Search
Search results
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma in Books
May 14, 2017
This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
‘Graffiti and scorch marks, echoes of small fires, decorated doorsteps. Golden Special Brew cans and crushed vodka bottles, bright as diamonds, collected in gutters. Front gardens were filled with mouldy paddling pools and, occasionally, a rust burnished shell of a car. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so many colours, before in grey Aberdeen.’
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bonfire in Books
May 16, 2018
This was first posted on <I><a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com"; target="new">The Ghastly Grimoire</a></I>.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Alex, Approximately in Books
Mar 14, 2019
“My name is Bailey Rydell, and I’m a habitual evader.”
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Geostorm (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 90's are back
I’ve got to start by telling you I wasn’t holding out much hope for Geostorm and that’s for quite a few reasons. Firstly, Gerard Butler’s career has been on a bit of a slide recently.
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Saboteur in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Okay, so Saboteur isn’t one of the newest or shiniest board games on the market at the moment. Here’s the thing, it doesn’t need to be. It is profoundly unique, and well, scratched a BIG itch at its debut. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of a board game that is so immensely strategic, yet quick, super thrilling, and engaging for all ages.
As I said, this game may be small, it may be older, but it is mighty. If you like that element of a “sabotage character” in board games, then you will love Saboteur. The best part of this game is that being the “sabotage character” isn’t difficult to learn or teach. I remember playing rounds of “The Resistance: Avalon” or “The Resistance” thinking “what the heck am I really supposed to do?” before really understanding the sabotagey (I am making a new word here) role. At times I felt even a little incompetent because I was stuck in this role all by myself. This is where Saboteur REALLY shines! Not only is the sabotage role easy to learn, you get sabotagey FRIENDS to help you out. It only gets better with more and more players too!
So, what is this great little game all about? Well, each player is dealt a role card which is either a regular old (yes, they all have long white beards) dwarf, or a saboteur dwarf (they look slightly more sinister than the rest). Of course, our good dwarfs are on an honest quest to find some gold. (Nothing could go wrong right!?) As our dwarf friends begin to dig further into the cave of golden wonders (in the form of cards seen in the illustration below), they have to navigate to one of 3 specified cards with only 1 truly holding their golden prize. All the while our Saboteur friends, which are not revealed until the end of the game, are making attempts to play pathways and tricks to divert the good dwarves away from the treasure. The winning conditions are simple. If the good dwarves find the gold, they win. If the Saboteurs prevent the good dwarves from finding the gold, they win. Each role is then awarded with gold chunks, which they will keep for a cumulative score after 3 rounds of play. As I said, simple, but SOOOO much fun! I think the most exciting part for our game group has always been turning over the cards at the end of each round to see who the Saboteurs really were.
I think I speak for us all when I say that the excitement level and ease of teaching for this one are through the roof. If there are any drawbacks, it is the quality of the cards themselves. You will want to sleeve them…..trust us. Your game group will be begging to play multiple games in a row, lending to not so sterling looking cards. They get scratched after only a few plays. So, with the money you will save on this cheap little gem, do yourself a favor and splurge the extra $5 and get a nice stack of sleeves! The other drawback you may find frustrating is at the end when you are revealing roles to find out that someone who you thought was a Saboteur was actually a regular dwarf all along with really unfortunate card draws! Such is life, right!? Anyway, until next time, happy gaming everyone!
Purple Phoenix Games gives this a 20 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/saboteur-review/
As I said, this game may be small, it may be older, but it is mighty. If you like that element of a “sabotage character” in board games, then you will love Saboteur. The best part of this game is that being the “sabotage character” isn’t difficult to learn or teach. I remember playing rounds of “The Resistance: Avalon” or “The Resistance” thinking “what the heck am I really supposed to do?” before really understanding the sabotagey (I am making a new word here) role. At times I felt even a little incompetent because I was stuck in this role all by myself. This is where Saboteur REALLY shines! Not only is the sabotage role easy to learn, you get sabotagey FRIENDS to help you out. It only gets better with more and more players too!
So, what is this great little game all about? Well, each player is dealt a role card which is either a regular old (yes, they all have long white beards) dwarf, or a saboteur dwarf (they look slightly more sinister than the rest). Of course, our good dwarfs are on an honest quest to find some gold. (Nothing could go wrong right!?) As our dwarf friends begin to dig further into the cave of golden wonders (in the form of cards seen in the illustration below), they have to navigate to one of 3 specified cards with only 1 truly holding their golden prize. All the while our Saboteur friends, which are not revealed until the end of the game, are making attempts to play pathways and tricks to divert the good dwarves away from the treasure. The winning conditions are simple. If the good dwarves find the gold, they win. If the Saboteurs prevent the good dwarves from finding the gold, they win. Each role is then awarded with gold chunks, which they will keep for a cumulative score after 3 rounds of play. As I said, simple, but SOOOO much fun! I think the most exciting part for our game group has always been turning over the cards at the end of each round to see who the Saboteurs really were.
I think I speak for us all when I say that the excitement level and ease of teaching for this one are through the roof. If there are any drawbacks, it is the quality of the cards themselves. You will want to sleeve them…..trust us. Your game group will be begging to play multiple games in a row, lending to not so sterling looking cards. They get scratched after only a few plays. So, with the money you will save on this cheap little gem, do yourself a favor and splurge the extra $5 and get a nice stack of sleeves! The other drawback you may find frustrating is at the end when you are revealing roles to find out that someone who you thought was a Saboteur was actually a regular dwarf all along with really unfortunate card draws! Such is life, right!? Anyway, until next time, happy gaming everyone!
Purple Phoenix Games gives this a 20 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/saboteur-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Woman in Cabin 10 in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Laura (Lo) Blackstock is excited to finally get the opportunity of her travel journalism career: a chance to cover the launch of a luxury cruise ship, the Aurora. The ship is headed to Norway, and Lo has the ability to mingle with a set of wealthy passengers and make some connections to jump-start her writing career. But before she even sets foot on the boat, Lo is reeling from a break-in at her apartment, which leaves her anxious, exhausted, and--through a series of unfortunate events--on the outs with her boyfriend, Jonah. Still, at first the Aurora seems gorgeous and luxurious, if a bit small for Lo's claustrophobia. But her first evening on board, after an evening of dining and drinking, Lo is awoken to the sound of an argument in cabin 10 next door, and she's convinced she sees a woman tossed overboard. But no one on the ship believes her, and the woman she knows she met earlier in cabin 10, when asking to borrow mascara, is gone--nowhere on the boat. Lo knows realistically this isn't possible: it's a small boat and people can't just disappear. But she also knows who she saw and what she saw. Is she going crazy? And is someone on the boat now out to get her?
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.
Awkward, failed attempt at satire?
After college, Elinor moves to New York with her journalism degree and dreams of writing pieces that mean something. She sees a future with her boyfriend, Mike, also a journalist. Instead, Elinor lives in a cramped apartment with no kitchen, sleeps on a foam pad, and nannies to two slightly whiny and obsessive children. She thinks her future is looking up when she's offered a position at Journalism.ly, a digital brand a la BuzzFeed. But soon Elinor learns that her sole function there is to produce pieces that go "viral" and then she and Mike break up, pushing her into a deeper depression. Is it even possible to have the creative and romantic life she dreamed of, Elinor wonders?
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.