"I'm in a decade-long book club of a half-dozen secular Jews, and a group member asked me to see if Outraged (just published in 2025) might be a good choice for our group. No, I've decided. It's not right for me, anyway. The shout-outs to the libertarian Cato Institute (co-founders Charles Koch and Murray Rothbard), Jonathan Haidt, and Steven Pinker might be a clue.

I was skeptical from the beginning with the reference to Daryl Davis, a Black man who "has personally befriended more than two hundred KKK members," apparently to help them be less racist � immediately followed by a mention of canvassers, "many of whom were transgender themselves," who door-knocked in Miami-Dade in 2014 to educate about a new housing and employment nondiscrimination law that protected trans people. They were "trained to listen deeply as voters explained their views, to refrain from condemnation, and to humbly offer their experiences during the ten-minute conversation. They also encouraged voters to engage in perspective taking by imagining a time that they felt judged for being different and connecting that experience to the experience of transgender people." Result: Voters who spoke to these canvassers came away with a lasting feeling of being, "on average, 10 points warmer [toward trans people] than people who didn't [speak with a canvasser]." So, look, I don't know what "10 points warmer" means � I mean I couldn't pull a couple transphobes out of a lineup and tell you which is 10 points warmer than the other � but anyway, for me, what's missing from this discussion is any acknowledgment of what it's like to knock on someone's door and initiate a conversational intervention about (indirectly) why they should hate you less or at least tolerate your presence on this Earth and by the way explain the effects of housing and employment discrimination on human beings. And sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes they warm up only 3 points. Sometimes they inform you that you're doing a terrible job of arguing for your own humanity and that, having met you, they're more inclined to vote against you (reader, this happened to me). Never mind that the world is constantly telling queer/trans people to downplay and hide our identities, telling us we're supposed to "not shove it down everyone's throat" or "keep it in the bedroom," but then when they vote against our rights it's because all along they secretly wanted us to knock on their doors and explain it to them.

Also, it isn't 2014 anymore. We can't rely on a 2014 example of anything to draw a conclusion about transphobia in 2025. Popular awareness of trans people's existence dramatically changed over the past decade. Right now the battle front isn't a housing and employment nondiscrimination law that gets passed (yay) and just has to be gently explained with a smile to everyone after the fact. Right now we have (checks notes) introduced in the US in the first two months of the year. Everyone knows that we exist, they are trying to erase us in various dimensions, and they continue to do this even though we have explained millions of times that we aren't harming anyone. They do not want to talk to us because the anti-trans ethos is predicated on not talking to trans people.

I could tell, right here at this early spot in the book, that trans rights were going to be used as examples despite no trans people having been consulted in the making of the book. (Especially ironic given the author's call for conversations between strangers to question assumptions about who is truly vulnerable to harm.) The philosophical problem of "other minds" is going on here. Not only is the book not written primarily for me, it didn't anticipate I could be one of its possible readers.

I can get on board with the idea that people tend to operate with a protection narrative ("trying their best to protect themselves, their loved ones, and members of society") rather than a destruction narrative (they're not "comic book villains who inexplicably want to cause maximum harm"). That seems basically true. The book could have taken viable routes from there.

However, the author brings up the Tocqueville paradox which claims that, when a society is in terrible "economic and moral" shape, people have rather basic demands, but when there is "(historically speaking) unprecedented equality" with "(historically speaking) minor social injustices," people get outraged as they haggle over "smaller and smaller injustices." This, he says, reflects "concept creep" of what true injustice is. OK, so I'm unprepared to say whether the Tocqueville paradox might be true in principle, but as a diagnosis of our interactions today (as Gray certainly intends to use it), I find it very unfair. Yes, average life expectancy is longer, and so forth, but of course any individual may suffer greatly. Further, it is hard to measure whether an injustice today is "minor" relative to an injustice in a completely different social context (another time and place) since moral meanings are so contextual. There are also some major 20th- and 21st-century challenges that are unprecedented in human history, such as human-caused climate change, mass extinctions, nuclear bombs, technological surveillance, and so forth. It's pointless to argue whether the polycrises of today are "minor" relative to the polycrises of the past, but it's worth observing that these are in fact injustices, threats, problems, etc. They're simply different from other problems in human history. When we talk about current problems, we're bringing them up because they're real and they need to be discussed and solved. There's no paradox here. Responding to a complaint with an argument like well, isn't your life better than if you'd been born into chattel slavery? feels like a trolling attitude. I also think it's debatable whether we collectively have "expanding compassion for animals." Yes, today people spend a lot on their pets, but there's also factory farming and deforestation. Anyway, vegetarianism is an ancient practice, going back thousands of years, especially in India; it's hardly new to the 21st century. It isn't true that "we care so much about the well-being of all living creatures because society today is so safe." Even in unsafe societies, people care for each other and for non-human animals. This has always been true.

