This is going to be a long review. I typically write a review right away but I just couldn't with this one. I have lots of thoughts and have been digesting it for a couple of days.

I thought this was going to be a book about grocery stores. It turns out it's a book about all the things we force other people to suffer through so we can buy strawberries in January (I'm old enough to recall NOT being able to buy soft fruit or berries in winter).

It starts out with a lot of benign but interesting innovations: cardboard, shopping carts, branding, all the small inventions (aisles were a new idea at one time, aisles!) that made the modern supermarket feel like it does today (instead of like Olsen's Mercantile in Little House of the Prairie). Then it shifts into people and specific store chains. The author spent a ton of time talking about Joe Coulombe and the early story of Trader Joe’s (which was super interesting, but I did have to double check to see if I'd missed something and the subtitle maybe mentioned Trader Joe's (It hadn't)). This part was told with a way warmer tone than what comes later (farther down the supply chain, where he didn't use super respectful language and very obviously had less admiration for the humans doing the work). That contrast started to nag at me. (It’s interesting how the “visionaries” are often easiest to admire, even if they helped create the current problems (maybe its an unconscious bias on the author's part).

From there the book widens, and the mood changes with it (I didn't feel like the author was abusing the reader's trust even though it was clear that he had a way he wanted us to feel (he picked some pretty severe examples, but they weren't fictional)). What looked like harmless efficiency at inception starts to reveal itself as a chain of pressures distributed across distance, with each step trying to deflect that pressure down the chain: truck brokerage systems designed so that risk lands on the least protected party, supply chains with deliberate opacity, and an entire industry built on the assumption that someone else will absorb the friction. It isn’t one villain; it’s just incentives doing what incentives do when nobody is looking too closely, and everyone is trying to make sure they get theirs.

None of this was entirely new to me-- I’ve seen first hand how quickly working conditions can shift when ownership changes hands, how benefits disappear in increments that are sold as “policy adjustments” but feel like erosion. But the scale here was different. I didn’t know, for example, how deeply broken the trucking brokerage system is (though I have a cousin who is a truck broker for a food manufacturer and he's a d-bag so I should've guessed), or how far removed some of the worst labor conditions are from anything most consumers ever have to imagine.

And then there are parts of the supply chain that are fully immoral-- criminal, even. The accounts of Thai fishing labor practices (kidnapping, debt bondage, de facto slavery) are the kind of thing that made me re-check whether I was still reading the same book I started. (It was like the frog in the pot of water-- the author did a good job hooking me in with the benign stuff and then sliding steadily into increasingly awful parts of the system).

The book left me with a kind of structural discomfort. There's something big here that I can't quite touch... I find myself thinking about growing more of my own food, of shifting my consumption habits in small ways, and then immediately running into the limits of that framing... Why am I looking for personal solutions to systemic problems? Maybe they are adaptations within the system rather than exits from it (I go from feeling helpless to wanting to burn it all down pretty quickly)?

Even the desire to “opt out” begins to feel like another expression of the same structure-- an attempt to locate a clean boundary where one probably does not exist. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism-- but maybe there's harm reduction? (probably not)

Oh, I just know Ballerina Farms is quaking.

This was an interesting reading experience that’s left me simultaneously perplexed, emotionally reeling, and a bit incensed regarding the realism baked into this story. While elements of Natalie’s worldview may have felt almost unbelievable at times to my personal sensibilities (because of my own perspective/biases/beliefs that are hard to completely suspend), all the previous research I’ve done into fundamentalist Christianity and women of the right just solidifies for me how scary and how lonely this perspective is - it may have seemed outrageous at times, but I fear people really, truly think like this. Indoctrination is a powerful drug, one that stunts you and isolates you from the rest of the world that doesn’t think and look exactly like you. How easy it is to remain so steadfast in that indoctrination, even when the world around you is rapidly changing. How it serves to legitimize harmful ideologies in taking root within the political sphere more broadly, validating people like the ones in power today. How it often seems to harm those that believe it most ardently.

What a lonely fucking existence it is to be so damn judgmental and hateful. (Especially enabled and inspired by a religion that at its core claims to teach otherwise?)

I hated Natalie but I loved how much I hated her the more that I read. In this way, the book was an easy read for me, something I couldn’t put down. I felt sad for her and equal parts intrigued by her. It would probably be fair to label me as one of the Angry Women from a coastal city with colored hair and a nose ring who would hatewatch her content, stoked by my own moral outrage, while still giving her views, clicks, and increased dollars to her beloved monetization fund. What a conundrum that presents. (Granted, I’m more of a “read a reddit write-up” or “watch a good video essay on these types of figures” kinda person, rather than giving them any direct attention that fuels their pocketbooks. Fundie Fridays my beloved).

