User Profile

Let me first stress how fucking American this is. The entire book plays during a “European Food and Wine Tour”, with the following stops: London, Paris, Bordeaux, Saint-Jean-de-Luz, San Sebastián, Barcelona, Nice, Monaco, Cinque Terre, Pisa, Florence, Chianti, Rome, Naples and Palermo. Because, of course, food and wine culture only exists in France, Northern Spain, Italy and .... London.

Oh, no, excuse me, London is not a proper stop on this tour. There's no food and wine served in London. The tour only starts in London, and the first thing they do on the tour is a bus ride to Paris. Wait what? Who the fuck travels to London first, if the real start is Paris? One of the protagonists actually even lives in Paris, but travels to London for the tour start and the bus ride to Paris. Holy hell.

Of course, there are Europeans on the tour (from Sweden, Norway and Germany), totally stereotyped, and the author tried to incorporate words from the respective languages. And failed. No, Casey, Swedish does not have the character ü. Did you not have any editors and ARC readers?

Of course, Swedes, Norwegians and Germans are the totally typical audience of a "European Food and Wine Tour" that pretends European Food and Wine only exists in France, Spain and Italy. And totally the typical audience for a tour that starts with a bus ride from London to Paris, because Swedes, Norwegians and Germans don't know shit about European geography.

And of course everyone's bisexual in Europe. Okay, well, I love a queer-normative world, but the literally say "everyone's bisexual on a European vacation", as if that's somehow a Europe-specific property. Come on....

But mostly, I am just disappointed. I learned to love McQuiston's books "One Last Stop" and "I Kissed Shara Wheeler", with really creative and amazing plots that I love. This one however, is really uninspired.

Kirjailija Alia Dannenberg on talousalan yrittäjä, huipputason shakinpelaaja, mukana kuntapolitiikassa vasemmistoliiton edustajana ja julkisesti transsukupuolinen. Dekkarisarjan päähenkilö Tiina Kivisaari on laskentatoimen asiantuntija, joka päätyy Supon agenttina tutkimaan pikkukaupungin kuntatalouden epäselvyyksiä eli selvittämään talousrikoksia — ja agentti kivisaari on myös huipputason shakinpelaaja ja transsukupuolinen, muttei julkisesti. Ei tarvitse hirveästi älynnystyröitään hieroa päätelläkseen, mistä kirjailija on inspiraationsa ammentanut.

Ja on sanottava, että lähtökohdiltaan ja sisällöltään kyseessä on merkittävä kirja. Kovin usein suomalaisessa kirjallisuudessa eivät aikuiset, perheelliset transnaiset ole itse päässeet kertomaan aikuisten, perheellisten transnaisten tarinoita. Kirjassa myös ruoditaan suomalaista korruptiota, veronkiertoa ja sormien läpi katsottavaa talousrikollisuutta eli ns. maan tapaa sen verran suorasukaisesti ja yksityiskohtaisesti, että lukijana ihan raivostuu siitä, miten täällä yhteisiä varoja hoidetaan. Lisäksi kirjan toisena sankarina on vanhemmanpuoleinen muslimikaapua käyttävä maahanmuuttajanainen, mikä sekin on suomalaisessa kirjallisuudessa hävettävän harvinaista.

Kaunokirjallisena teoksena Suurmestari on kuitenkin hiukan keskeneräinen. Kirjailija selvästi tykkää kertoa juonen kannalta vähemmän tärkeistä itsensä kaltaisen päähenkilön yksityiselämän seikoista sekä käydä tilintarkastajan toimenkuvaan kuuluvia asioita läpi paikoin puuduttavan yksityiskohtaisesti. Kustannustoimituskierros tai pari olisi tehnyt tästä paremman. Kelvollisen dekkarin tavoin tarina kuitenkin koukutti lukemaan vauhdilla loppuun.

I'm primed to be skeptical of any claim which sounds like the core one in this book: that there's something pernicious about The New Communication Tool, and that it will erode our society and culture.

But. Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, and has been specifically correct about several… let us say… arcs? of transformation in culture & communication; in the way we value wisdom, knowledge, information, and data; and in our approach to disagreement, debate, and argument; among others. Postman clearly isn't exactly right in the particulars — the cultural role of television has changed substantially, and even newer new media has further adapted down this path. He didn't specifically anticipate Twitter or Facebook or TikTok, but his heart is in the right place by extrapolation from television.

Still. Is society worse, or just different? Are the ways societ has improved supported by new media, and how does that compare with its support for the ways society has degraded? Did television & social media cause misinformation & polarization, or did they just happen simultaneously? I'm not going to come down on Postman's side here. But I also have unusually-easy access to unenshittified media, and I might be more tempted if I had to live through the way normal people experience the Web all day.

Regardless of valence, I don't think these changes are reversible. We can't go back, we can just adjust our paths forward. "Old man yells at TV." is a trite tale. "Dysfunctional society no longer able to coordinate changes needed to survive the changes causing dysfunction." is probably more distressing. And the problem with all questions about how to improve society somewhat is that so many of the levers of change are locked out for various reasons, so "What should we do about this?" ends up always having deeply radical answers because nothing is superficial. Or perhaps that's just because almost all simple problems have been solved, and we keep being left with more and more challenging ones.

Please like and subscribe, and don't forget to hit that bell.

First off, I have never seen Blade Runner, so that movie had no impact on my feelings for this book.

I was sucked into this book from the very start. Animals are basically extinct and farmers are usually having to resort to buying robotic versions of the animals to be able to still produce goods. People are using computers to program them to feel specific ways (you can even make yourself feel depressed for whatever reason). The world building was really well done and for the first half of the book I was very into it all.

Then it just kind of lost me. It starts to show its age when it comes to discussing or referencing any of the female characters. We are told all about their breasts and there's even the old school jolly of having sex with a robot.

I know that issues like this are inherent in older books, but I still don't like to give it a pass. Maybe if I had read this book 10+ years ago, I would have felt differently and still found it enjoyable upon rereads at this time. I think that I've read enough newer sci-fi books that don't have these issues in them and it's just really made me up my standards for what I find tolerable in older books.

It was still a good read, but I had to knock it down one star due to the outdated issues.

Æ vet ikke helt ka æ hadde forventa da æ lånte den her, og æ huske heller ikke helt koffor æ endte opp med å låne den i utgangspunktet (æ tror noen som har en smak æ stole på sa at dem likte den), men æ e glad æ leste den.

Det e historien om S, som bor i USA, med foreldre som ikke gjør det, som skal være den amerikanske drømmen, men kanskje ikke helt får det til, som e ung og usikker og altfor tøff for sitt eget beste.

Historien i sæ sjøl e ikke så nyskapanes, men det e måten den e fortalt på som treff så uventa godt. Den e i fire deler, med ujevt antall kapitler i delan, og varieranes lengde. Det e fortalt i fortid, med hint av en forteller som vet kordan det kommer til å gå, men ikke på en slitsom måte. Det e mørkt og intenst og lyst og håpefullt, og det handle mest av alt om vennskap og korvidt man kan stole på folk. Æ e solgt, og glad æ leste den.