Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2171 KP) rated Murder Buys a One-Way Ticket in Books
Jul 11, 2024 (Updated Jul 11, 2024)
Your One-Way Ticket to Fun
Freelance writer Jaine Austen’s latest client is gym owner Chip Miller. Chip has hired Jaine to ghost write a book on exercise, and she’s been invited to join Chip’s family on a train trip to Santa Barbara and back. While on the train, Jaine learns what a bully Chip is, so it is hardly a surprise when someone kills him. Meanwhile, Lance is trying to join a club in West Hollywood, and enlists Jaine. And her father has decided he’s related to Elvis, and is planning an appearance at a costume party to honor his cousin. Where will it all lead?
Fans of the series (and there are plenty after twenty books) will know what to expect here. And they’ll love Jaine’s latest adventures. I did figure out a key part of the mystery early, but there were other things I wanted to see filled in, and I enjoyed the journey. The characters are more caricature, but they fit the story. That’s because this is an over-the-top comedic mystery. I laughed plenty along the way. When you want a light mystery, this is a series to pick up.
Fans of the series (and there are plenty after twenty books) will know what to expect here. And they’ll love Jaine’s latest adventures. I did figure out a key part of the mystery early, but there were other things I wanted to see filled in, and I enjoyed the journey. The characters are more caricature, but they fit the story. That’s because this is an over-the-top comedic mystery. I laughed plenty along the way. When you want a light mystery, this is a series to pick up.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated Bats In The Belfry in Books
Feb 26, 2018 (Updated Feb 27, 2018)
A Cosy Crime sleeper worthy of resurrection
I’m a huge fan of Cosy Crime, I cut my grown-up reading teeth on Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers, so it should be no surprise that I’m a big fan of the British Library’s inspired decision to republish lost Golden Age novels.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Funny People (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
We all have our favorite Adam Sandler movies. There are the fans of The Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates and there’s the loyal camp who can quote Happy Gilmore or Big Daddy verbatim. You hear the name Adam Sandler’s and you think goofy, lovable guy. Dependably funny and quotable, from the mid-90’s on, he was the go-to comedian when we looked for an easy laugh. Of late, with the growing list of popular movies under his belt, when you think goofy, lovable funny guy, another name comes up: Seth Rogan. In “Funny People” you get them both.
Sandler plays George Simmons, a popular comedian who’s diagnosed with a fatal disease. Playing a comedian is hardly a stretch for Sandler, but for one whose dramatic turns can be counted on one hand, he plays the stricken man who’s suddenly face to face with his immortality quite convincingly. Rogan is Ira Wright, a desperate young comic who’s still vying for stage time at the local comedy club. George, perhaps recognizing a bit of himself or seeing a glimmer of comedic genius in Ira after catching his act, hires Ira to write for him.
Ira goes from writer and personal assistant/confidante to opening act as he helps George deal with his illness. He encourages the veteran comedian to reconnect with his compatriots in the business, opening the film to a parade of old faces from the stand-up circuit. George’s reflections on his life eventually lead him back to a lost love, Laura, played by Leslie Mann. Amidst the funny, laugh-out-loud scenes, are some believably tender moments, not just between Mann and Sandler but also, oddly enough, Sandler and Rogan.
Directing the comedic duo is writer/director Judd Apatow, who gave Rogan that growing list of successful movies after first casting him in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Sandler could certainly use some of Apatow’s Midas-like touch after his recent string of marginal films. With a strong supporting cast of Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman who play Ira’s roommates Leo and Mark and Eric Bana, Laura’s husband, the movie is in turns hilarious and puzzling. The strong storyline of a veteran comedian taking a novice comic under his wings gets lost when George pursues a second chance with an unhappily married Laura. What could’ve been a touching passing of the torch tale is confused by an annoying love triangle. When the movie returns its focus to George and Ira, it’s saved, just barely, by the fact that we’re still watching two of comedy’s goofy, lovable funny guys.
Sandler plays George Simmons, a popular comedian who’s diagnosed with a fatal disease. Playing a comedian is hardly a stretch for Sandler, but for one whose dramatic turns can be counted on one hand, he plays the stricken man who’s suddenly face to face with his immortality quite convincingly. Rogan is Ira Wright, a desperate young comic who’s still vying for stage time at the local comedy club. George, perhaps recognizing a bit of himself or seeing a glimmer of comedic genius in Ira after catching his act, hires Ira to write for him.
Ira goes from writer and personal assistant/confidante to opening act as he helps George deal with his illness. He encourages the veteran comedian to reconnect with his compatriots in the business, opening the film to a parade of old faces from the stand-up circuit. George’s reflections on his life eventually lead him back to a lost love, Laura, played by Leslie Mann. Amidst the funny, laugh-out-loud scenes, are some believably tender moments, not just between Mann and Sandler but also, oddly enough, Sandler and Rogan.
