You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.2 AVERAGE
4.2 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
sad
fast-paced
A really excellent speculative oral history piece in the vein of ‘World War Z’. Plenty of exciting ideas and rich world building. In terms of science fiction there are a small number ot “hand waves” (the re-establishment of the internet happens very fast) but I recognise that the novel wants to exist in a more hopeful space. Great stuff.
I wanted to like this book. I picked it up and put it back down four times before I finally threw it on the DNF pile. I just could not get into it even though the themes are all hot topics for me. Can't rate it honestly since I couldn't get through it.
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
As a fan of The Dispossessed and other works that focus on fictitious oral histories (World War Z, my flawed love), I was initially really excited by the pitch for this book. An anarchist revolution in the greatest city on Earth? Neat.
Unfortunately, the book is marred by an overuse of therapy speak on a level that approaches parody. While the cast is diverse on paper, they are written in the same flat, conflict-avoidant, detail-smearing tone one expects from tweets and tumblr posts. I think this book is a huge missed opportunity to not just claim a better world is possible, but to imagine how that world would actually work in concrete terms - something that is almost wholesale abstracted to “we have a lot of meetings lol.” Even the material conditions are incongruent with the premise - how, in a world of climate chaos and dwindling natural resources, did the loose federation of anarchist communes manage to *build a space elevator*?
I honestly can’t imagine how you would write this book in a manner less flattering to anarchists and anarchism in general. A deeply unserious work, given half a star for an interesting premise.
Unfortunately, the book is marred by an overuse of therapy speak on a level that approaches parody. While the cast is diverse on paper, they are written in the same flat, conflict-avoidant, detail-smearing tone one expects from tweets and tumblr posts. I think this book is a huge missed opportunity to not just claim a better world is possible, but to imagine how that world would actually work in concrete terms - something that is almost wholesale abstracted to “we have a lot of meetings lol.” Even the material conditions are incongruent with the premise - how, in a world of climate chaos and dwindling natural resources, did the loose federation of anarchist communes manage to *build a space elevator*?
I honestly can’t imagine how you would write this book in a manner less flattering to anarchists and anarchism in general. A deeply unserious work, given half a star for an interesting premise.
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
hopeful
informative
inspiring
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I really liked the vision of the book, but some of the narrators (especially the last one, which was kind of a bummer) were quite dry to read. The voices of the narrators were also not sufficiently distinct, which made it fall a little flat. That being said, I found the world this book painted to be very intriguing and it actually gave me a bit of hope for the future. Hope, for me, is in very short supply these days, so that was nice.
challenging
Quite possibly the most annoying book I've ever read.
The first two chapters almost made me DNF because I was so furious with the writing style. The book takes itself so seriously which made me take it seriously, and that made me angry because I wanted more hard details about how this was all working! Like tbh if the entire world economy, distribution and political system collapsed idk that you could get it all back up and running in like 15 years? I would love to see how that worked!
Some chapters got to me more than others - the first one especially, but some of the parenting stuff as well. It was interesting to see what set me off/what I resisted lol. I think I was just taking it way too personally, which is on me. I did like the rewilding chapter and the NALF chapter, if only for a difference in perspectives, and thought the concept of a creche was interesting. A few other reviewers mentioned that all the interviewees sounded the same and I kind of agree - I'd be curious to hear from residents who had different views or were less involved, although I get that's not the point of the book.
At the end, the book briefly touched on the idea of getting rid of nostalgia for the old world. I'm curious to hear more about that - how is that actually achieved? Would everyone automatically accept that these ways of living were the best? How do you deal with people with different ideals, values and ways of living in the commune? How do you handle conflict with different ideas? I'm just skeptical that these ideas would work on such a broad scale and it was something I wish the book talked about more! Idk. Sorry to be a hater. I'm getting the guillotine when the revolution comes I guess
Oh PS I did have a favorite of the two interviewers (it was Eman Abdelhadi!) and I thought that was interesting to note! I didn't expect there to be such a difference in tone!
The first two chapters almost made me DNF because I was so furious with the writing style. The book takes itself so seriously which made me take it seriously, and that made me angry because I wanted more hard details about how this was all working! Like tbh if the entire world economy, distribution and political system collapsed idk that you could get it all back up and running in like 15 years? I would love to see how that worked!
Some chapters got to me more than others - the first one especially, but some of the parenting stuff as well. It was interesting to see what set me off/what I resisted lol. I think I was just taking it way too personally, which is on me. I did like the rewilding chapter and the NALF chapter, if only for a difference in perspectives, and thought the concept of a creche was interesting. A few other reviewers mentioned that all the interviewees sounded the same and I kind of agree - I'd be curious to hear from residents who had different views or were less involved, although I get that's not the point of the book.
At the end, the book briefly touched on the idea of getting rid of nostalgia for the old world. I'm curious to hear more about that - how is that actually achieved? Would everyone automatically accept that these ways of living were the best? How do you deal with people with different ideals, values and ways of living in the commune? How do you handle conflict with different ideas? I'm just skeptical that these ideas would work on such a broad scale and it was something I wish the book talked about more! Idk. Sorry to be a hater. I'm getting the guillotine when the revolution comes I guess
Oh PS I did have a favorite of the two interviewers (it was Eman Abdelhadi!) and I thought that was interesting to note! I didn't expect there to be such a difference in tone!
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
"I remembered these pamphlets that people would hand out on the subway or on the street or that people would forward to me. Things about how the system was broken, how it was capitalism, etc. I always thought, "I don't have time for this," or "I don't have energy for this." But then I realized, "I don't have time because of this. I don't have energy because of this." This system had taken everything from me, from us."