Then there's mention of a Gallup survey that repeatedly asked USAmericans over a 55-year span if they'd recently "helped a stranger," "been assaulted or mugged," or "let a stranger go ahead of you in line." The survey found no "moral decline" over the long term. OK, but those aren't the sum total of moral behaviors. The US is right now undergoing a coup and transitioning to authoritarianism. The culture is increasingly fascist. If individuals (or groups?) have had no moral decline, how did we end up in this political situation?

He asks why people "express moral outrage online." He doesn't think it's "moral grandstanding" in pursuit of "fame and power" (since of course that isn't readily delivered via social media). Instead, he thinks, outrage is "driven by feelings of threat"with a desire to "collectively punish and exile" the evildoers. Well, that doesn't seem obvious to me. People share stories of their own lives, as well as stories that have happened to others, in search of understanding and sympathy. People have dialogues online, and sometimes those dialogues involve expressions of moral outrage because outrage is an appropriate sentiment for whatever's being discussed. They may or may not primarily want to punish the perpetrators. They may be trying to educate themselves or others about the problem first. They may just want to talk about what happened. They're allowed to be mad about it. And just as he assumes that, due to "concept creep," whatever harms we experience today are "relatively mild" compared to what humans experienced in the past, he assumes that social media creates a bubble of illusion around whatever suffering and evil is being narrated within it because 21st-century suffering and evil is very unlikely to be real.

The bigger part of Gray's thesis is that people take political and moral positions in good faith based on a desire to avoid whatever they truly believe is harmful. "Conservative Christians," he insists, oppose gay marriage because they have a "sincere belief that gay marriage was harmful and would inevitably lead to suffering." His example of a "good faith" opponent of gay rights, on the basis of the presumed "harmfulness" of those rights, is And why should we believe that Anita Bryant acted in good faith? Because she "sacrificed her entire music career" to be an anti-gay crusader, and she made words that sounded like arguments, like a slippery slope to "murderer rights" and her belief that "homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit." These are bad faith arguments, mostly because they are nonsense, as I do not have time to explain further here. And, sadly, people sometimes do sacrifice honest career opportunities to boldly live more terrible versions of their own lives. Though the choice to be a bad-faith troll is often an economically poor one, that doesn't entail that the person acts in good faith.

In my experience, opponents of gay and trans rights are not always casually ignorant but quite often willfully ignorant. Propaganda teaches them which lies to tell, and if they go pro, they . Also, frequently, their attitude is trolling, which can be detected not from a single statement but from the .

I don't think Gray would have attempted to use race or religion as an example of his claim that people generally speak and act in good faith when they take political positions. Most readers would find it implausible or uncomfortable to hear, for example � should it have been said � that antisemites genuinely believe that Jews cause harm to themselves and others and are not simply trolls who make things up. (Jews are aware that very many antisemites are trolls who make things up.) But for some reason this is supposed to play out differently when it's about anti-gay people, who supposedly have sincerely held Christian beliefs, or anti-trans people, who supposedly just need a trans person to knock on their door and inform them of their transness and humanity. Anyway, this is why I won't bring this book to my Jewish book club. All of us are seasoned adults between the ages of 45 and 80 and we don't have time to litigate this kind of stuff from the beginning.

Gray acknowledges: "Soon after the Obergefell decision, I co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times with Chelsea Schein where we used our scientific studies to argue that many conservative Christians intuitively perceived harm in gay marriage." Some readers "accused me of being antigay or being in league with conservatives," to which he says he responded that he was only trying "to better understand people's conflicting moral positions," which I suspect doesn't fully reflect nor address the criticism.

