The idea behind it was really good, but it was poorly executed. I think this book would have benefited from better editing and also (Spoiler alert) the whole Sam and Chloe thing made no sense and neither did Evan and Hannah. We never really find out WHY she likes him or why he never calls her back. The pacing of the book felt off as well, for instance, the fact that the play seemed to be so relevant at the beginning and it only barely resurfaced at the very end. Even the reasons for Hannah's dad leaving were barely discussed. I think that by trying to tackle so many issues at once the story lost a bit of its momentum. The ending was a bit anti-climatic as well.

I was really disappointed. It had so much potential and yet, this book just felt like a buffer between books 1 and 3. NOTHING HAPPENS. I didn't feel like I got to know the characters more either (with the exception of Tris, and in any case it was so focused on her grief and self pity that most times she was a hard pill to swallow) Marcus and Evelyn seemed exactly the same to me, I still don't understand Jeanine's motivations and the way factions were geographically divided was confusing- I wish these things would have been expanded a bit more. Overall what I thought about this book was: too little, too late. Veronica Roth ends the book with a plot that should have been introduced at least in the middle. By trying to not give anything away she remains too ambiguous and now there are so many questions I honestly don't know how she'll be able to solve everything effectively in book 3. I'm trying not to spoil anything for those of you who haven't read it. The ending was everything I wanted this book to be, but I'll guess we'll have to wait for book 3 to see it unfold. I will definitively read the next book but I was underwhelmed with the pace and "revelations" in Insurgent.

Comienza bien, pero por ahí de la mitad se cae. El conflicto "principal" es inverosímil (aún en el universo que el autor creó) y se resuelve de una forma súper aburrida.
Tiene algunos momentos muy divertidos (suck on this gringos) y el world building es interesante. Ah y sí, es machista y presuntuoso. Se lee como pulp scifi.

Issacson tenía un gran sujeto para un libro excelente , pero... no lo logró.
SÍ, está muy bien investigado y creo que intento ser lo más balanceado posible al mostrarnos las facetas "buenas" y las "malas" de Jobs, pero al final sólo parece que está muy enamorado de Jobs y que justifica casi todos sus comportamientos horribles porque... "así lograron crear mejores productos".
Más allá de eso, creo que la narración tiende a ser aburrida y abusa de sus adjetivos. Se siente como que se le pegó el hábito de Steve de hablar en superlativos. además necesita muchísima edición: hay secciones gigantescas que reiteran una y otra vez lo mismo y que están escritas casi de la misma forma.
ah y algo que quizá es irrelevante , pero se me hizo muy extraño es que justo en los primeros capítulos cuando introduce a los miembros fundadores de Apple o a otras personas cercanas a Steve , sólo dice cosas como y hacia LSD y le gustaba tal y tal droga... ¿a quién le importa ? No sé si Issacson estaba en shock de que la gente de los 70s usara drogas. es sólo bastante confuso y creo que hay mejores maneras de presentar a una persona.
Lo rescatable , claro , es la historia de Jobs. sobre todo disfrute mucho de los primeros capítulos en los que habla acerca de la fundación de Apple , las primeras computadoras y las Macintosh. Aunque me habría gustado saber más de los otros involucrados en el proceso ( realmente no puedo culparlo de eso, ya que es una biografía y no un libro de historia de Apple.) Por cierto , no sé cómo es que Issacson logra que la revolución de Silicon Valley suene aburrida. :(

The setting is interesting, the writing is incredibly boring.

This isn't a great book. It's not gripping, it doesn't make you keep reading, if something it is a depressing exploration of anorexia and bulimia, as well, actually of self loathing and being gay in the closet. And that's the good part about it. It feels honest, I have no idea if it would actually help people that are in the closet or are struggling with eating disorders; but it is an account of a person that went through it all and survived, so yeah, it's almost as those autobiographies of people that go out to live in the woods and survive. Even like that, I did skip through some pages (or a lot), I was kinda tired of her account of self destruction and the ridiculous amounts of food she would eat. Particularly for me, this kind of self loathing doesn't make much sense, I love food, I love eating food and I would never slowly kill myself like this; still, it did give me some insight as to the reasons people do this. Oh and I think I love Portia de Rossi a little more.

