Search
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated My Lovely Wife in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
In Samantha Downing’s book ‘My Lovely Wife‘, Millicent has designed her life just how she wants it. Nice house. Good job. Two kids. And a husband, she has been able to manipulate throughout their fifteen years of marriage- even to the point of sharing the same delightful hobby.
Murder.
Now, deaf ‘Tobias’ as he’s known to a few select and unlucky few, (when he is scouting around for their next victim), is beginning to see how what they do is starting to affect their own kids. His daughter is scared of this ‘serial killer’ in their home town, and his son is learning to be as manipulative as his mother. But this is nowhere near his biggest issue.
Of course, ‘Tobias’ the husband is no saint, but he’s been so well-trained in the art of doing what his wife Millicent tells him, he just gets on with his part of the job of victim selection, and let’s her do the rest. This his how they get their kicks. He’s never even questioned it.
Until the last woman they drugged, kidnapped and Millicent ‘took care of’ turns up dead in an abandoned building. She’d kept her alive for over a year and never even told him. What was Millicent doing with her all this time? Why didn’t she keep him updated? After all, they were partners in crime, weren’t they?
This is a creepy book about a couple with some very strange habits. On the outside they look like the average family, but together, in private they hold secrets that they’ll take to the grave. At least hope to. But when murder becomes a dangerous game for life, and not everyone is playing by the rules, things are not always as black and white. And that, dear reader, is the deadly sting in this tale, which will have you reading until the sun comes up the next morning and the truth is revealed.
I couldn’t read this fast enough! What a thrilling book this turned out to be!
Murder.
Now, deaf ‘Tobias’ as he’s known to a few select and unlucky few, (when he is scouting around for their next victim), is beginning to see how what they do is starting to affect their own kids. His daughter is scared of this ‘serial killer’ in their home town, and his son is learning to be as manipulative as his mother. But this is nowhere near his biggest issue.
Of course, ‘Tobias’ the husband is no saint, but he’s been so well-trained in the art of doing what his wife Millicent tells him, he just gets on with his part of the job of victim selection, and let’s her do the rest. This his how they get their kicks. He’s never even questioned it.
Until the last woman they drugged, kidnapped and Millicent ‘took care of’ turns up dead in an abandoned building. She’d kept her alive for over a year and never even told him. What was Millicent doing with her all this time? Why didn’t she keep him updated? After all, they were partners in crime, weren’t they?
This is a creepy book about a couple with some very strange habits. On the outside they look like the average family, but together, in private they hold secrets that they’ll take to the grave. At least hope to. But when murder becomes a dangerous game for life, and not everyone is playing by the rules, things are not always as black and white. And that, dear reader, is the deadly sting in this tale, which will have you reading until the sun comes up the next morning and the truth is revealed.
I couldn’t read this fast enough! What a thrilling book this turned out to be!
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated Baby Teeth in Books
Sep 19, 2018 (Updated Sep 19, 2018)
Couldn't put it down!
Contains spoilers, click to show
** spoiler alert ** I could NOT put this book down. And when I was done with it, I couldn't stop talking about it. My husband's exact words: "that sounds like a f*cked up book you're reading." 100% true.
I'm not going to rehash the plot you've read about 10,000 times. You get it: evil kid, scared mother, oblivious dad-in-denial. It sounds like it could be a bad horror movie; instead it's a truly disturbing book. That's the thing about uncomfortable topics: if you're reading it, you create an image in your mind of what you perceive - rather than having the image given to you on a screen - and more often than not the image in my mind is far scarier.
The author has fleshed out the story in such a way that the reader is forced to really digest the terrible things. It's not one horrifying event on top of another; it's spaced out so that you truly think about what just happened and what it means...and what might be coming.
I was fascinated by the peek into the mind of a budding serial killer (because let's be real, that's what she'll be, with Mommy as first victim when she gets out of Marshes) and how she manipulates the world around her. There are a few moments here and there where for just a second, you feel bad for seven-year-old Hanna. But then she does something horrifying and the feeling passes, and you're #TeamSuzette once again.
I will say that Alex's willful ignorance of the situation and absolute indulgence of Hanna pissed me off - why would your wife lie to you about this, you idiot? - and I was SO HAPPY when he finally got with the program and they presented a united parental front against their evil little minion.
May I suggest you avoid this book if you have a precocious 7-year-old child? :)
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read & review this ARE.
