Maybe a strange question, but do you often have simultaneous opposing opinions on books or series that you read?
Not too long ago I read Peter Watts’ Blindsight, and it has many thought-provoking ideas about conscience, the human brain, and alien life. Yet it is wrapped in a mediocre sci-fi action movie script that is difficult to follow and stops making sense toward the end. So I cannot say that I exactly liked or disliked it.
And just now, I finished Ann Leckie’s Imperial Radch series, and it feels like books 2 and 3 (Ancillary Sword, Ancillary Mercy) are entirely separate story from book 1 (Ancillary Justice). The latter books are okay for what they are, but do not live up to the style, scale, and pace of the first book, and leave some of the concepts entirely unexplored. So once again, I cannot exactly say that I loved the series.
Any other books that left you with similar dual opinions?
Had the exact same thoughts about Blindsight. I got Watts’ second book in that series and didn’t even make it halfway. I think you described it well how Watt’s seems to have profound topics to discuss, but drapes it in some bizarre sci-fi/fantasy trope-filled amalgamation. I can’t think of another one I’ve felt that way about, but you’ve posed an interesting question for sure.
Another one that comes to mind is Red Rising, but just for wasted potential. The premise is that miners on Mars, who are told they are working to establish a new colony, are, in reality,
spoiler
just slaves on terraformed, livable Mars.
Fantastic premise, author can lean into the entire labor rights history of the early 20th century, worker strikes, revolutions, etc. Nope, the idea goes out of the window about 1/4 of the book through, and you get a really bad ripoff of Hunger Games.