I think there were some really good bones here - the subtle connection made between the world of (especially Christian) influencing and the modern Conservative political movement, the propaganda machine and the right wing conspiracy rabbit holes social media enables, the harm perpetrated by family vlogging and content like it (especially on the children victimized by their own parents’ exploitation of them), the way women can simultaneously be victims and perpetrators of the patriarchy in the same breath… I could go on. I almost just wished it had more to say about it all. Some of these themes felt only just briefly touched on at a surface level, when there’s truly a wealth that could be said about them. Rather than critiquing the structures and systems at play here, it felt as if the author chose to just leave it at a satirical critique of the individual with hints of these structural issues left like breadcrumbs at various points, almost superficially.

The fact that it’s already been optioned into a movie before it was even completed as a book also doesn’t sit quite right, but that could just be me.

I didn’t really have any issues necessarily with the pacing or the shifts back and forth within the timeline that I’ve seen from others. I personally like that sort of thing, always more of a fan of narratives that are less linear and play with the way memory unfolds in a realistic way. I like how it lends to the mystery of the story, not laying out all its cards in a straightforward manner and leaving us guessing where it’s heading.

. . . . . . . .

SPOILER BELOW

. . . . . . . .

I particularly appreciated that the big reveal was not fantastical in the slightest. I did not see it coming, though I feel like I should’ve. I almost was too wrapped up in the sense of dread I felt as I was reading, fearful if it was going to be fantastical. Despite this, it ultimately did feel as if the ending left some… if not full on plot holes, at least big unanswered questions, in its wake.

The ending epilogue was especially touching, though lended itself to reaffirming my own indignation at the real Yesteryears of the world. The way in which it’s so easy for a Ballerina Farms to spiral into an 8 Passengers. Almost like a car crash, in that it’s horrendous, sickening, and impossible to look away from. I’m not sure what this says about us as a society more broadly, though I don’t know if I’d like the answer.

If you love supporting unhinged women’s rights AND wrongs, you’ll be screaming alongside me for this one! I am still in shock that this is a debut! I will be gobbling up anything Lai Sanders writes after this one! Final Score: 4.9

Content disclosure: This book and review discuss elements of religious trauma regarding religious manipulation/coercion. See bolded portion of the Final Thoughts section before going in if this is a topic you would prefer to not read about.

What This Book Did Well I devoured this book! It’s dark, it’s funny, and its subtle satire is sharp and scathing - just the way I like it! The plot is complex and comes together remarkably well. From the blurb, I came in expecting the book to have discussions around racial identity and misogyny, but I wasn’t prepared for the societal critiques on virality leading to a surveillance state and loss of personhood or the commentary on the harm that (specifically Evangelical) religion can bring when brought to extremes. All of which were handled with care, in my opinion. Yes. All of that (and more) happened in this book!!

I did not expect to relate to the women in this book as much as I did. As a white woman, I will never truly understand what it is like growing up in the US as a minority and specifically here the nuances of growing up as an Asian American woman. Separate from the racial identity themes, which aren’t mine to speak to, the experience of growing up under very critical parents that make you feel like you are suffocating to the point of a breakdown - I felt that in my bones! The characters themselves were fascinating and their bond was so fun to watch! I felt like all of the female characters, including the main side characters, were really well constructed. To be clear though many, if not all of them, are unlikeable, but the intention to make them unlikeable is clear and very well done.

Audiobook Experience I tandem read this one, but I think I would have enjoyed this book just as much if I had only listened to the audiobook. My only caveat is that I really enjoyed getting to highlight quotes, specifically relating to the critiques on the Evangelical church as someone who grew up Evangelical and has since deconstructed. Both of the narrators did a fantastic job and really elevated the book in their performances.

Where It May Fall Short While the female characters were all well crafted, there is one male character who stays prevalent throughout the entire book and I felt like his character was pretty flat in comparison to everyone else. This may have been intentional, but there were points where I was almost wondering if there would be a sequel from his POV or something because we consistently get glimpses of him and his experiences, but it’s never fleshed out. However, considering that this book is about feminine rage - I think it’s a valid choice, just a noticeable one compared to how well crafted the women are.

