S. Brown

Formulaic. Also, abusive.

Revisado: 12-11-24

Do you like romance novels that fit the mold, perfectly? The love interests meet early. At first they hate each other. Slowly, through an unlikely series of trials, they are forced to admit that the other is admirable. Right when it seems like they're about to fall in love, events force them to hate each other again, etc.. This book is a note for note recitation of the romance novel formula. You will see every twist or turn coming a chapter away, or farther. If that's your thing, great. You might be the book for you. You'll also need to have an appreciation for abusive relationships, threats of sexual assault to the main character, and a handful of other specific kinks. If that's your thing, you've found your book. Don't let me yuck your yum.

If any part of that doesn't sound good to you, maybe think twice before falling for the hype for this book. Out of respect for the many people who enjoy these formulas and kinks, I won't bag on the book further. But to say that this was not the book for me would be a gross understatement.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Not Missouri-specific education

Revisado: 02-11-24

This is a national guide that's been repackaged at different books for each state. In reality, almost all of the text is generic, not specific to Missouri at all. There's a single chapter tacked onto the end that's Missouri specific, but it's a short chapter and not really covering enough material. For most of the book, the author just notes where different state laws vary, and tells you to do your own research.

The audio also contains countless irrelevant references to page numbers, or printing out pages.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Strangely inconsistent, terrible in places.

Revisado: 03-06-23

Chapter to chapter, this "book" varies wildly in writing style; some chapters are in decently styled English, others appear to be written by a non-native speaker. Some chapters make editorial asides and crack jokes with the listener, others are dry and academic.

Other reviewers have alleged that some chapters of this book are just wikipedia articles that have been read aloud. It would explain the inconsistent style if the whole work was just a compilation from other sources like blog posts by various authors.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 3 personas

Early classics ruined by terrible readers

Revisado: 06-08-17

Would you try another book from William Gibson and/or the narrators?

William Gibson, always. These narrators, never.

How did the narrator detract from the book?

The narrators are just trying to be cool and failing. Each one speaks in a hard voice, overemphasizing their words. The one good thing you can say for them is they enunciate clearly.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Constant mispronunciations

Revisado: 04-06-16

What disappointed you about The Siege of Vienna?

The reader of this work works hard to enunciate every single word. The problem is, he doesn't know how many of them are pronounced. He doesn't just mangle most of the Germanic pronunciations, but common English words as well.

Would you be willing to try another one of Robert Feifar’s performances?

No.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Tangled and excruciating

Revisado: 09-01-14

Any additional comments?

While the subject matter of this book is fascinating, it could have hardly fallen into the hands of a less capable author.

The book opens with an hour-long tirade on how the dark ages weren't so very dark. Which, whether or not you believe it, has nothing to do with the topic of the book. And neither does the majority of the rambling, fruitless narrative that follows.

In sum, this book grows around anecdotes following the lives of various faith healers, magicians, and such. The author urges us time and again to consider that these men were not con artists, but have been misunderstood by history, despite evidence to the contrary laying thick about the narrative.

The worst of the book is in the author's complete failure to consider what his audience already knows, and what is new information that needs explaining. He consistently refers to terms and events without explaining what they mean, or explaining far too late. In one chapter, he centers his narrative around how hated the "French Convulsionists" were, without ever quite getting around to explaining what a Convulsionist was. The closest he gets is in describing the "first of the Convulsionists", but then he promptly tells us that she was unlike those who followed. What they did, or why they were so hated, is never mentioned.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 11 personas