Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Woman in the Window in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Anna has what's called Agoraphobia, meaning that she has anxiety leaving her house. Therefore, anything that needs to be done outside the house, she has done for her. Any medications she needs, groceries, etc., they are delivered to her house. She can't even bare to open a window because it would trigger her phobia. You learn there are different reasons for this kind of phobia.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Debbiereadsbook (1478 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Ross (3284 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
A half-decent film in its own right. A dreadful desperate attempt to link to Unbreakable at the end
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had watched over half of this film before someone mentioned to me it was part of the Unbreakable "trilogy". I had heard of Glass, and had noticed that McAvoy looked similar in the two films but hadn't realised they were linked (I guess I assumed he got bored of growing his hair back to then have to become Professor X again). I had wondered what the second film in the trilogy was. Unbeknownst to me, I was watching it.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Then She Was Gone in Books
Apr 27, 2019
Just Okay
I loved I Found You by Lisa Jewell, so when I read the synopsis of her other book, Then She Was Gone, it was a book I knew I had to read. While this book was still a good read, it wasn't great, and I was left feeling a little disappointed.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated We Were Liars in Books
May 20, 2019
I feel like I went into We Were Liars by E. Lockhart blind. The synopsis intrigued me, but it didn't really give anything away. I just wish I had known more about this book because while it wasn't a bad read, it was just a mediocre read, and it didn't really have much to do with lying at all.
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Debbiereadsbook (1478 KP) rated His Steady Heart in Books
May 30, 2019
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
I’m gonna jump straight in here, cos, well, because it’s my review and I can.
If you follow my reviews, you’ll know I have a particular dislike of several things.
First Person
Present Tense
Single Point of View.
So, when I started this book, and found it first person AND present tense, I got all ansty and twitchy and thought, nope, not doing it. THEN I realised it was single point of view, and my twitchiness went sky high and . . . .
bloody hell if I did not bloody LOVE this book!
Ashley or Buck, depending on who addresses him, was 22 years old when he first met Pippin and now, some 15 years (I was a bit unclear on that) later, he is still looking out for the little 6 year old boy who wormed his way into his heart. Now though, the little boy is all man, and when Pippin’s mother throws him under a bus (not literally, mind you!) of course Ashley will step up to look after the young man. But Pippin is proud, and won’t just take Ashley’s care, he must give back. The big bear of a man is Pippin’s idea of heaven, he just has to reach out and take him.
This has to be the sweetest, cutest CLEANEST book I've read in a long time, and I inhaled this book. I mean, I sat down, and didn’t move til I was done. It is only short, took me just over an hour but I really LOVED!
Ashley is the sweetest bear of a man, and no one can see that, except Pippin. Pippin sees Ashley, deep down, that he isn’t anyone’s “daddy”. He wants to look after people, yes, but PIPPIN is at the top of that very short list. PIPPIN is the one he realises he wants, even as he fights his attraction to the smaller man. PIPPIN tells Ashley he wants him, too, but not just for a quick lay. Pippin wants his first time to be special, and ASHLEY is that special man for Pippin.
I didn’t like what Pippin’s mum does to him, but you kinda saw that one coming like a train wreck and you can’t do anything to stop it.
The only thing, the one thing I cannot forgive is that Pippin doesn’t get a say! I wanted desperately to hear from him, even if it does make it first person/present tense/MULTI point of view (cos that would be my idea of Hell!) I NEEDED Pippin and I don’t get him. And I wanted to know, just what it was about Ashley that pushed his buttons, what he thought when Ashley’s ex turned up (and I LOVED how Pippin reacted to that!) and I wanted to know how he felt about his mum, and what she was doing to him.
That’s the only reason I gave it 4 stars and not 5 stars, was because I did not get Pippin and I really needed him.
I’ve not read anything by this author before, but if they are all this good, I’d gladly inhale a few more!
4 sweet, cute, warm and so bloody fuzzies stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I’m gonna jump straight in here, cos, well, because it’s my review and I can.
If you follow my reviews, you’ll know I have a particular dislike of several things.
First Person
Present Tense
Single Point of View.
So, when I started this book, and found it first person AND present tense, I got all ansty and twitchy and thought, nope, not doing it. THEN I realised it was single point of view, and my twitchiness went sky high and . . . .
bloody hell if I did not bloody LOVE this book!
Ashley or Buck, depending on who addresses him, was 22 years old when he first met Pippin and now, some 15 years (I was a bit unclear on that) later, he is still looking out for the little 6 year old boy who wormed his way into his heart. Now though, the little boy is all man, and when Pippin’s mother throws him under a bus (not literally, mind you!) of course Ashley will step up to look after the young man. But Pippin is proud, and won’t just take Ashley’s care, he must give back. The big bear of a man is Pippin’s idea of heaven, he just has to reach out and take him.
This has to be the sweetest, cutest CLEANEST book I've read in a long time, and I inhaled this book. I mean, I sat down, and didn’t move til I was done. It is only short, took me just over an hour but I really LOVED!
Ashley is the sweetest bear of a man, and no one can see that, except Pippin. Pippin sees Ashley, deep down, that he isn’t anyone’s “daddy”. He wants to look after people, yes, but PIPPIN is at the top of that very short list. PIPPIN is the one he realises he wants, even as he fights his attraction to the smaller man. PIPPIN tells Ashley he wants him, too, but not just for a quick lay. Pippin wants his first time to be special, and ASHLEY is that special man for Pippin.
I didn’t like what Pippin’s mum does to him, but you kinda saw that one coming like a train wreck and you can’t do anything to stop it.
