I enjoy the puzzle aspect of the book to a certain degree. The human brain is built to pick up patterns where none seem to exist. This book is playing on a basic human need to discover patterns, which is nice. However that is just about all that I like about the book, the shot of dopamine from pattern recognition. It seems as if he author is trying too hard to be “revolutionary”. Certainly the theme of revolution in the circular sense is apparent, but what interests me is the other definition. Revolution also refers to a fundamental shift of even the most basic principles of a given field or area. This book certainly changes pretty much everything that you assumed about books. The author changed font, text size, text color, orientation of text on the page, plot, etc. The list goes on and on, but what good is change with no purpose. Change for the sake of change is hollow and meaningless. There needs to be a purpose to the change for it to be lasting or memorable. It is possible that I am just missing the point and that there is some purpose other than forcing us to reexamine how we think about books. There could be some hidden meaning or purpose that I haven’t discovered or come across, but this seems to be change for the sake of change.
Don’t change for the sake of change. Change to improve. Revolution is supposed to be revolutionary.