All clear by

All Clear by Connie Willis

12 Comments

  1. Good review. I'm still umm'ing and ahh'ing over whether to read this book. I reviewed Blackout last year, mainly because of the Hugo, and found it rather repetetive and way too long. Your review seems to confirm my worst suspicions that 'All Clear' suffers from the same issues.

    Don't get me wrong, the book is beautifully written and impeccably researched, I just wish the editing was up to the same standard.

    I really like the way you put in drop down spoilers, by the way. It makes reading reviews of books that I haven't yet read much, much more enjoyable.
    Twitter: Snake_Oil_Lit

    1. If you didn't like Blackout for those reasons then I don't think I'd recommend continuing on with All Clear. It is very much more of the same. I still enjoyed Blackout and All Clear, but I don't think they deserved to win any prizes, due mainly to the longwinded-ness of it all.

      The spoilers are hidden using the wordpress plugin called enhanced simple spoilers, but I see you use a wordpress.com blog, so I'm not sure if you can use plugins?
      Twitter: ecnef

    1. You would :)

      I hate reading spoilers so feel it is only polite to hide them in case other people think the same, and those that don't mind can read them if they choose.
      Twitter: ecnef

  2. Thank you for leaving a comment on my blog today. I'm not sure I've ever heard of "Women's Christmas." Little Christmas, as I'd understood it, was the Visit of the Magi — but in America, at least, we've moved the feast to the first Sunday after the New Year.

    I'm not familiar with the series you've written about in this post, but I've read my share of alternate history — I've read more books (and followed more series) than I care to admit by Harry Turtledove. I just read the latest installment of his Alt WWII series that starts by supposing Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler at Munich and committed Britain to oppose Germany's attempt to dismember Czechoslovakia. Maybe I don't find this series as interesting because I don't buy either the idea of Chamberlain standing up to Hitler or the idea of the war actually starting at that point as a result. I seem to recall Churchill being absolutely certain that, even as late as Munich, Hitler would have backed down — or his generals would have rebelled — if Britain had stood firm. Of course, I suppose Churchill was always absolutely certain about everything.

    Lately I've enjoyed a number of books in the 1632 series by Eric Flint and various co-authors. Flint also has a couple of books that start by supposing that Sam Houston wasn't that badly injured in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and wind up radically changing American race relations.

    And Stephen Baxter — often a rather pessimistic and depressing, but very good, 'hard' sci-fi author — did an alt history series (Time's Tapestry) that I followed. I've sampled some alt history by Robert Conroy, too.

    But I find I don't much like writing book reviews. You might agree — most people do, I think — that the best (or at least most entertaining) reviews are often the most scathing. Roger Ebert's movie reviews, for example, are generally wonderful, but his really negative ones are, by far, the most fun. But I find I can't write a review for a book I don't like.

    1. There is a wikipage all about Little Christmas. I hadn't realised that the Epiphany was celebrated on a different date in the States. Although I suppose it makes sense to have it on a weekend.

      I've read one by Turtledove, in his alternate civil war series. Was interesting.

      I definitely think that it easier to write a scathing review. It is certainly more fun. It's also great if you really love a book, but I find that writing a review also helps me get my thoughts out about a book that can often help me figure out what I liked or disliked it.
      Twitter: ecnef

  3. I had every intention of reading these last year and didn't get around to it. I did start Blackout and was enjoying it but at the time was involved in too many group reads to stick with it. Here's hoping for this year.

    Considering the size of each book I'm glad it isn't just one massive chunkster, though at the same time I can understand why it might not work as well being two separate books.
    Carl V.´s last blog post ..Patrick Rothfuss Sez…

    1. Oh year, it is far too large for one book, I can see why they split it. I just think that if it was edited so that it was that much shorter it'd be a better book. Of course I may be wrong :)
      Twitter: ecnef

    1. The problem I had with the time travel storyline was that I just didn't really care because I knew that it'd all be sorted, so I didn't feel any real worry or drama about that aspect. The details of life in the Blitz on the other hand was great.
      Twitter: ecnef

Comments are closed.