Ben Saufley
I enjoyed most of this book but the resolution was pretty deeply unsatisfying and left a lot of loose ends—any thriller/mystery that's any good will employ red herrings, but most of the red herrings at play here seem very forced in retrospect. Beyond that, the over-explanation at the end was at a certain point kind of silly. I'm all for making it clear what happened but it was made clear a few times over and then the characters internal-monologued their justifications on top of that.
I'm trying not to just give everything a 3 simply because I still mostly enjoyed it. So, this gets 2.5.
I enjoyed most of this book but the resolution was pretty deeply unsatisfying and left a lot of loose ends—any thriller/mystery that's any good will employ red herrings, but most of the red herrings at play here seem very forced in retrospect. Beyond that, the over-explanation at the end was at a certain point kind of silly. I'm all for making it clear what happened but it was made clear a few times over and then the characters internal-monologued their justifications on top of that.
I'm trying not to just give everything a 3 simply because I still mostly enjoyed it. So, this gets 2.5.
I enjoyed most of this book but the resolution was pretty deeply unsatisfying and left a lot of loose ends—any thriller/mystery that's any good will employ red herrings, but most of the red herrings at play here seem very forced in retrospect. Beyond that, the over-explanation at the end was at a certain point kind of silly. I'm all for making it clear what happened but it was made clear a few times over and then the characters internal-monologued their justifications on top of that.
I'm trying not to just give everything a 3 simply because I still mostly enjoyed it. So, this gets 2.5.
I enjoyed most of this book but the resolution was pretty deeply unsatisfying and left a lot of loose ends—any thriller/mystery that's any good will employ red herrings, but most of the red herrings at play here seem very forced in retrospect. Beyond that, the over-explanation at the end was at a certain point kind of silly. I'm all for making it clear what happened but it was made clear a few times over and then the characters internal-monologued their justifications on top of that.
I'm trying not to just give everything a 3 simply because I still mostly enjoyed it. So, this gets 2.5.
Added to listOwnedwith 67 books.
Another book that gets the "I'm clearly too dumb to fully appreciate this" bump. It took me a long time to get through, even on audio. I set it aside a lot. The writing is very poetic and often abstract, and it jumps between times, places, and perspectives regularly. On audio, at least, some of these jumps are very disorienting and hard to follow. I think it's a very artful book, but I can't say I _enjoyed_ it.
Another book that gets the "I'm clearly too dumb to fully appreciate this" bump. It took me a long time to get through, even on audio. I set it aside a lot. The writing is very poetic and often abstract, and it jumps between times, places, and perspectives regularly. On audio, at least, some of these jumps are very disorienting and hard to follow. I think it's a very artful book, but I can't say I _enjoyed_ it.
The novel has a fascinating premise and it's very well-written but I feel like for a book dedicated to Christine Blaisey Ford, choosing to set this in the fifties really hamstrings the message. I know there are people who yearn for those days, but those people aren't reading this book. The misery of a much more overt and unashamed patriarchy (which has not gone away, but has found ways to rebrand into something more subtle and insidious) in the fifties is, it seems to me, pretty widely acknowledged. So much of the book hinges on that premise and I think it undercuts any timeliness, for me.
This is by no means a bad book. It's a good book—by some more artistic measure, it's certainly better than the rating I've given. But for me, a personal rating also accounts for impact and while I can see it hit a lot of people the right way, and I'm happy about that, it fell short for me.
The novel has a fascinating premise and it's very well-written but I feel like for a book dedicated to Christine Blaisey Ford, choosing to set this in the fifties really hamstrings the message. I know there are people who yearn for those days, but those people aren't reading this book. The misery of a much more overt and unashamed patriarchy (which has not gone away, but has found ways to rebrand into something more subtle and insidious) in the fifties is, it seems to me, pretty widely acknowledged. So much of the book hinges on that premise and I think it undercuts any timeliness, for me.
This is by no means a bad book. It's a good book—by some more artistic measure, it's certainly better than the rating I've given. But for me, a personal rating also accounts for impact and while I can see it hit a lot of people the right way, and I'm happy about that, it fell short for me.
The novel has a fascinating premise and it's very well-written but I feel like for a book dedicated to Christine Blaisey Ford, choosing to set this in the fifties really hamstrings the message. I know there are people who yearn for those days, but those people aren't reading this book. The misery of a much more overt and unashamed patriarchy (which has not gone away, but has found ways to rebrand into something more subtle and insidious) in the fifties is, it seems to me, pretty widely acknowledged. So much of the book hinges on that premise and I think it undercuts any timeliness, for me.
This is by no means a bad book. It's a good book—by some more artistic measure, it's certainly better than the rating I've given. But for me, a personal rating also accounts for impact and while I can see it hit a lot of people the right way, and I'm happy about that, it fell short for me.
The novel has a fascinating premise and it's very well-written but I feel like for a book dedicated to Christine Blaisey Ford, choosing to set this in the fifties really hamstrings the message. I know there are people who yearn for those days, but those people aren't reading this book. The misery of a much more overt and unashamed patriarchy (which has not gone away, but has found ways to rebrand into something more subtle and insidious) in the fifties is, it seems to me, pretty widely acknowledged. So much of the book hinges on that premise and I think it undercuts any timeliness, for me.
This is by no means a bad book. It's a good book—by some more artistic measure, it's certainly better than the rating I've given. But for me, a personal rating also accounts for impact and while I can see it hit a lot of people the right way, and I'm happy about that, it fell short for me.
I had kind of forgotten how the first one resolved so it took me a bit to catch up to events. Fun thriller. The twists and turns were fun, kept me guessing, and didn't usually feel cheap once revealed. I hope—expect?—there will be a third book that wraps up Sarah's arc. If I'm supposed to be satisfied that she just keeps getting away with it… I'm not. It's not that her adversaries are good, but she's, you know, also not good.
I had kind of forgotten how the first one resolved so it took me a bit to catch up to events. Fun thriller. The twists and turns were fun, kept me guessing, and didn't usually feel cheap once revealed. I hope—expect?—there will be a third book that wraps up Sarah's arc. If I'm supposed to be satisfied that she just keeps getting away with it… I'm not. It's not that her adversaries are good, but she's, you know, also not good.