Anyway he's saying that conservatives and liberals have different "assumptions of vulnerability," i.e., about who's the real victim. I guess when someone says that white Christians are the most oppressed group, I'm supposed to take them at their word that they truly believe this and are not just trolling me?

Then he talks about "the Othered" who are those "outside the traditional center of American society, including Muslims, illegal immigrants, and transgender people." He cites a 2015 Trump quote about Mexico "not sending their best," apparently to support the idea that Trump supporters genuinely do "believe that a country with more of the othered will undermine the success of citizens." Counterclaim: Trump is racist in bad faith, and insofar as his supporters know it, they're racist in bad faith too. Per my example demonstration just now, yes, liberals do argue that the groups are othered "for misguided and malevolent reasons," but what's missing from this book is any significant acknowledgment of structural discrimination.

He brings up the 2016 North Carolina bathroom ban against trans people, in which political propaganda campaign the anti-trans lawmakers had "argued that trans women would be tempted to rape young women using the bathroom, by virtue of their innate male impulses for sexual aggression" � a nonsense trash slur that trans people are very very tired of spending an entire decade debunking, in part because trans people have always used the bathroom because we existed before 2016, obviously � while liberals "argued vehemently" to the contrary by "citing statistics." What the author's point is supposed to be here is not at all clear.

Toward the end, he does talk about "competitive victimhood," i.e., Oppression Olympics. He thinks, though, that people tend to talk about victimhood on social media because "it provides a moral currency that everyone can understand...talking about harm makes sense to everyone." He thinks people discuss injustice on social media primarily because it's a good conversation starter and not because the injustice really happened, had real material effects, and produced real thoughts and feelings in someone?

He says his postdoc researcher conducted an experiment asking Americans "to imagine 'someone who disagrees with you on moral issues,' for example, on same-sex marriage or abortion, and then to report 'what would make you respect their opinion.'" Um, the issue here is that same-sex marriage for me is not primarily a moral issue on which I take some position; it is my actual marriage. If someone morally disagrees with my marriage, I do not want to be made to respect their opinion. I would not benefit from respecting their opinion, and I don't think they would benefit from having my respect for that particular opinion. Why should we assume otherwise? In fact, given that I actually have a same-sex marriage, my showing deference to someone's anti-gay moral opinion would diminish our ability to engage in civil conversation on other issues, since I would be colluding in my own devaluation or dehumanization � and then why would they want or need to talk to me at all about anything? As I recently wrote: .

The conversations he wants people to have are about "politics," their "views," how they "voted" in the "election." But depending on who you are, the conversation would be about your own identity, which is a non-negotiable fact. That's what is missing here."

"(This is a review of the whole series. No spoilers other than what can be inferred from the existence of four books and their titles.)

The Serpentwar Saga is a series of four books set in Feist's Riftwar Universe. I warn you now: if you haven't read The Riftwar Saga, then I strongly suggest that you go read that before you even consider this series (a lesson I learned the hard way). That said, The Serpentwar Saga is a complete epic in its own right. It tells the story of the Kingdom and its war with an invading army led by the serpent-like Pantathians. None of the books really work as standalones, so once you start you're in for a four-book commitment, which is pretty much how I got sucked into reading all four books.


The series begins with Shadow of a Dark Queen . This is the tale of Erik and Roo, two boyhood friends who flee their village after committing a crime and end up becoming part of a band of “desperate men�. Good-hearted, hard-working Erik is a likeable protagonist, with his sneaky friend Roo providing a nice foil. If you read this book simply as Erik's story, then you'll be in for a tale of action and adventure. However, if you're reading it for the epic war story, then you're in for a slow start. It takes a long while before we get to the bit about the titular Queen and her army and when you do get there, you know it's only the beginning. Shockingly, there are non-white human characters in this medieval European fantasy, and despite the fact they’re minor characters and despite the fact they’re somewhat stereotyped (positively at least, I guess), I was pleasantly surprised they existed at all. Thankfully, there is no cliffhanger at the end of the book. If anything, Shadow of a Dark Queen is a prologue or Volume I of a greater work, and should be read as such (if only for your own sake).

