Search
LDS Dating - Mutual Belief Singles Chat & Mingle
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Welcome to LDSmate - the most up to date and easy to use LDS dating app for people who want to chat...
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Ada: Legend of a Healer in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Ada has the unique ability of being able to heal anything she touches. Having lived in the foster care system her whole life, she finally gets the opportunity to live with her aunt, Jessie, who is also a healer, and explains her special ability. But Ada and Jessie have different viewpoints on a healer's responsibility, and Ada decides she's had enough. She takes off on her own heading to Paris with only an address and a photograph to attempt to find her mother, who she discovers isn't dead.
There's just one problem: There's a man who wants to find her and use her as his personal fountain of youth.
Reviewing self-published books is a tricky business. There's a wide range of them: the really crappy ones that make the editor inside me want to cry, the mediocre ones that are just missing a story, and then the occasional gem that I'm so glad I managed to get my hands on. I've had one or two other gems: Ada makes the list, and is pretty high up on it.
I loved Ada's story. I read it almost completely in one sitting. I liked Ada, and admired her will power and strength. We didn't see eye to eye on everything, and I thought she was immature and disrespectful at times, but I could still relate to her well enough that I couldn't hate her for it. About halfway through the book, some characters were introduced that I didn't expect to stay in the story, simply because of the way they were brought in. But isn't that the way our lives work? We meet someone and aren't sure if we'll ever really see them again, but they end up as our friends, and sometimes it's someone really special? That was Ada and Daniel. Daniel is going to have to be added to my list of literary crushes. Not only is he good looking, he's a "bad boy" and a sweetheart at the same time. And he's got a delicious smile. And he does Parkour. And he's French.
The writing was clear and descriptive and easy to understand. It wasn't perfect and there were a few irritating sections with poor grammar, but it didn't distract from the overall piece enough to bring down the star rating.
One of the things I really liked was the pacing. Sometimes a book has an interesting plot, but it takes way too long for things to actually happen that you fall asleep, or have to read an entire series just to get the same amount of plot you're looking for in a single novel (coughtwilightcough). The pacing was really fast in Ada, almost to the point where I wished it was just a little slower so I could really concentrate on what Ada was thinking and feeling.
There was one very tiny part that I didn't like. At one point, Ada tries to practice healing herself, so she takes a pair of scissors to her arm. I thought this was completely inappropriate and very risky, because through Ada's interior monologue, it almost seemed to show self-cutting in a good light. Yes she was practicing healing herself and learning to ignore pain, and trying to figure out her power, and Ada thought it through well enough that the reader would understand why she was doing it, but it just seemed bold and risky. Because of that, I wouldn't want young young adults to read it—I feel like it would make them uncomfortable. I also can't help but wonder what kind of influence that will have on young readers.
Scattered through the book were some truly beautiful illustrations. I found myself flipping through them and just staring at them. They have a pen-and-ink with watercolor sort of feel to them: very lose and impressionistic, almost dreamlike, but with wild pen and scratches thrown through to add definition. Here are two of my favorites (very poor quality photos, though, so I apologize ahead of time).
All in all, I was very pleased and excited about Ada: Legend of a Healer, and I can't wait for the next book in the series.
Content/Recommendation: Some swearing, small reference to self-abuse. Ages 16+
There's just one problem: There's a man who wants to find her and use her as his personal fountain of youth.
Reviewing self-published books is a tricky business. There's a wide range of them: the really crappy ones that make the editor inside me want to cry, the mediocre ones that are just missing a story, and then the occasional gem that I'm so glad I managed to get my hands on. I've had one or two other gems: Ada makes the list, and is pretty high up on it.
I loved Ada's story. I read it almost completely in one sitting. I liked Ada, and admired her will power and strength. We didn't see eye to eye on everything, and I thought she was immature and disrespectful at times, but I could still relate to her well enough that I couldn't hate her for it. About halfway through the book, some characters were introduced that I didn't expect to stay in the story, simply because of the way they were brought in. But isn't that the way our lives work? We meet someone and aren't sure if we'll ever really see them again, but they end up as our friends, and sometimes it's someone really special? That was Ada and Daniel. Daniel is going to have to be added to my list of literary crushes. Not only is he good looking, he's a "bad boy" and a sweetheart at the same time. And he's got a delicious smile. And he does Parkour. And he's French.