The only thing, the one thing I cannot forgive is that Pippin doesn’t get a say! I wanted desperately to hear from him, even if it does make it first person/present tense/MULTI point of view (cos that would be my idea of Hell!) I NEEDED Pippin and I don’t get him. And I wanted to know, just what it was about Ashley that pushed his buttons, what he thought when Ashley’s ex turned up (and I LOVED how Pippin reacted to that!) and I wanted to know how he felt about his mum, and what she was doing to him.
That’s the only reason I gave it 4 stars and not 5 stars, was because I did not get Pippin and I really needed him.
I’ve not read anything by this author before, but if they are all this good, I’d gladly inhale a few more!
4 sweet, cute, warm and so bloody fuzzies stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Good Enough - Monsters Fighting Each Other
I grew up in the 1960's watching old monster movies on Saturday afternoons on an old black and white TV in the home I grew up in. A staple of these Saturday afternoon movies was the Godzilla monster movies from Japan, featuring such great monsters as Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah. So, imagine my excitement when I realized that they all would be in the same film.
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Ridge in Books
Mar 15, 2018
When I saw John Rector had another novel coming out I was really excited. I read a previous book of his, <i>Ruthless</i>, which I really enjoyed, so I was sure I was going to like this one, but it didn't live up to my expectations.
This book sounds like it's going to be about a creepy neighbourhood, and while it is, it also isn't. Sure, our characters live in a Stepford Wives feeling place, but we actually only meet 2 or 3 extra characters who live in the neighbourhood, so when the synopsis says something about "exposing the community's pretty lies", there didn't feel like there was much of that. It was far more about a woman digging up secrets on an institute that happens to have all its employees living in one area. This isn't particularly a bad thing, it's just something to note. It's not quite as Stepford Wives as you might think!
This book is 90% conversation and 10% description, so if you're the kind of person who likes descriptive, poetic reads, this certainly won't be for you, but for me, all the speech wasn't an issue, it was sometimes what was being said that I had an issue with. Lots of the time I felt conversation was a little bland, stiff and unrealistic. In terms of descriptive writing, about the neighbourhood or a person, there was nothing special to note. There was also a rehashing of several particular phrases that began to grate on me quite soon into the book.
To begin with, I did really like this novel, I found myself rushing through it, intrigued to know what was going on. It was subtle but it was creepy. Towards the middle, my interest began to dip a bit. I had started to guess what was happening, as well as there being a not-so-exciting reveal. Some parts of the story also started to feel amiss, such as the roses bushes outside of Rachel's being described as "in full bloom" after the scene of her hacking away at them... continuity was sometimes a little shady.
What really let this novel down for me was the characters and the immaturity of them all. None of them felt real, so it was difficult picturing them in situations. Particularly our MC, Megan, who was really juvenile and melodramatic. And naive. Oh so very, stupidly, unrealistically naive. It was so easy to become annoyed by her rash decision making and all the different ways she handled situations. What really got me, was her revealing conversation with Mercer about midway through the book. I couldn't wrap my head around how she could turn around and call him "crazy" after everything she had been through. It felt totally off kilter!
I liked and I didn't like this book. I think it could have been so much creepier and mysterious than it was. I felt there was too much time being spent on Megan's thoughts of Chicago and her marriage to fully appreciate the weirdness of the community she lived in. Ultimately, this book was too simple. It all worked out too well and everything slot perfectly into place, which totally isn't my kind of thriller story.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
This book sounds like it's going to be about a creepy neighbourhood, and while it is, it also isn't. Sure, our characters live in a Stepford Wives feeling place, but we actually only meet 2 or 3 extra characters who live in the neighbourhood, so when the synopsis says something about "exposing the community's pretty lies", there didn't feel like there was much of that. It was far more about a woman digging up secrets on an institute that happens to have all its employees living in one area. This isn't particularly a bad thing, it's just something to note. It's not quite as Stepford Wives as you might think!
This book is 90% conversation and 10% description, so if you're the kind of person who likes descriptive, poetic reads, this certainly won't be for you, but for me, all the speech wasn't an issue, it was sometimes what was being said that I had an issue with. Lots of the time I felt conversation was a little bland, stiff and unrealistic. In terms of descriptive writing, about the neighbourhood or a person, there was nothing special to note. There was also a rehashing of several particular phrases that began to grate on me quite soon into the book.
To begin with, I did really like this novel, I found myself rushing through it, intrigued to know what was going on. It was subtle but it was creepy. Towards the middle, my interest began to dip a bit. I had started to guess what was happening, as well as there being a not-so-exciting reveal. Some parts of the story also started to feel amiss, such as the roses bushes outside of Rachel's being described as "in full bloom" after the scene of her hacking away at them... continuity was sometimes a little shady.
What really let this novel down for me was the characters and the immaturity of them all. None of them felt real, so it was difficult picturing them in situations. Particularly our MC, Megan, who was really juvenile and melodramatic. And naive. Oh so very, stupidly, unrealistically naive. It was so easy to become annoyed by her rash decision making and all the different ways she handled situations. What really got me, was her revealing conversation with Mercer about midway through the book. I couldn't wrap my head around how she could turn around and call him "crazy" after everything she had been through. It felt totally off kilter!
I liked and I didn't like this book. I think it could have been so much creepier and mysterious than it was. I felt there was too much time being spent on Megan's thoughts of Chicago and her marriage to fully appreciate the weirdness of the community she lived in. Ultimately, this book was too simple. It all worked out too well and everything slot perfectly into place, which totally isn't my kind of thriller story.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>