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?
Not on the same book, but back in the 90s I read two books on the same topic back to back:
The Hot Zone by Richard Preston:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone
The Coming Plague by Laurie Garett:
https://www.lauriegarrett.com/the-coming-plague
Imagine the same news story, first covered by a sensationalist tabloid, and then again by the New York Times, with in depth coverage, multiple sources, and copious foot and end notes.
This isn’t to say the Hot Zone is a BAD read, it’s not, it’s just not to be confused with anything remotely academic.
This is why I couldn’t bring myself to read Hot Zone. If you haven’t read David Quammen’s Spillover, I recommend that one.
Thanks! I’ll check that out!