It was okay and just okay. It has some interesting ideas, like the fact that the whole humankind is now living inside a giant MMO. And the possibilities of this MMO are fantastic, like the planets dedicated to fictional universes like Star Trek or Whedonverse. I think that if you allow yourself to daydream about those possibilities you will enjoy the book, or at least enjoy the idea of Oasis.
But setting that aside... I deeply dislike the way it's written. The references to 80s pop culture and geek stuff from every period of time get too overwhelming. Another problem is that if you, like me, aren't related to every reference you will eventually get bored of them or just read through them. Besides the references really don't move the story forward (except of course when the main character is inside a recreation of an 80s game or movie), but mainly the references are just there without explanation or purpose.
Another thing I didn't like its that the real world aspects are too simply solved. For example, and the following will be a spoiler, when Wade gets attacked irl, he solves this by hiding... But am I supposed to believe that a huge multinational that practically controls the world... Would have stopped there?
But possibly the biggest problem is that it's too shallow, its exploration of the topics it touches, like the way technology isolates us and yet brings us together never goes anywhere. The topic is there, it's mentioned, but like the references to pop culture it's not explored.
I think that if the author had been less interested in referencing every single pop culture article he could think of and actually deepening in the characters and storyline, the book could have been way better.

I'm confused why this is so popular. I found it boring and clunky to read. I would have been more open to philosophical insights and meaningful points from an author that spent less time describing boobs as large, perky, or 'sadly' saggy. (or was that point satire of some kind?)

This wasn’t great. What kind of person writes about another person’s fertility journey in this way, positions her as pitiful, then (perhaps out of what she thinks is compassion) creates a stepmother story line so she doesn’t have ‘nothing’.

Halfway through the book I realized that I was misled when another author I love said Barbara Trapido was a must-read. "A product of its time" isn't appropriate to say anymore, she should have known better. Anyhow, I finished it to see what happens to this dreadful family, who really is an embodiment of the transatlantic accent. Unfortunately, they continued about their way and Barbara decided a miracle baby was a great ending. She's quoted as saying " “Anyone who reads Brother Of The More Famous Jack will know it’s anti-racist, even if the some of the characters run the risk of being bigoted, so I’m comfortable with that." but I certainly did not see that this book as anti-racist, just the opposite, racism was causal and un-confronted and perhaps normalized. Along with all of that I didn't find it compelling or funny or witty, it was just kind of like watching people you don't like making mistakes and facing little consequences, which is quite unfulfilling.

I received an advanced reader's copy of this book thanks to the author and Seal Press.

This is not the book I hoped to read when I saw the cover. It is written primarily through the lens white dominant culture and centers the experience of having children throughout United States and, at times, European history.

The introduction's discussion of 'choice' felt compelling and true, knowing how our choices about parenthood can be constrained and shaped by our society. I didn't see this theme play out, as all the chapters focused on active choice- a movement towards a goal or away from an aversive experience. I'm guessing there is less interest in and historical documentation in this middle place of not choosing to be childfree but also missing out on opportunities to try to have kids. This is unfortunate, as the middle group really does make up the majority of the story for those of us without kids. The chapter that could have contained this, "Because We Can't" only discusses IVF and egg freezing. (For a broader look check out "Not Trying: Infertility, Childlessness, and Ambivalence" by Kristin Wilson)

I think the author could have benefitted from considering her personal views about motherhood before she wrote this, or rehashing the concept of the book entirely once she had more insight. In the conclusion she states that she had softened towards parents during the pandemic and describes her previous annoyance with mothers and how they are prized. Most childless people I know are already soft towards parents and happy to support the raising of our youngest fellow humans. I think that this initial resentment scaffolded the concept of the book but then by changing gears the unique focus was lost. That ending sentiment that we should all just get along reads very shame-y and was contrary to a lot of what the book showed about the ramifications of bias about parent status.

While there was some really interesting information presented throughout, (I loved reading about the start to NON and the NotMom Summit!) it wasn't enough to feel like this is a comprehensive history that lends new insight into the lives of those "Without Children."

Sometimes you have to wonder if white people ever look around and see their bubble. I can't get past the fact that virtually all of the author's academic and cultural references are white, famous, and kind of over-played IMO. There are so many other viewpoints out there, do I really need a rehash of what is already written and podcast-ed to death?

The second very large issue is that she asserts that most of neurodivergence is due to trauma, which I believe to be highly inaccurate. Where is the discussion of how marginalized identities experience trauma and literally can't get 'unstuck' due to lack of systemic power? Racism appears only as an 'incident' rather than a lifelong experience.

Despite these issues, I found some really great nuggets that I will probably use with clients and loved the writing style and structure of the book. Her 5 minute challenges and journal exercises are good.