Good. I’m not sure the illustrations really added much, though. (8/21/04)

Constructed as an essay on an imaginary film, with additional commentary by someone who found the essay, House of Leaves is an impressively bizarre work of meta-fiction. It jumps between horror and academic exposition on topics such as the symbolism of mazes. I think I’m glad I read it. (8/21/04)

I don’t normally have much interest in “alternative history” books, but I made exception for this novel by Kim Stanley Robinson. I didn’t think it was as good as Mars series, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. (8/21/04)

There were aspects of this book that I liked, but overall I can’t say I enjoyed it. Everything about this book was muddled and incoherent, including the characters and the plot. (8/21/04)

I found this book entertaining, but not particularly informative. I suspect, however, that this is due not to a failure of the book, but rather the fact that I have read extensively of the topics of computation that it discusses. Therefore, I would probably recommend this novel to someone who wanted an introduction to these topics in an easy-to-digest format. (8/21/04)

I love Iain Banks’s science fiction books, and I love his literary fiction even more. There is something beatiful about the vicious clarity with which he perceives the world. I highly recommend this novel. (8/21/04)

Frankly, this book was terrible. Darwin’s Radio, billed as a “novel of suspense” was bad enough but was at least science fiction to a small degree. However, not only does this novel fail to add any additional science to the previous book, but it frankly fails to develop the story in any memorable or interesting way. (8/21/04)

Modesitt’s books, while not particularly well written, are usually entertaining. Unless the main characters are completely invincible, which is about 60% of the time (if I recall correctly, only one of the Recluse books falls into this category, though). In this book, however, Modesitt has reached a new low. I don’t think he was even trying; it’s a completely plotless and pointless regurgitation of stuff from the previous books. If this book represents Modesitt’s best attempt to write about a situation that isn’t about super-powerful people duking it out, I hope he doesn’t try again. (9/11/04)

The main reason I read Samuel Delany’s novels is how weird they are, and in this respect I was not disappointed by this book. (9/11/04)

This book was pretty good. I think I’ll read The Fox Woman. (9/14/04)