5: perfect

4: almost perfect

3: pretty good, but has some flaws that really dragged it down.

2: mostly bad, but there's like 1 or 2 good things in here being drowned by the bad stuff

1: these books are either all-around just an insult to literature, or there are a couple flaws in them that are so awful the book isn't worth reading for any reason.

I think Ishiguro uses sci-fi and fantasy as vehicles to tell emotionally-driven stories, and it's pretty unique. Like you said, the actual genre is very minimal as far as the importance it has to the story being told. Like with Klara or Never Let Me Go, he uses sci-fi as much as he needs to in order to set up the story and then it kind of stops mattering.

It feels like people tend to like one more than the other. I personally adored Circe, but only found Achilles to be decent.

I think avoiding an unfinished series is a bit of a slap to the face to the author. I love supporting creators that make things I love, whether it's finished or not. It also seems like a terrible thing to judge or condemn authors for not finishing their works while not even giving series a shot until it's finished, which can literally take decades.

Almost completely agree with your breakdown. But I give 1 star ratings occasionally, to books that are so bad I'm honestly insulted by them.

The idea that fiction doesn't have as much value as non-fiction is so stupid and exhausting.

Science fiction, for example, is often invaluable for commentary on present and future issues. Climate change, politics, gender, artificial intelligence, etc. There is no limit to what science fiction can imagine, and that imagination can be used incredibly well for thought-provoking literature that helps people grow. A Clockwork Orange or a Canticle for Leibowitz are excellent examples.

Fantasy is similar in how it can use wildly imaginative situations to expand on interesting ideas. Terry Pratchett's Discworld does this CONSTANTLY. His book Small Gods is a hilarious critique/satire on religion and the various hypocrisies of religion. His work is even profound enough to be referenced as an economic theory of socioeconomic unfairness (Vimes Boot Theory).

That isn't to say that every work of fiction needs to be profound. There is value in a beautiful story. In a creative story. In a funny story. Art done well is worthwhile.

I don't even need to know how old you are to tell you need to grow the fuck up. You're about as mature as a green banana.

It would help to know specific books that seem to let you down. I'm incredibly picky about my female characters because most of them either come off as severe r/menwritingwomen or they're written in a masculine way to show off how "strong and independent" they are.

Are you trying to say that an internal combustion engine has blown up priceless works of art and the first time it was used it blew up a home? Because don't think you're making the important distinction between something that creates combustion on purpose in a controlled way and something that accidentally blows up.

This is his entirely fictional fuel source and in his narrative we learn from trusted characters to question the veracity of the fuel source and believe it to be too dangerous to use. We learn from the questionable characters that it's a fuel source to be used immediately. Who do you think is in the wrong in this situation? The murderous idiotic billionaire who blew up his house and the Mona Lisa because he wouldn't take the necessary cautionary steps or everyone who tried to stop him and his fuel source? You'd have to be an idiot to think that something that is literally shown blowing up a home and isn't tested beyond one single instance is something that could be considered a viable energy source.

You're seriously ignoring everything the film is telling you. The person who invented it is described as "sketchy." Lionel said he needed at least two years to see if it was safe for use, and didn't want to use it in a manned mission. Andi said it had the potential to "literally blow up the world." It literally blew up a billionaire's home and the fucking Mona Lisa.

The film isn't presenting the fuel source as a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it's giving a BUNCH of reasons to conclude that the fuel source is questionable at best, insanely dangerous at worst, and backed by an murderous idiot.

Also, you're comparing nuclear power which has been around for decades to a new power source that literally has only one single live test and that test resulted in an explosion that burned the Mona Lisa. These aren't even remotely the same. The aftermath of the hindenberg or the chernobyl meltdown should be enough to tell you that people don't just throw away caution after a spectacular disaster simply because something has potential to be beneficial.

"Let's release, to the public, a fuel source that could explode an entire home, and literally the only instance we have of it running a home resulted in that home not only blowing up, but the destruction of the most famous painting in the world. Oh, and add to that the billionaire who is backed the idea is an idiot that stole the idea that got him his fortune and murdered the woman who initially had the idea."

She's OBVIOUSLY correct. You'd have to be a fucking basket case to not only use that fuel, but to also okay it for widespread use. Imagine if every house on a block uses it and one blows up? Then they all would. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea.

Not to insult you or anything, but Norton's character literally says this after the explosion. Andi's sister then says very simply that no one is going to buy the "miracle fuel" from a billionaire that blew up his own house and the most famous painting in the world with said fuel and calls him a dumbass for not seeing that very obvious conclusion.

The film wasn't leading to a reveal. The "reveal" happened halfway through when we learn that Andi is actually her twin sister. Throughout the film Miles makes it abundantly clear he's the murderer. He hands Duke the poisoned glass. He's seen with the gun before "Andi" gets shot. It isn't rocket science. Even the conclusion of the film is telegraphed heavily with the often repeated line about him being remembered in the same breath as the Mona Lisa, him having the Mona Lisa, and him having a very dangerous hydrogen-based fuel in his entire house.

I'm not sure you know what "underrated" or "masterpiece" mean.

Have you read A Conspiracy of Truths or a Choir of Lies?

No.

I've found that people either love this book or hate it, and that their opinion doesn't change from the initial feeling.

I personally hated it. Found the depiction of depression insulting, and thought that the premise didn't make any sense. That said, I know people who relate to the general feeling this book is going for and it had a strong impact on them.

If it isn't working for you, I doubt that'll change.

My thoughts as a reader who dropped it after book one:

Absurdly not. It's a trope filled mess that steals blatantly from other authors, rides Ayn Rand's dick from sun up to sun down, and has a pretty gross depiction of rape and women both in terms of quantity and depravity. To top it off, the author was a massive asshole.

I really can't think of anything praiseworthy about the book I read, and doubt very much that the series as a whole would be any different.

There are a few routes I recommend.

Good Omens is nice if you already like Neil Gaiman and want to branch in a Pratchett-ward direction.

The Watch series of Discworld is great if you like urban fantasy with a little mystery and a focus on cops in a Fantasy world. Plus Vimes is one of the best characters in Fantasy.

Small Gods is a great standalone poking fun at religion in a lot of pretty insightful ways. Great for trying out Pratchett's style without feeling the need to devote to a series.

I love Connie Willis. To Say Nothing and Doomsday are amazing.

That said, I read Cross-talk this year and it was sooooo BAD! It was really surprising. Didn't sour me on her or anything, but dang.

If I think it's worth it, I drop it and pick it up later. If I don't think it's worth it, I'll just drop it.

I wouldn't say you're unlucky, I'd say it's just something that's unfortunately very common.

I heavily recommend This is How You Lose the Time War, the Lady's Guide to Celestial Mechanics, and the Dangerous Damsels series. All very good and zero sexual assault.

It's not uncommon for a big book to have one. But most books that have them frequently are either poorly edited or poorly written. Or both.