I'm not going to rehash the plot you've read about 10,000 times. You get it: evil kid, scared mother, oblivious dad-in-denial. It sounds like it could be a bad horror movie; instead it's a truly disturbing book. That's the thing about uncomfortable topics: if you're reading it, you create an image in your mind of what you perceive - rather than having the image given to you on a screen - and more often than not the image in my mind is far scarier.
The author has fleshed out the story in such a way that the reader is forced to really digest the terrible things. It's not one horrifying event on top of another; it's spaced out so that you truly think about what just happened and what it means...and what might be coming.
I was fascinated by the peek into the mind of a budding serial killer (because let's be real, that's what she'll be, with Mommy as first victim when she gets out of Marshes) and how she manipulates the world around her. There are a few moments here and there where for just a second, you feel bad for seven-year-old Hanna. But then she does something horrifying and the feeling passes, and you're #TeamSuzette once again.
I will say that Alex's willful ignorance of the situation and absolute indulgence of Hanna pissed me off - why would your wife lie to you about this, you idiot? - and I was SO HAPPY when he finally got with the program and they presented a united parental front against their evil little minion.
May I suggest you avoid this book if you have a precocious 7-year-old child? :)
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read & review this ARE.
Lindsay (1693 KP) rated The Scarlet Pen (True Color #12) in Books
Jul 10, 2021
The last book in the True Colors series is called "The Scarlet Pen." What a story it told. Though at first, you might think about what is going on. Why would parents be concerned for their daughter and not allow her to marry her friend?
We meet a young woman and her sweet talk lover Stephen. But will they end up getting married, or will Emma finally see what is going on with their beloved and find true love? We seem to follow Stephen's journey from his marriage proposal to a young woman to his eventful capture.
There a young man on horseback comes to visit and do some business. As the twist and turns show up. Something happens to make Stephen and his friend jump town; Stephen tries to keep Emma at bay and in the dark. Clay seems to want to help and protect her. Emma seems to want to defend Stephen. Why is that?
There seems to be a trail of banknotes that keep leading back to Stephen and connecting to Emma. Will Emma confront a man that may harm her and possibly kill her. Or will someone come and save her.
Who is this serial killer? Why is he doing it? Clay seems to get hints and information and then loses Richards while he is on the run. Will they all make it out safe? Will Stephen get caught, or will he run free. I felt terrible for the family that brings Clay to face the past that happened to him and his family.
The True Color series is a favorite of mine. The books are set in history and tell about true American crimes and have some fiction. These books are great for historical fiction fans and crime fans as well. This one has quite a few killings but not too much detail of the gruesome deaths. Enough to know how it happened. The stories transpire based on actual crimes in American history, but there is some friction that the author brings up in the book.
We meet a young woman and her sweet talk lover Stephen. But will they end up getting married, or will Emma finally see what is going on with their beloved and find true love? We seem to follow Stephen's journey from his marriage proposal to a young woman to his eventful capture.
There a young man on horseback comes to visit and do some business. As the twist and turns show up. Something happens to make Stephen and his friend jump town; Stephen tries to keep Emma at bay and in the dark. Clay seems to want to help and protect her. Emma seems to want to defend Stephen. Why is that?
There seems to be a trail of banknotes that keep leading back to Stephen and connecting to Emma. Will Emma confront a man that may harm her and possibly kill her. Or will someone come and save her.
Who is this serial killer? Why is he doing it? Clay seems to get hints and information and then loses Richards while he is on the run. Will they all make it out safe? Will Stephen get caught, or will he run free. I felt terrible for the family that brings Clay to face the past that happened to him and his family.
The True Color series is a favorite of mine. The books are set in history and tell about true American crimes and have some fiction. These books are great for historical fiction fans and crime fans as well. This one has quite a few killings but not too much detail of the gruesome deaths. Enough to know how it happened. The stories transpire based on actual crimes in American history, but there is some friction that the author brings up in the book.
Death Be Blue (Terra Vane #1)
9.0
Rate It
Book
Enforcer Field Agent Terra Vane is a human psychic who is trying to prove herself in a world where...
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
JT (287 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Re-imagining of classic horror films can go either way. They can stick close to the original while giving it a fresh injection of gore to satisfy the bloodthirsty millennials. Or deviate it from the storyline altogether to put its own spin on the narrative.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
Sting in the Tail: Carnival of Mysteries
Book
The Carnival of Mysteries just arrived in Sutton County. They say if you cross the fortune...
MM Paranormal Romance Multi-Author Series
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.