Next comes Rise of a Merchant Prince and it's exactly what it says on the tin. For that reason, Book #2 is the most boring of the lot as you know exactly how it ends before you even begin. It's Roo's rag-to-riches story and the blurb makes it sound more exciting than it is (the bit about the seductress ruining his world doesn't even happen and Roo’s character doesn’t really change). One thing I will say is that the book’s subject matter is original. It’s a rare fantasy novel that focuses on commerce, and I enjoyed reading about everyday life in the city of Krondor. The book is entertaining on a scene-by-scene level, if not on an overall-plot level. If you're hoping to use this as inspiration for your own rags-to-riches journey, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Roo benefits largely from his opportunism, connections, luck, fighting ability and being the smartest guy around in his particular set of circumstances. The commerce jargon, strangely, is only sometimes explained. The Serpentwar plot is reduced to almost nothing, which is unfortunate as it was the most interesting part of the book. The book can be summed up in one sentence, half of which you know already (ie. “Roo gets rich and [Serpentwar plot]�). It also introduces a bunch of new characters who become important in later books.

Things come to a head in the third book, Rage of a Demon King . The Queen's armies reach the Kingdom and all hell breaks loose. There are two main plot lines: the first is about the actual invasion and the military tactics employed by each side; the second deals with the nature of the Queen herself and concerns magic and the fate of the universe (of course). In the case of the latter, there's a lot of discussion on the mythos and metaphysics of the Riftwar Universe, which while interesting, can also be a little confusing. Given the different story lines, the point of view shifts quite often, from Erik to Roo to the magicians Pug and Miranda and various others. That said, this was the best book by far. It was an exciting, gripping read with a satisfying conclusion.

The last book is Shards of a Broken Crown , which essentially deals with the aftermath of the Serpentwar � namely, how the Kingdom must handle remaining enemies and how it must rebuild. The focus shifts to Dash and Jimmy, grandsons of the Duke of Krondor, though of course the magicians also play a large part. After the high of Book #3, the series now feels a bit fatigued. While it has its moments, Book #4 is less polished than the others. The scenes in this book are noticeably shorter than in previous books and they feel choppy and abrupt. You can almost see the scaffolding of the plot poking through the scenes and the book itself seems to draw out the series unnecessarily. While the major plotlines are resolved, Book #4 still ends with sequel bait. Sequel bait! At the end of four five hundred page books! Also, I'm not sure if it was just the edition I read, but I found a lot of errors in Shards - “insure� used instead of “ensure�, over-frequent and possibly inappropriate use of the word “ironic�, character names being swapped or misspelled and various typos. Normally I wouldn't mention this sort of thing, but in this case the sheer number of errors proved distracting. Tut, tut, Shards copy editor and/or proofreader!


Overall, The Serpentwar Saga is a fun read, but I did have a number of problems with it, first and foremost being the fact that much of the world was already established in previous series. Had the world been explored further in this series, it would have been fine. Some places are explored thoroughly, and I suspect this is because they are “new�. Otherwise, we get a lot of name-dropping of places and events, and only sometimes with a perfunctory description for context. This was particularly irritating given the fact that other things were repeated again and again, things like how Calis is a half-elf and how Miranda says things drily. There are also so many levelled-up badasses in this world � literal living legends � that even without knowing about Feist's body of work you just know that there were books about these people before this series. As a newcomer to the Riftwar Cycle, it felt as if I had come late to some party where everyone had already made friends and developed their own in-jokes. As such, I didn't find their company nearly as riveting as they did and I found my eyes glazing over in some parts of the book. To his credit, Feist always manages to slip in a quick bit of summary or context at the start of each book (in case you'd forgotten things between books) or before some extended discussion of a past event. This allows new readers to follow what's happening, even if you're not having as much fun as everyone else is. To take the party latecomer analogy further, it's like you're at a party where among the guests is a kind soul who tries to include you by explaining all the jokes. So yeah. Thanks.

