Rating: 
Summary: Interesting if blood is your way of life ....
Review: Started out as a really interesting story - but I soon got bogged sown in copious footnotes on almost every other page...
Rating: 
Summary: Gripping intially but ultimately ant-climatic
Review: Mr. Kerr's avid use of footnotes creates a non-fictional atmosphere that grabs the reader immediately. For example, connecting the futures's essentaial worm based diet to past Asian olympic athelete's successes is very clever. True, footnotes tend to slow you done but it didn't bother me. Ironically, the suspense petered out about midway through when less and less footnotes are found. Still a original, interesting read. BRAVO Mr. Kerr. Can't wait until your next. If only I could get a copy of "Dead Meat."
Rating: 
Summary: Good theme, good writing, good book.
Review: I really don't know why so many people have given this book bad reviews, but I thought it was great. From the very beginning, the reader is taken to the moon, where beautiful details and a grand feeling of actually "being there" takes you over and doesn't let you go all throughout the book. So, if you've been intimidated from reading this book by all the bad reviews, don't worry! Give it a try and surely, if you're a fan of good science fiction and intelligent, thought-provoking ideas, you'll enjoy it!
Rating: 
Summary: Straying from the bottom line
Review: While this gifted author has always paid great attention to detail, is original in his perception of technology and society, "The Second Angel" strays from his earlier works. Efforts to portray a future where commercial vampires, blood hoarders and sentient computers coexist are hampered by weak motives, flat characterization, and clichéd dialogue. The reader is overwhelmed with footnotes and monologues that slows what momentum there is. It's difficult to resist the urge to skip these pages. Is the bottom line to entertain, inform, titillate or simply to exasperate? This is a book to read, ponder briefly, and dismiss. Better luck next time.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly Developed and Poorly Written
Review: Kerr's attempts to produce a dystopian tale based on a future devastated by environmental disaster and a novel infectious disease. The narrator is supposed to be a sentient supercomputer and this device is supposed to justify the shallow characterizations and schematic plotting. The ideas behind the dystopia are not developed well and Kerr makes several serious errors. For example, he appears to confuse transfusion with bone marrow transplantation. Not worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Liked the cover, hated the book
Review: Any story that needs heaps of footnotes to explain what's going on needs radical surgery. I can't help thinking Kerr included them in a specious attempt to lend his 'vision' of the future intellectual weight. If so, it fails. This is fiction, after all, and fiction has to work by persuading and involving readers in the story, not by bashing them over the head with didactic paragraphs of small print. It might all be justified if Kerr actually backed up his vision of the future. How did the world get into this awful state? And why should it turn out this way? His suggestions on these matters are unconvincing to say the least. All in all, neither intellectually stimulating nor much fun.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Universe
Review: Loved the premise - blood as a commodity - pretty much disbanded racism and substituted it with another reason to discriminate! Even loved the footnotes - it helped create the Other Universe - but the characters were wooden and one-dimensional. I expect better from Kerr. A better Sci-Fi - The Doomsday Report by Brynner. Check it out!
Rating:
Summary: Poor writing, bad editing, no plot
Review: The nicest thing anyone could say about this book is that it give hope for those who think a second grade education and an IQ equal to their sock size is all it takes to become a published author. Poorly written, with equally poor editing (you'd think they could at least use spell check), and absolutely no discernible plot other that an opportunity to display an ignorant, pseudoscientific use of footnotes, the prime value of this book is an opportunity to practice proof marks.
Rating:
Summary: Really bad stinker
Review: I really like the first three books by Kerr. That led me to read further on -- first his *Philosophical Investigation*, big mistake, then *Gridiron*, amusing but not more and now *Second Angel*. What a dread. The only interesting character appears for a few scenes and is out much to early (Rimmer). All others are genuine ... cardboard. The dialogue is laughable at best and downright annoying most of the time. The story has big holes in it and is predictable from the first page on -- I actually knew everything that follows after having read the first 75 pages. But the worst thing is that the book with all its footnotes, explanations and insertions is boring to the limit. And, all those explaining is superfluous. If I could I'd rate this waste of paper -5 stars!
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not that good
Review: Overall, The Second Angel was well-written and readable. I thought that some of the futuristic references were quite amusing. However, the footnotes got very annoying after the first few pages. Most of it seemed like useless information which was not relevant to the plot, speaking of which, DID leave a bit to be desired.
|