The writing was clear and descriptive and easy to understand. It wasn't perfect and there were a few irritating sections with poor grammar, but it didn't distract from the overall piece enough to bring down the star rating.
One of the things I really liked was the pacing. Sometimes a book has an interesting plot, but it takes way too long for things to actually happen that you fall asleep, or have to read an entire series just to get the same amount of plot you're looking for in a single novel (coughtwilightcough). The pacing was really fast in Ada, almost to the point where I wished it was just a little slower so I could really concentrate on what Ada was thinking and feeling.
There was one very tiny part that I didn't like. At one point, Ada tries to practice healing herself, so she takes a pair of scissors to her arm. I thought this was completely inappropriate and very risky, because through Ada's interior monologue, it almost seemed to show self-cutting in a good light. Yes she was practicing healing herself and learning to ignore pain, and trying to figure out her power, and Ada thought it through well enough that the reader would understand why she was doing it, but it just seemed bold and risky. Because of that, I wouldn't want young young adults to read it—I feel like it would make them uncomfortable. I also can't help but wonder what kind of influence that will have on young readers.
Scattered through the book were some truly beautiful illustrations. I found myself flipping through them and just staring at them. They have a pen-and-ink with watercolor sort of feel to them: very lose and impressionistic, almost dreamlike, but with wild pen and scratches thrown through to add definition. Here are two of my favorites (very poor quality photos, though, so I apologize ahead of time).
All in all, I was very pleased and excited about Ada: Legend of a Healer, and I can't wait for the next book in the series.
Content/Recommendation: Some swearing, small reference to self-abuse. Ages 16+
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Fractured in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/fractured-by-catherine-mckenzie
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Samaritan (2018) in Movies
Oct 3, 2018 (Updated Oct 3, 2018)
Tacky jump-scares (1 more)
Constantly asks you to accept huge leaps of logic
What A Waste
Bad Samaritan is a movie that I really should have liked. I am a huge fan of David Tennant, I love a decent thriller movie and the trailer for the movie teased an intriguing plot as well. Unfortunately, I didn't like much of it, in fact it really annoyed me how little I liked when watching this thing.
Let's start off with the cast. David Tennant is, - as he always is, - absolutely fantastic in this role. In any other better movie, he would be in with a shout for an award for this role, unfortunately he is surrounded by absolutely overwhelming amount of trash. Robert Sheehan does a serviceable job with what he has given, but some of the lines he delivers are just too forced and cheesy to be taken seriously. The actor playing his best friend is just playing a stereotypical nonchalant small time criminal. Kerry Condon plays the hostage that David Tennant is keeping in his house and she also does a decent enough job with the shoddy material she has been given to work with.
The only other positive that I can think of other than Tennant's performance, is the way that Tennant's character systematically ruins Sheehan's character's life. He makes him lose his job, he blackmails him via social media, he attacks his girlfriend and he wrecks his car. The way that this sequence played out reminded me of Frank Miller's Daredevil story Born Again, where Kingpin learns Daredevil's real identity and destroys his life piece by piece via the people he cares about. Don't get me wrong, it is done far better in Born Again and Born Again is a much better story overall than Bad Samaritan, but it was the only element of this movies plot that I liked other than what we already saw in the trailers.
Now that we have discussed the few positives that this movie has, let's go through everything else. First of all, I have never heard a more out-of-place, inappropriate score to go along with what is happening onscreen. It genuinely felt like a temp score that was put in preliminarily until the proper one was put in and then they just left it in and didn't bother going back to improve it.
Then there was the cheap jump-scares, Although they are mostly consigned to the first act in the movie, they are still far too frequent and totally unnecessary. The last one that I remember happening was so egregious, (when David Tennant was standing behind the detective outside the house,) it actually bordered on parody. There was no story justification for it whatsoever, why would this guy who is trying to appear normal and as if nothing is wrong, creep up behind a detective who is investigating him and just stand there like a creep to give him a fright? It makes absolutely no sense. To be honest, the movie is abundant with things that don't make any sense and you are almost constantly asked to make huge leaps of logic when watching it.