I can also see how the ending might feel a little rushed and although I was personally fine with it, I wouldn’t have argued if I had a bit more time at the very end of the book.

And one caveat rather than a critique: the dark, subtle satirical elements landed for me in part because of my lived experiences. I can see how this book and its themes might hit differently for others, so your mileage may vary with this one.

Final Thoughts, Opinions & Recommendations Do not look anything up about this book and just trust the process. If the blurb sounds good, you are in for a good time! That being said, I would encourage people to check out the content warnings for this one there are a lot. However, there is one I haven’t really seen that I wanted to note. If you don’t have religious trauma relating to religious manipulation/coercion - you can skip to the next paragraph to avoid any chance of slight spoilers. Around the 40% mark, one of the characters joins an Evangelical church in college and attends an Evangelical church camp - it is an incredibly accurate depiction of my own experiences at camps like this, and Sanders does not try to hide the clear manipulation tactics those camps can be built around. (To be clear, I’m speaking from my experience, not making a claim about all churches/church camps or Christians as a whole.) Additionally, there is a leader at the camp who engages in sexual coercion with adult women. After the 50% mark, the more subtle religious critique remains throughout the book, but most of the elements that I think could be triggering for people with specifically Evangelical religious trauma are gone. Ultimately, I found the book cathartic, but since I haven’t seen people giving that specific content warning I wanted to note it. In theory, you could skip the majority of this section and still follow along with the book, but you would miss out on some details.

The blurb gives Yellowface and Counterfeit as comp reads, but I haven’t read either of those yet so I can’t speak to that. However, going just on vibes - feminine rage, dark subtle satire, feminist social commentary, strong literary thriller - there were points in this book that reminded me of the feelings I had reading Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn and Bunny by Mona Awad.

I don’t think you would enjoy this book as much if you don’t like reading about non-linear timelines, unlikeable characters or characters making “bad”/unhealthy decisions. These women are flawed (imo, complimentary).

My thanks to my local public library for having the ebook and audiobook available shortly after publication!! GO SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARIES!! They are the real MVPs!

TL;DR Would I Recommend it? YES!! (but check the content warnings, this is a dark thriller) I am literally hounding my IRL friends to read this ASAP so I can discuss with them Would I Reread it? Yes! I think I may purchase a copy of this one for myself! Would I Read More From This Author? YES!!! I’m officially a Lai Sanders fan!!

Star Score Breakdown Personal Enjoyment: 5 Overall Execution: 5 Craft & Writing Quality: 5 Characters: 4.75 Plot: 4.75 Final Score: 4.9

Channie Waites did not narrate this audiobook. She performed this audiobook. She performed it so well I added it to my My Taste by the 43% mark. What an absolutely glorious listen. The ending had me crying on my walk to work. The characters are so fleshed out and real and the plot is eye-openingly monstrous. Even with slightly less than half the year left I am confident in saying Ring Shout is going to be one of my, if not the, best reads of the year.

Wtf did I just read? Is this nonfiction or sci-fi? I’m only half joking. The writing tone throughout this book often reads like a chilling horror sci-fi novel. There’s a constant back-and-forth between “fable” and “speculation” and “oh by the way this next part has already happened in real life history,” and to be honest, it gives whiplash.

And actually, I didn’t realize/remember when I picked up this book, but I had heard of Eliezer Yudkowsky before, very briefly mentioned in Karen Hao’s Empire of AI (which I absolutely recommend miles above and away over Yudkowsky’s book). Turns out that Eliezer Y. is part of a philosophical school of thought known as “effective altruism,” which I would never have known anything about from reading his book, because the term doesn’t even make an appearance. (Hmm…)

In Empire of AI, Hao states that

[…] the movement […][of effective altruism] preaches dedicating oneself to doing maximal good in the world by using extreme rationality and counterintuitive logic to guide decisions[.]

Then Hao goes on to say:

But this existential brand of AI safety, built on philosophical thought experiments, would soon come under fire as the AI research community awakened to the less apocalyptic and immediate real-world harms of AI.

And therein lies the crux of my major issues with Yudkowsky’s takes in If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.

In short: Yudkowsky hates AI because of his Doomer computer calculations about sci-fi-esque possibilities regarding hypothetical super-intelligences in some unknown future who will have “weird, strange alien preferences.” I hate AI because of all the real-life human damage it’s already wreaking right now and the real-life humans who are profiting carelessly. We both hate AI, but we are not the same.

