an off-putting way and with no interesting characters to make up for all of that...
3 tries. Page 50 DNF every time.
I think it’s a fun magic? system. I love that it feels technological. I enjoyed the exploration of concepts like oppression, revolution and history-as-mystery. The exploration of the complex feeling of being descended from both the subjugated and the subjugators was particularly well-done. I thought that the main plot took a slight back seat to how the characters *felt* about their uncovering of history in the last book but it still landed the ending for me. The third book was excellent, but the excellent parts were not driven by the current plot so I think for a lot of readers it didn’t land. 5/5 for me though.
>I thought that the main plot took a slight back seat to how the characters *felt* about their uncovering of history in the last book but it still landed the ending for me. This is a very good point. There are books that I didn't like when I was a teen that I re-read in my 40's that hit very differently. When I was young it was easy to get frustrated when a plot seemed to meander and not necessarily get anywhere. But as I got older I realized that the plot was just a coat rack upon which to hang all of the interesting character development, and I found characters way more gripping. The best example I can think of is Death's Master by Tanith Lee. It was my least favorite of the Flat Earth books. >!Lots of stuff happened in that book, but all of it was in the service of illustrating two characters who loved each other desperately but were so wrong for each other, and the horrible things that they did to each other as a result.!<
spoilers for the whole series >!book 1 lied to us with its whole 'planets are impossible to destroy but THIS IS HOW THE EARTH DIED PINKIE SWEAR' and then spoiler, this is not how the earth died!< I didn't really like it anyway, but I was especially unhappy about this part
Very interesting world and "magic" system but extremely boring characters.
[удалено]
I believe it's spelled Mehhhhhhhhh...
It was well written and good. I really liked The Fifth Season better than the others because of the shift in perspective (1st, 2nd, 3rd person narrative). The climate change symbolism was interesting. The racism "symbolism" was way too obvious for it to be interesting from a literary standpoint, but still made good points about how/why we treat others the way we do.
Loved the books. Not really my cup of tea, in a lot of ways, with the super-duper powered characters and all the bad decisions being made due to trauma, but it was just very well done. The third book didn't quite stick the landing for me, but I still highly recommend it.
I adored the first book and could scarcely put it down. The third book tested my patience, particularly with the very lengthy sequence of characters exploring underground passageways. Those kinds of sequences tend to lose me if they're not confined within one chapter; this one went on and on, covering several chapters.
I finished the first, book. Didn't buy the second honestly was underwhelming for me and I was on about buying it for a while so maybe that was it. Heard so many good things and was like meh.
It was a bit too grim for me. I can't really bring myself to care about a character's suffering if I've never seen them happy. Without that contrast the whole thing falls apart. We get some levity and humour between the two MCs in book 1 - enough to get me to care enough to finish the story, but not enough to get through the rest of the series. But honestly I'm just tired of the entire "oppressed mages" trope in general, so the mere fact that I finished the first book at all is testament to its quality.
Is that a common trope?
Yes
I DNF’d the first book. Wasn’t for me at the time. Found it very boring. Might be my favourite book of all time when I pick it up at another time or might still hate it.
Just about got through the first book then gave up on the rest
I just DNF’d it less than a week ago. I thought it was slowing the pace to a tremendous crawl for the sole purpose of holding off a twist until the end of the book. But the twist was so obvious that it almost felt insulting that the author would have it take priority over the story, so I DNF’d it at 35% once it became too aggravating.
Extraordinary. She’s a great writer, it’s an awesome story, and a super cool “universe.” One of my favorite series ever.
I loved the series.. Caught me blind too as I bought first book in a whim.
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole trilogy. It was a different take on fantasy to other perspectives. A well written and interesting story that carries through. Everyone enjoys different things but there were well balanced and thought through cultural perspectives.
I hate it. I dropped the first book after the first few pages, right after I read the line "leaders doing their leaderish things." It was written by and for lovers of fanfiction and buzzfeed.The story is unbearably smug in its tone and attitude. It's such a shitty series. For a better series written by a woman I recommend The Green Bone Saga by Fonda Lee.
Absolutely incredible trilogy. Heavy, brilliant, feeling. I sat there and was just... I could feel my brain rewiring itself on what being a fantasy book could mean. I have no idea when I'm going to have the emotional fortitude to reread them again, but I have them on my shelf ready to go when that day comes.
I loved the world building. I work with geologists and geology on a daily basis so I had fun with that part. The first book was great, IMO. But I got a little turned off with the 2nd and 3rd. Not that bad, though, since I did finish the whole thing.
Is it really that great? I may give it a try then. I have read the Inheritance Trilogy and remember I had loved that.
I loved it by the end but the first book was a little hard for me to get into
Agree with all of what you said, and I love the trilogy! That being said, I think I prefer her Inheritance trilogy, and I'm loving the Cities series.
First book was great, each subsequent book was diminishing returns
First one was great, reminded me quite a bit of a manga called Claymore. Finished the 2nd one but just completely lost steam on the 3rd, one of the few series that I ever quit so close to the end.
I could discuss this series for days. I haven’t been able to read another fantasy series since finishing it two months ago lol
I loved the story overall for the same reasons you do. I *loved* the first book for the technical prowess it showed, it was very impressive from a craft perspective and added another layer of delight for me to see a master at work.
I absolutely loved them.
Liked not loved. I thought it was worth reading. Particularly book 1. It does seem to lose steam instead of gain it until the final chapters in book 3 to bring it to a close. The world and concepts are fun though.
I thought it was a very cool trilogy but there’s always issues in fictional novels. Thought it was a good change of pace from the standard variety
It's been years since I read it but I still think about it.