There's also the fact that this movie has no idea what it wants to be. Dean Devlin who directed this, also directed last year's Geostorm. Now Geostorm was a steaming pile of shit, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. The tone in Bad Samaritan is totally all over the place and doesn't work in any way or flow well at all. This movie also plays like a check-list of thriller movie clichés. Everything from cheesy flashbacks showing the villains messed up past to the detectives not believing the protagonist's claims even when he has photo evidence on his phone.
Overall, this film is a huge waste. David Tennant's fantastic performance that he puts in here as an unhinged, genuinely scary villain is wasted in this trash movie. The trailers showed us a potentially thrilling plot that could have really been exciting and engaging only to totally waste it on a flick full of mediocre production elements and a half baked storyline. The only reason that this scored 4 was because of Tennant's brilliant performance, if not for that, this movie would have scored a 2 at best.
Let's start off with the cast. David Tennant is, - as he always is, - absolutely fantastic in this role. In any other better movie, he would be in with a shout for an award for this role, unfortunately he is surrounded by absolutely overwhelming amount of trash. Robert Sheehan does a serviceable job with what he has given, but some of the lines he delivers are just too forced and cheesy to be taken seriously. The actor playing his best friend is just playing a stereotypical nonchalant small time criminal. Kerry Condon plays the hostage that David Tennant is keeping in his house and she also does a decent enough job with the shoddy material she has been given to work with.
The only other positive that I can think of other than Tennant's performance, is the way that Tennant's character systematically ruins Sheehan's character's life. He makes him lose his job, he blackmails him via social media, he attacks his girlfriend and he wrecks his car. The way that this sequence played out reminded me of Frank Miller's Daredevil story Born Again, where Kingpin learns Daredevil's real identity and destroys his life piece by piece via the people he cares about. Don't get me wrong, it is done far better in Born Again and Born Again is a much better story overall than Bad Samaritan, but it was the only element of this movies plot that I liked other than what we already saw in the trailers.
Now that we have discussed the few positives that this movie has, let's go through everything else. First of all, I have never heard a more out-of-place, inappropriate score to go along with what is happening onscreen. It genuinely felt like a temp score that was put in preliminarily until the proper one was put in and then they just left it in and didn't bother going back to improve it.
Then there was the cheap jump-scares, Although they are mostly consigned to the first act in the movie, they are still far too frequent and totally unnecessary. The last one that I remember happening was so egregious, (when David Tennant was standing behind the detective outside the house,) it actually bordered on parody. There was no story justification for it whatsoever, why would this guy who is trying to appear normal and as if nothing is wrong, creep up behind a detective who is investigating him and just stand there like a creep to give him a fright? It makes absolutely no sense. To be honest, the movie is abundant with things that don't make any sense and you are almost constantly asked to make huge leaps of logic when watching it.
There's also the fact that this movie has no idea what it wants to be. Dean Devlin who directed this, also directed last year's Geostorm. Now Geostorm was a steaming pile of shit, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. The tone in Bad Samaritan is totally all over the place and doesn't work in any way or flow well at all. This movie also plays like a check-list of thriller movie clichés. Everything from cheesy flashbacks showing the villains messed up past to the detectives not believing the protagonist's claims even when he has photo evidence on his phone.
Overall, this film is a huge waste. David Tennant's fantastic performance that he puts in here as an unhinged, genuinely scary villain is wasted in this trash movie. The trailers showed us a potentially thrilling plot that could have really been exciting and engaging only to totally waste it on a flick full of mediocre production elements and a half baked storyline. The only reason that this scored 4 was because of Tennant's brilliant performance, if not for that, this movie would have scored a 2 at best.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
An honest, captivating and respectful biopic
Biopics are not easy to perfect and when you’re dealing with an iconic figure such as Freddie Mercury, it becomes even harder. When this film was announced it seemed natural to feel a little bit of apprehension, because could anyone really portray Freddie? Who could bring him to life on screen before thousands of fans? Thankfully, for me at least, my worries were soon quenched as soon as I began to watch it. I thought was a stunning film and I have no problem admitting that brought tears to my eyes on several occasions.