I gather that each series in the Riftwar Cycle deals with successive generations of characters. For those who have read about Pug, Tomas, Jimmy the Hand and so on, their presence in this series may well be delightful. However, the events of The Serpentwar Saga spell the end of some of them, making you wonder whether the characters introduced in this series will meet their end in another (I'm guessing yes). The fact that a character's life is told through different series annoys me as a reader, since I don't fancy having to read through all of Feist's works to get my closure. I'm sure this is a personal preference thing though, since others may think this fact is awesome.

You can totally tell that The Serpentwar Saga is written by a dude. The vast majority of characters are men and the books are big on fighting and killing and military strategy. The way the characters are all powered up in different classes (like magician, thief, soldier, etc) also reads like a roster of teenage male fantasies (not that there's anything wrong with that). When female characters are described, there's usually some mention of their level of attractiveness. When someone “admires� something in a woman, that's usually a euphemism for “ogle�. Though I guess it's appropriate for the setting, visiting prostitutes is also seen as an ordinary pastime for unmarried men. Also, two of the female characters experience rape, though the incidents are not described in detail and the effect on the victims seems to be glossed over. While this is a minor part of the books, I thought it worth a mention as I know that some of you would rather not encounter such material at all.

The writing is far from beautiful; it just serves the plot, nothing more, nothing less. That’s beside the point though; you basically read this for the plot and setting. Feist does this very well. He evokes environments well and his world feels lived-in and thought out. Things somehow always manage to get worse for our heroes and the Saga is an exciting read. It was also interesting to see how different characters worked with or against each other. It's not so much personality that distinguishes the characters, but position (being rich, being poor, being a Prince, being a soldier). Most of the characters fall into some sort of cliché, but there are a few bright sparks here and there (such as Nakor) to keep things interesting.

There are quite a number of plot holes and character inconsistencies in this series and these may irritate the discerning reader. For me, the worst ones are first: how there’s always some justification as to why the legendary heroes aren’t doing more than they can; and second: Prince Patrick's transformation from “blank slate� in Books #1-#3 to “angry idiot man-child� in Book #4. Rather than hating Patrick for it, I became annoyed at the author for treating the character so unfairly. Otherwise, I found the other “mistakes� to be forgivable.

I know I've complained a lot in this review, but I did enjoy the series. While newcomers to Feist's work will be able to follow the plot, the amount of back-referencing is frustrating, and I really wish I'd read The Riftwar Saga instead. Sure there are flaws in The Serpentwar Saga, but the plot is really riveting and you always want to know what happens next. It’s a bit clichéd, but still fun. Feist is good at maintaining a high level of tension and the world of Midkemia feels very rich and well-developed. But yes, if you're interested at all, start with Magician."

"Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an audiobook copy in exchange for my honest review.

Overview:
In a dying world where the remnants of ancient power are fading, Ordulis Cavo—a former war criminal haunted by his past—is given an unexpected chance at redemption. The planet is on the brink of destruction, threatened by a ruthless sorceress who seeks to control Anima, a powerful and mysterious energy source that could reshape existence itself.
Reluctantly pulled into the conflict, Cavo is forced to team up with an unlikely crew of warriors, rebels, and outcasts to stop her. But his journey isn’t just about fighting external threats—it’s also about confronting his own demons and deciding what kind of man he truly is. As he navigates betrayals, violent battles, and moral dilemmas, Cavo must choose between remaining a villain or forging a new path.
In a universe where power corrupts and past sins never fade, can a man built for destruction truly become something more?

First Thoughts:
I have to start with a confession: I have never read or listened to a science fiction book before. So, I might not be the best person to judge the sci-fi elements of this story. But! I went in with an open mind, determined to give this audiobook a fair shot and properly evaluate both the story and the listening experience.

Initial Struggles � A Rocky Start:
Right from the beginning, I struggled to get into the story. The transitions between scenes and chapters felt abrupt, sometimes even random. There were moments where I had absolutely no idea what was happening or how one event connected to the next. The pacing felt disjointed, making it difficult to grasp the flow of the plot.
Another major hurdle was the worldbuilding. It was complex—too complex in some parts. The book throws the reader into a completely new, unfamiliar world, where literally everything is different from what we know. While that’s great in terms of creativity, it also makes it so much harder to follow when there aren’t enough detailed explanations or descriptions to help ground the reader.
The names of places, objects, and concepts were completely unfamiliar, and I struggled to keep up. When an author builds a brand-new world from scratch, extra effort needs to go into making it accessible to the audience. A comic or visual adaptation would have been perfect for this story, allowing readers to see the world rather than trying to decode it through vague or minimal descriptions.