That’s not to say that this dude doesn’t make some interesting, well-founded points. By all means. And if this is the book that gets you to be anti-AI... great, I guess. It's a start. But Yudkowsky' argument tends to rely heavily on his ability to repeat something in a chilling, condescending, mansplainy tone over and over and over, rather than basing his words in actual fact or possibility.

Even as he puts this argument together about how Artificial Super Intelligence will work in a way that’s so fundamentally different from human intelligence, he’s projecting so much freaking male humanity into his predictions! This book showcases a mind that is completely lost in a theoretical world of rationality, so self-assured of its own understanding of everything about how the world works, that it has created a prison where it's now pacing back and forth restlessly and screaming at us all about AI doom because this mind is far too shuttered and corralled to be able to see any other options that might be staring it in the face.

This man is so blindly convinced of full human supremacy currently that it’s astounding:

Humans are no longer the world champions at chess. Humans are no longer the planet’s only language-users.

The presuppositions in these statements are wild. I studied Linguistics so I get it, humans just looove to think that we are the only living creatures with language, and that makes us feel special, it makes us feel separate from all the other living species who only have “communication systems,” not languages. Never mind that our definition of what makes the human communication system a “language” is mostly a lot of arbitrary categorization and systematization that seems to continuously need further refinement to distinguish why it’s not an animal communication system with every new discovery science makes about the complexity of animal and natural communication systems. But okay, whatever.

Yudkowsky flippantly passes by other intelligent minds and consciousnesses, such as octopus and trees, without any real acknowledgement of how absolutely crazily fascinating those two particular consciousness / communication systems actually are.

Re octopus:

Humans aren’t necessarily the best at everything; maybe an octopus’s brain is better at controlling eight arms. But in some broader sense, it seems obvious that humans are more general thinkers than octopuses. We have wider domains in which we can predict and steer successfully.

Yes, dude, it seems obvious to you because you clearly know nothing about an octopus and you clearly don’t spend much time thinking about things that fall outside your own realm of understanding the world. Also, “it seems obvious” is literally not a real argument? That wording is the opposite of fact? Hello?

Then there’s this bit about trees:

Trees are made mostly out of air. They use sunlight to strip carbon atoms from CO2 molecules and arrange those atoms into bark and branch. Physics permits the possibility of technology that uses sunlight to spin air into wood. Could a superintelligence invent that technology? Almost surely. Trees are produced by running RNA strands through ribosomes to produce proteins (in a suitable cellular environment). Human labs can use ribosomes too. So the challenge of building custom-designed biological technology is not so much one of producing the tools to make it, as it is one of understanding the design language, the DNA and RNA.

So what you’re telling me is that trees are literally already doing this thing that you’re extremely terrified that ASI will do, and rather than killing us, they’re giving us actual life. Let’s not even mention that meanwhile, humanity is actively killing trees for… checks notes… oh yes, expansion of this AI technology that might want to kill us all. IDK, seems like the real monsters here might just be the humans. Maybe we should let the trees take over at this point, since their technology seems to be more advanced than ours, so they might have a better shot at taking care of the AI issue than we do. Not to mention the insanely incredible amazing mind-blowing communication system (not language, of course) that trees use to connect with each other and send messages across entire forests. Yep, my bet’s with the trees at this point. (And mushrooms, but Yudkowsky doesn’t mention anything about the mycelium, so I guess that particular non-human intelligence is beyond the scope of his book/understanding/imagination.)

For me, the real horror story of AI lies in between the lines of what goes unsaid in Yudkowsky’s book. For example:

It [ASI] still needs humanity to keep the supply chain running—the supply chain that ultimately mines metal and forges them into robots and computer chips.

BRO. This is not hypothetical. What do you think has been the source of so much war, violence, exploitation, and atrocity across countless places in the world that have been ravaged by colonialism and extraction?? At one point, the author postulates that ASI would “let the world get hot.” Bro, again. Not hypothetical. Real world human leaders and tech bro billionaires are letting the world get hot as we speak (so they can build AI). At another point he skims breezily past the labor of training AI’s which I learned from Karen Hao’s Empire of AI is an entire real-life horror story of its own.

I was glad that I pushed my way through to the end of the book only because I was rewarded with this beautiful C.S. Lewis quote, that I will leave for you here so that you need not subject yourself to the same experience just to get this lovely quote:

“How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.” If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs.

TLDR: Skip this book, and read Karen Hao’s Empire of AI and/or Shannon Vallor’s The AI Mirror instead.