lara_quinn

What I've recently finished reading:

Blood over Bright Haven by M. L. Wang. I'm a sucker for technology-infused magic, and I really liked the sort of computer-programming-magic here; in general the worldbuilding reminded me a bit of the TV show Arcane, which of course has its "magitech", but the main similarity is the elite vs the underclass (who they exploit), and the dark truths behind the marvels of the city. However, the characters are one-dimensional, with stereotypical views that either clearly cast them as the villains or that make it obvious the narrative will be about their realizations that change their views. I will say, though, that I was (pleasantly) surprised by the ending, as I applaud the writer for choosing the more realistic and interesting path over what you might expect from YA.

Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes by Leah Litman, who is a law professor and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, which I've never listened to, but I have heard her on NPR and other people's podcasts. I agree with her main thesis, that the Court has gone off the rails by picking and choosing their "legal principles" by whether or not they agree (ideologically) with the outcome that will result, which frankly stinks. It's well-researched, with lots of cites and notes. However, each of the five chapters is presented using the conceit of a particular show or movie, and as I was only familiar with most of them through osmosis, this didn't really work for me and sometimes seemed overly pop-culture-cutesy. (Like, Barbie - the movie, not the toy - is used as the lens to examine overturning Roe vs. Wade; Game of Thrones tells us that Winter Is Coming For Voting Rights; Mean Girls don't want to sit with LGBTQ people.) For an old Gen-X-er like me it seems like unnecessary metaphor, but maybe it will land better with people who want more glitz and meme in their nonfiction...but in that case, maybe a relatively dense book about law is not what they will be reading? I also will gripe about the editing, which seems particularly poor in the last chapter where Litman misspelled Ronald Reagan's surname and gave the same Neil Gorsuch quote twice within a few paragraphs.