The Listening Experience � A Mental Workout:
I’m not exaggerating when I say that I had to fight my way through this audiobook. There were multiple points where I completely lost track of the story and zoned out, simply because I didn’t understand what was going on. I’d estimate that about 70% of the time, I had no idea what the characters� current goal was or what the main conflict in the middle of the book even was.
And that’s such a shame because I can tell there’s a genuinely interesting world behind all of this. With more descriptions and better scene transitions, this could have been a fantastic immersive sci-fi experience. But as it is, the lack of clarity and structure made it frustrating to follow.

Writing Style � A Mixed Bag:
One thing that did surprise me was the poetic inserts at the beginning of each chapter. They were beautifully written and completely different in tone from the rest of the book. It was a nice contrast, especially considering how rough, crude, and fast-paced the main story was.
I also really appreciated that the characters had distinct speaking styles. Their speech patterns and dialogue reflected their personalities, which shows how thought-out the world actually is—or could have been, if the writing had included more descriptions and scene-setting.

Characters � A Tough Hero and a Favorite Sidekick:
The protagonist, Ordulis Cavo, is clearly designed to be the ultimate antihero. He’s hardened, ruthless, and doesn’t show much emotion. His past defines him, and while the story gives him chances to change, those moments felt rushed and underdeveloped.
That being said—Pookie was my absolute favorite. (I hope I spelled her name correctly!) She was the highlight of the book for me, and I found myself looking forward to her scenes. So, it was honestly disappointing when she wasn’t part of the missions anymore. The story definitely felt less fun without her around.

My Favorite Scene (for the Wrong Reasons):
Hands down, the funniest moment in the entire book was this one quote from the protagonist:

“This one’s for you, Pookie.� […] And then he started to breakdance.

I lost it. The way the scene was set up, combined with the stiff delivery and the background music, made it so unexpectedly hilarious. 😂😂😂
In general, the humor in this book was crude, sometimes borderline ridiculous, but it worked because it fit the personalities of the characters. Even if I wasn’t completely invested in the plot, these unexpected moments of absurdity kept me entertained.

Audiobook Experience � The Saving Grace:
The absolute best part of this experience was the audiobook production.
Without the sound effects, background music, and robotic voice modulations, I definitely would have marked this as DNF (Did Not Finish).
The production elevated the story, making it feel more like a cinematic experience rather than just an audiobook. The robotic characters sounded authentically mechanical, and the music added an extra layer of immersion. If I had read this as a physical book, I don’t think I would have made it past the first few chapters.

Strengths:
Poetic chapter introductions that added a unique stylistic contrast.
Distinct character dialogue styles that made the world feel authentic.
Crude, sometimes absurd humor that surprisingly worked in the context of the characters.
Pookie (easily the best part of the book).
Outstanding audiobook production with immersive sound effects and robotic voice distortions.

Weaknesses:
Extremely rough scene transitions that made it difficult to follow the plot.
Overly complex worldbuilding that lacked enough explanations to make it accessible.
Too many unfamiliar names that made it hard to keep track of important elements.
Lack of descriptions that could have helped visualize this completely new world.
A protagonist who was just “tough� with almost no emotional depth.

Final Thoughts:
I really wanted to like Tabula Rasa, but in the end, I struggled too much with the execution. The world had so much potential, but without enough explanations, descriptions, or smoother transitions, it felt confusing and inaccessible.
However, the audiobook production was phenomenal. The sound effects, robotic voices, and music added so much life to the story that, despite my struggles, I kept listening. If I had read this as a physical book, I doubt I would have finished it.

Would I recommend this book? For hardcore sci-fi fans who love complex, chaotic worlds - maybe.
Would I recommend the audiobook experience? - Absolutely.
Would I read another book by this author? - Only if it had more descriptions and a clearer structure.

â­� Rating: 2.5/5 (Purely because the audiobook production saved it from being a DNF.)"

