Anónimo

True stories well told.

Revisado: 12-11-23

Loved this book. Wanted more! Hope there will be a sequel. Learned a lot about ravens.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Hilarious

Revisado: 11-29-23

This book is a very entertaining education on the English monarchy. David Mitchell presents some solid history laced with snarky commentary and analysis. If you want to brush up on the Plantagenets (not called Plantagenets at the time) through the Tudors (not hereditary monarchs) and laugh instead of snore, this is the book for you!

Please note that I personally don’t think the history of European royalty is a snore, but I’d recommend Unruly to my friends who love history and to my friends who have some interest in history but aren’t driven by a passion for it.

If you’re not my friend, you may enjoy this book but I can’t look forward to the pleasure of discussing it with you, so I have less of a vested interest in your reading habits.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Boring

Revisado: 06-15-20

The narrators did well with the material, but the story just wasn't interesting or thrilling.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Fans of Jim Butcher should devour this series

Revisado: 09-27-19

Great cast of characters, complex levels of plots that overlay and span multiple books, great balance of action, intrigue, world building, etc, and the narrator is fantastic.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

One of my favorite fantasy series ever.

Revisado: 09-25-19

The characters, the plot, the author's skill at his craft, the pacing, it's all top notch.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Probably my favorite vampire book, period.

Revisado: 07-15-19

Great mystery story, great characters, great vampire world building, just a very well-rounded, well-written book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas

Bias is right

Revisado: 07-07-19

This book is extremely biased toward the Republicans. It’s not an insane rant, it is factual and well-researched, but the facts are very selectively chosen. For example, when discussing the Kavanaugh nomination, the author mentions the harassment of Kavanaugh’s family, but not the harassment of Dr. Blasey-Ford’s, including death threats. When discussing the Bork nomination, the author does not mention Bork’s record of pro-segregation decisions, his support of a poll tax, and his role in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Bork was not a principled jurist with conservative views, he actively opposed voting rights and said he wanted to roll back the civil rights advances of the previous decades. Bork was not nominated in the 1950s or even the ‘60s ... this is a nomination that took place in the late 1980s. The discussion of McConnell in Hulse’s book is very kind, but on point ... McConnell’s decision to block the Garland appointment brought partisan politics into the judiciary in a way that may never be repaired. We can’t count on justice from Justices who act as political appointees and follow the ideology of the President who nominated them.

Hulse also treats Trump as someone who has been accused of sexual harassment, rather than a man who has proudly admitted it and been captured on video. Trump is no victim, he’s a sexual predator with accusations against him that are currently in the double digits. His sympathy for Kavanaugh as a fellow victim of false accusations was laughable at best and made Kavanaugh seen guilty at worst.

Kavanaugh’s claim that the Clintons were out to get him in some political conspiracy was explained in this book as dating back to the 1990s ... That reference was quite a reach. Most viewers read it as Trumpian anti-Clinton rhetoric, trying to energize the base by reliving a campaign that was already over and throwing meaningless punches at Hillary (now a private citizen, not running for or holding any government office). In other words, Kavanaugh sounded like a lunatic who was trying to score points by bashing the Clintons who had nothing to do with him, the hearing, or the government.

Hulse’s research and writing were both excellent and I wish I could recommend this book, but the partisan cherry picking of facts made it very hard to read. It’s a recounting of the current crisis that plagues the American judiciary, and I think the issues we face are represented, but the book, while factual, is not at all balanced. Maybe that’s why it’s called confirmation bias ... the author has one too.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 9 personas