Stanley Donwood

The word "pretentious" comes to mind, but I feel like even that's giving this empty story too much thought. "Bad Island" feels like Stanley Donwood was having a bad day where he hated the world, looked at a Banksy painting, thought, "I could do that but better!" and then made this book. Except it wasn't better and yet somehow it still got published. There is nothing to enjoy about this book:

-the story is bleak and dark, sure, but not the good kind of bleak and dark- it's just totally uninspired bleak and dark. The author follows the thought process of life > dinosaurs > volcano kills dinosaurs > life begins again > civilization develops > humans build factories > humans kill earth > the end. It leaves the reader finishing that book and thinking, "...AND?" Donwood has added nothing to the conversation.
-the artwork is supremely dull. I'm kinda impressed with just HOW dull it is? Maybe on a technical level it's good; like, it has strong lines and a stark use of just black and white and emphasizes what an uninspired story this is, but nothing about it stands out. I'm trying to be objective about this, but I really mean that there is zilch that makes me think this is good artwork.
-I saw someone use the word "gimmicky" in their review and that's the exact word I wanted to use. Super gimmicky and not worth the little bit of time it takes to read.… (más)

I generally really enjoy Macfarlane's stuff. But the first piece here (originally [b:Ness|44084056|Ness|Robert Macfarlane|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1564582134l/44084056._SY75_.jpg|68552831]), particularly, I found to be unsatisfyingly vague (or overly "litry"). The second piece (originally [b:Holloway|17847110|Holloway|Robert Macfarlane|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1368349628l/17847110._SY75_.jpg|24777047]), which is woven with memories of his great friend, Roger Deakin, was much richer and enjoyable.… (más)