"Reader for audible is slow and a bit plodding. The material is *decent* but not exceptional. It's got a VERY family-friendly tone through missions 1-3, despite regular cursing, and is tame compared with most of it's contemporaries. Oddly, the work feels like it was written in the '80s or early '90s... Think "Red Dwarf" meets "Married With Children". I'm enjoying it one episode at a time, in between some very hard sci-fi and military sci-fi. It's a good palate cleanser. The series darkens significantly beginning with mission 4, so I'd say there's a notable shift in tone.

Salvage Trouble, Mission 1
Poor Chip. We barely knew you. Silly story introduces the crew of the Mobius and their basic backgrounds. Was fun and not too serious.

A Smuggler's Conscience, Mission 2
No spoilers - but its a fun jurassic park style adventure in places, with a heavy dose of ethics. Lots of running around trying to do stuff that works out... weirdly.

Poets and Piracy, Mission 3
Tani's drug addiction comes front and center. Sexually free-wheeling overlords embarrass Esper, and other fun things occur in a relatively lighthearted romp.

To Err is Azrin, Mission 4
Coming home story for Mriy, an interesting hunter's tale, fish out of water, power struggles, and generally entertaining. Torture scene was over the top and made me squirm. Odd for the series but ok, new territory! Darker than other *missions*.

Guardian of the Plundered Tomes, Stoaway Mission 4.5
Mort's back story. Much better than I was expecting, and exlpains a lot.

The Rodek Less Traveled, Stoaway Mission 4.6
Back story of how Roddy joined the Mobius crew. He's the mascot for alcoholism.

Technically Flawed, Stoaway Mission 4.7
Back story of various come and gone crewmates, and the reasons why the crew never has a tech/data rat for long. Insightful and fun.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alien Racer, Mission 5
What starts as showing off turns into a major crime. Some despicable s**t happens, continuing the darker turns of the series.

Retro Version, Mission 6
Carl's family is explained in more detail, and the author shows he's a fan of old stuff few people embrace any more. Continues the story arc of Mission 5

Siege of Mortania, Mission 7
One of the passengers is not who he seems. COntinues the story arc of missions 5 and 6, to conclude the story lines and wrap things up. Think of 5-6-7 as a cohesive unit. Esper rises to the challenge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Moon of Odysseus, Mission 8
New and improved? nope, there is far more depravity and evil lurking in the author's mind. While the series started out fun and light, this takes a dark turn and keeps it dimming to black.

Pinball Wizardry, Stoaway Mission 8.5
Esper's final exam. Starts out cute, ends in mind rape (sort of). Not so sinister, but certainly inappropriate.

Adventure Capital, Mission 9
Further down into unethical morass, continues the story line of mission 8

Collusion Course, Mission 10
Don Rucker comes a crashing in. Carl is no longer the fun easy going outlaw, he's growing colder. Doubly so for Mort - badass yes, but also pretty cold hearted. Continues the story line of missions 8 and 9.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You, Robot, Mission 11
Couldn't stand the first half of this atrociously bad romp, with it's scooby-doo antics and unrealism. But then it picks up and becomes at least tolerable

Stowaway to Heaven, Mission 12
Payback time, Harmony Bay is the target. Imbeeded crew members as double agents, tragedy with a certain wizard, and a prize so big it's impossible to keep. Interesting yarn, thoroughly entertaining.

Voice of Reason, Stowaway Mission 12.5
"are you really in my head?" Apparently, yes. This could get awkward.

Mission Inadvisable, Mission 13
Some absurd adventures and implausible escapes, but overall an entertaining volume on par with the best 25% of what this series does.

Moral and Orbital Decay, Mission 14
A disgraced son-of-Mort and Mobile Mining Station YF-77 - is it the new Deep Space 9? This story forms the basis for the next series of Black Ocean. I found it very hard to sympathize with the primary characters (most were acting selfish and wicked), and wondered why were being introduced in such detail to other seemingly transient characters. It makes sense in the context of this becoming essentially a spin-off series.

Planet Hustlers, Mission 15


Eternity or Bust, Mission 16
Old Times Sake, Stowaway Mission 16.5"