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Devil's Workshop in Books
Jan 10, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Devil’s Workshop by Donnally Miller is one of the few books that I felt like I had to read twice, and did. Even after that I still feel like I am missing quite a bit of what this book has to offer. If there were ever a book that deserves to be torn apart (and I mean that in the best possible sense) and be studied in depth to have all the hidden meanings exposed this is it. However, I am not the one to do it.
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Gay Chat & Dating - Partner
Dating and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Partner is a cool gay dating app for real communication only. Our superiority over other dating...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Way Way Back (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Prior to the press screening for The Way, Way Back I had little knowledge of the film. Despite the heavy hitters in this film, including Steve Carell, Toni Collette and Sam Rockwell, I did not expect to be amazed by the movie. Even as I entered the theater and the studio reps were handing out sunglasses, t-shirts and beach balls I had little hope for the movie. Typically, great films are not promoted through cheap novelties.
Fortunately for us all, The Way, Way Back turned out to be a surprisingly delightful movie with a lot of heart. IT is way, way better than its marketing campaign, that’s for sure.
The movie centers on 14-year-old Duncan (Liam James), a kind of dorky and awkward teenager whose mother, Pam (Toni Collette), brings him along to an extended summer vacation on the Massachusetts coast. Duncan would rather be spending time with his father than his mother and her unlikeable boyfriend, Trent (Steve Carell), and his stuck up teenage drama-queen daughter, Steph (Zoe Levlin).
Duncan finds little of interest in the small beach town, and immediately feels alienated from the rest of his group. This is until he meets Susanna (AnnaSophia Robb), the brainy, older woman (16) who is staying next door with her hilariously blunt mother, Betty (Allison Janney), a friend of Trent’s. The two teens make an immediate, if not awkward connection, and share in the bond of thinking the town sucks, both being children of divorce, and their families are unbearable.
Aside from Susanna, Duncan finds an even better excuse to disappear and avoid the likes of his would-be family at the local water park, where he develops an unlikely friendship with Owen (Sam Rockwell), owner of Water Wizz. Sensing that Duncan is a lonely, outcast teen looking for place to belong, Owen hires him to work at the water park. Duncan is so alienated from his family that he doesn’t even bother mention to them that he is employed. Instead, he pretends to that he is just hanging out all day not really doing anything.
If this all sounds eerily familiar, it’s because The Way, Way Back follows a formula that most standard-issue summer vacation/coming of age movie does. But familiar isn’t always bad. The Way, Way Back has genuinely funny humor to it, and the characters are very relatable. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that you were comparing them to others in your life, or that you may have met along the way. I know I was.
In fact, the film’s undeniable charm lies in its appealing, and not so appealing, characters, all portrayed excellently by a cast with a surprising amount of credibility for a film of this genre. James, a relatively new name, plays Duncan superbly, displaying the sort of low self-esteem that drives other kids to mock him. Anyone who does, or has, ever retreated into a lonely, nerdy, self-absorbed world will understand his angst and immediately attach themselves to Duncan. Especially in the early scenes that Duncan shares with Susanna, who obviously terrifies him with her confidence and beauty.
Rockwell steals every scene he is in as the ever-wisecracking Owen. He is your typical summer comedy character that you see in every film of this sort – the fast-talking adult male prankster whom all the kids flock to – but Rockwell plays the part with great depth. Beneath all of his bravado and clowning, there is clearly a man who has a lot of soul and cares about those around him. This side of Owen is brought out by Caitlin (Maya Rudolph), Owen’s park manager and sometimes girlfriend.
Carell takes on an unusual to most role as Trent, the films antagonist, if there really is one in this genre. He is one of the guys who is kind of a jerk, but not enough for you to really hate. Collette plays her part well, but doesn’t really get a significant amount of focus in the film. The funniest character of the fill is the over-the-top inappropriate Betty, a mom with a mean steak who does her best to embarrass her children and make everyone cringe with her nosy questions and open sexual frankness. Janney plays her with perfect comic timing.