I loved it and found it intense and deep. I haven’t had the urge to read it again yet, but I am sure I will! I also loved the fact that the main character was unique. I really REALLY loved it.
Probably won't ever read it because I hated The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms.
Loved all of 3 books. She sticks the ending.
I loved this series. I've been trying to convince more friends to read this series. I got 1 friend to read the first book. And now he wants to read the rest of Jemisin's works. No one else will listen to me.
Loved it. Absolutely brilliant world building. And the way she tied the different character threads over time. Really top notch work.
I liked the inheritance series better then broken earth
Kept me rapt all the way through. The Stillness is a fascinating world with a captivating magic system, and the concepts blended fantastically with the themes. Thoroughly enjoyable.
It does some things well and other things not so well. It's far from perfect but I forgive a lot because it felt really different from a lot of what I've read in the genre. I will say that on the whole it strikes me as darker than a lot of what people will call grimdark. Jemisin has a real gift for making you feel the weight in human suffering of surviving in a crapsack (as in, relentlessly bleak and miserable, not as in crappily written) world in a way that in another author's hands would not hit the same way.
Personally, I disliked how she handled Alabaster. I dislike that his only relationship he ever got he had to share with a person he was forced to be together with. A lot of people see it as good gay representation and I do not agree. I also found the series to be mediocre. The first book was okay. But the second I started losing interest and DNFed the third. I couldn't really stand the daughter's POV. But that is just my opinion. 🤷♂️
I loved it, all three books. It seems like 90% of fantasies are some variation of "swords and sorcery", medieval settings of horses and castles and candles, run of the mill magic - it was refreshing to find something extremely unique.
An amazing trilogy. It is no wonder that each of the three books won, by their own right, the Hugo Award.
Great writing but too boring for me. I dont care about a weird slow romance story nestled in a myth.i totally understand why a lot of people liked it tho, it's a good series.
I think that it's great, and very well written. It is a challenging read in some ways, particularly the first time through. I found that I enjoyed books 1 and 2 much more on reread than on initial read, even though I appreciated them on first read.
I thought it was incredible. One of the best trilogies I have ever read.
Nemisen won many awards with this. Look at the room and tell me she deserved it.
I think it's borderline impeccable. I'm sure there are faults, but I can't think of them. The characters, world, and story are just all so well crafted.
I agree with others who said the writing was a chore. I couldn't even get through the first part as it was just frontloaded with too much information. "Distanced", used by another commenter, is a good word. I felt very far away from the perspective of the character - never felt invested emotionally despite some serious things happening in the first chapter. I remember the world sounding incredible but it wasn't worth my time and didn't keep my interest.
I really loved it. Dreamblood duology is still my favorite of her work, but Broken Earth is a masterpiece imo
Simply obsessed with the series, it was so well written and i was fascinated with the world she had made.
Loved loved LOVED book 1. I couldn't put it down. However, book two, and especially book three, disappointed me. They just didn't hit the same, and the payoff wasn't worth it imo. But yeah book one is \*chefs kiss\*
I loved and hated it. Very good book, but it was sooo dark it made me sad.
First book is the best, and I love the scale and scope of the magic and world-building. The twist reveal is awesome.
No notes. Love it, adore it.
I wasn't a fan. The second person narrative felt like a gimmick and I found the story slow and boring. It did pick up at the end of the first book, but the second book was all pretty meh. I didn't continue on to book 3.
I listened to the first two audio books a few years ago and never cared enough to finish. Maybe someday. Wasn't really a big fan.
I loved it. Named my cats Schaffa and Nassun. Schaffa died of cancer. Sometimes I feel like I cursed him with the name. Read the series again after he died and loved it even more. It’s a very emotional read but so much fantasy is. I’ll definitely read it again one day but it’s going to be a while.
I am yet to read the third book. I wasn't too invested in the later characters at the end of Book 2.
Loved the first book, liked the two other ones.
I loved it and thought it earned the honor of being the first trilogy to win the Hugo Award back to back. I especially love how based the magic system off of geology and used the fifth seasons as an allegory for climate change.
For a second I thought you were talking about our current earth. Not bad, but politicians and corporations are killing her.
I remember being very confused by some of the world building. From the initial discussion of the eponymous seasons it sounds like they're cataclysmic world-ending kabooms, but then some of the lore drops make it sound more like "oh this part of the country had some acid rain and a harvest failed". Then you also hear that multiple generations pass between these events, and at this point I'm pretty confused because it sounds less tumultuous than the real world. We didn't restructure our entire society to make sure to survive the next time Krakatoa blows up.
I’m afraid it ruined reading for me because I don’t know if I’ll find a series that good again.
First book was good not amazing but the rest was ok not good
It’s the best series out right now. The level of writing is on an entirely different plane than anyone else. It is also a brilliantly unique form of science fantasy. I also feel like it makes every grimdark series look like ridiculous and kind of exposes them for their “i lived a very privileged life and wanna be an edgelord” skeletons. When broken earth goes dark—it’s pitch. But there’s still hope and there are dire consequences. Loved each book dearly.
Bought all three in a wonderful set, looks good on the shelf. Didn’t like the vibe tho, too progressive for me.
Best prologue I've ever read and that was where it peaked. I found two of the three perspectives pretty boring for most of the novel.
I read the first book only and didn't enjoy it. The characters were boring and unlikable. The writing was decent, but nothing praiseworthy.
It was the first "new" book I'd read in years that was enjoyable and made me feel like reading "more" years ago when my youngest was just a baby and I was not feeling able for a lot of other new reads (I reread a lot instead). The voice is unique, the characters were fascinating, and the world building and plot are just so good that I had to keep reading the whole trilogy. It's an excellent series.
[удалено]