I spoke with a friend, who also screened this movie, and he felt the movie played it too safe. He wanted it to explore the film’s darker themes more (family dysfunction, career frustration, teenage alienation) with much more insight. The one point I did agree with him was that Collette’s character was too underwritten to fully explain Pam’s tense relationships with, well… everyone. This is accentuated by the ending of the film where based on the buildup, I expected a much different action from her.
Still, The Way, Way Back is a delightful and smartly funny film that is sure to entertain you, and has a bit more gravitas than most summer comedies. I can tell you that I will be sporting my white “Ray-Ban”-esque sunglasses.
Fortunately for us all, The Way, Way Back turned out to be a surprisingly delightful movie with a lot of heart. IT is way, way better than its marketing campaign, that’s for sure.
The movie centers on 14-year-old Duncan (Liam James), a kind of dorky and awkward teenager whose mother, Pam (Toni Collette), brings him along to an extended summer vacation on the Massachusetts coast. Duncan would rather be spending time with his father than his mother and her unlikeable boyfriend, Trent (Steve Carell), and his stuck up teenage drama-queen daughter, Steph (Zoe Levlin).
Duncan finds little of interest in the small beach town, and immediately feels alienated from the rest of his group. This is until he meets Susanna (AnnaSophia Robb), the brainy, older woman (16) who is staying next door with her hilariously blunt mother, Betty (Allison Janney), a friend of Trent’s. The two teens make an immediate, if not awkward connection, and share in the bond of thinking the town sucks, both being children of divorce, and their families are unbearable.
Aside from Susanna, Duncan finds an even better excuse to disappear and avoid the likes of his would-be family at the local water park, where he develops an unlikely friendship with Owen (Sam Rockwell), owner of Water Wizz. Sensing that Duncan is a lonely, outcast teen looking for place to belong, Owen hires him to work at the water park. Duncan is so alienated from his family that he doesn’t even bother mention to them that he is employed. Instead, he pretends to that he is just hanging out all day not really doing anything.
If this all sounds eerily familiar, it’s because The Way, Way Back follows a formula that most standard-issue summer vacation/coming of age movie does. But familiar isn’t always bad. The Way, Way Back has genuinely funny humor to it, and the characters are very relatable. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that you were comparing them to others in your life, or that you may have met along the way. I know I was.
In fact, the film’s undeniable charm lies in its appealing, and not so appealing, characters, all portrayed excellently by a cast with a surprising amount of credibility for a film of this genre. James, a relatively new name, plays Duncan superbly, displaying the sort of low self-esteem that drives other kids to mock him. Anyone who does, or has, ever retreated into a lonely, nerdy, self-absorbed world will understand his angst and immediately attach themselves to Duncan. Especially in the early scenes that Duncan shares with Susanna, who obviously terrifies him with her confidence and beauty.
Rockwell steals every scene he is in as the ever-wisecracking Owen. He is your typical summer comedy character that you see in every film of this sort – the fast-talking adult male prankster whom all the kids flock to – but Rockwell plays the part with great depth. Beneath all of his bravado and clowning, there is clearly a man who has a lot of soul and cares about those around him. This side of Owen is brought out by Caitlin (Maya Rudolph), Owen’s park manager and sometimes girlfriend.
Carell takes on an unusual to most role as Trent, the films antagonist, if there really is one in this genre. He is one of the guys who is kind of a jerk, but not enough for you to really hate. Collette plays her part well, but doesn’t really get a significant amount of focus in the film. The funniest character of the fill is the over-the-top inappropriate Betty, a mom with a mean steak who does her best to embarrass her children and make everyone cringe with her nosy questions and open sexual frankness. Janney plays her with perfect comic timing.
I spoke with a friend, who also screened this movie, and he felt the movie played it too safe. He wanted it to explore the film’s darker themes more (family dysfunction, career frustration, teenage alienation) with much more insight. The one point I did agree with him was that Collette’s character was too underwritten to fully explain Pam’s tense relationships with, well… everyone. This is accentuated by the ending of the film where based on the buildup, I expected a much different action from her.
Still, The Way, Way Back is a delightful and smartly funny film that is sure to entertain you, and has a bit more gravitas than most summer comedies. I can tell you that I will be sporting my white “Ray-Ban”-esque sunglasses.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.