Directing the comedic duo is writer/director Judd Apatow, who gave Rogan that growing list of successful movies after first casting him in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Sandler could certainly use some of Apatow’s Midas-like touch after his recent string of marginal films. With a strong supporting cast of Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman who play Ira’s roommates Leo and Mark and Eric Bana, Laura’s husband, the movie is in turns hilarious and puzzling. The strong storyline of a veteran comedian taking a novice comic under his wings gets lost when George pursues a second chance with an unhappily married Laura. What could’ve been a touching passing of the torch tale is confused by an annoying love triangle. When the movie returns its focus to George and Ira, it’s saved, just barely, by the fact that we’re still watching two of comedy’s goofy, lovable funny guys.
If the Corncrake Calls
Ian Niall, Sheila Pehrson and Barbara Greg (Illustrator)
Book
When the Scottish writer John McNeillie died on the 24th June 2002 aged 85, he left behind a legacy...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Elder Sign in Tabletop Games
Jul 17, 2020 (Updated Jul 18, 2020)
The Theme (3 more)
Solo Gameplay
The Setting
High Replayabity
Little Pieces, Easy to lose (1 more)
Luck of the dice
Call of Cthulhu
Elder Sign- is a excellent fantasy adventure, horror card game. I learn about this game through Tabletop. And to me it looked really good. And plus you can play it solo. So i had to buy it, cause of the solo experience. I only played this solo and its fun, but hard to win. I love the theme of the game which is based on the Cthulhu Mythos of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game. I love both H.P. Lovecraft, and Cthulhu. If you don't know what Elder Sign is I will explain it.
Elder Sign- is a cooperative card and dice game, based on the Cthulhu Mythos of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game. It is published by Fantasy Flight Games, which also produces the Cthulhu Mythos games Arkham Horror, Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, Mansions of Madness, and Eldritch Horror.
Gameplay:
Players randomly select a monster (known as an Ancient One) to oppose. The Ancient One requires a certain number of elder sign tokens to "seal" or imprison it. Conversely, the Ancient One can be "awakened" or released by a number of doom tokens.
There are also many other less powerful monsters that can appear during the game.
Each player chooses an investigator to play as (usually randomly), each investigator having unique abilities.
Players take turns exploring a randomly generated room (there are Adventure cards and Other World cards). If a player succeeds at completing all of the tasks in the room they are exploring, they obtain a reward. Conversely, if they fail, they receive a penalty. If the player's investigator is devoured (either by losing all of their stamina and/or sanity), they lose what they originally had, a doom token is added to the doom track, and the player returns to play as a different investigator.
Rooms are explored until either the Ancient One is "sealed" or "awakened". If the Ancient One is sealed, the players immediately win. If the Ancient One awakens, the players must face it in battle. This battle is designed to be extremely difficult with a low chance of success, so players must try to prevent the Ancient One from awakening at all costs.
Its a excellent gothic horror game, it has fantasy, dice, cards and adventure and alot of replayablity. Buy it if you havent already. Cause its excellent.
Elder Sign- is a cooperative card and dice game, based on the Cthulhu Mythos of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game. It is published by Fantasy Flight Games, which also produces the Cthulhu Mythos games Arkham Horror, Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, Mansions of Madness, and Eldritch Horror.
Gameplay:
Players randomly select a monster (known as an Ancient One) to oppose. The Ancient One requires a certain number of elder sign tokens to "seal" or imprison it. Conversely, the Ancient One can be "awakened" or released by a number of doom tokens.
There are also many other less powerful monsters that can appear during the game.
Each player chooses an investigator to play as (usually randomly), each investigator having unique abilities.
Players take turns exploring a randomly generated room (there are Adventure cards and Other World cards). If a player succeeds at completing all of the tasks in the room they are exploring, they obtain a reward. Conversely, if they fail, they receive a penalty. If the player's investigator is devoured (either by losing all of their stamina and/or sanity), they lose what they originally had, a doom token is added to the doom track, and the player returns to play as a different investigator.
Rooms are explored until either the Ancient One is "sealed" or "awakened". If the Ancient One is sealed, the players immediately win. If the Ancient One awakens, the players must face it in battle. This battle is designed to be extremely difficult with a low chance of success, so players must try to prevent the Ancient One from awakening at all costs.
Its a excellent gothic horror game, it has fantasy, dice, cards and adventure and alot of replayablity. Buy it if you havent already. Cause its excellent.
A muddled faux memoir posing as fiction
This is the eleventh book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
Jay leaves college, determined to become a writer, and heads to Paris. There he meets a young model, Katerina, and falls in love. Twenty-five years later, Jay is a writer--famous and rich--but he's lost his way. Then he receives a message from a lost love. The message draws him back to memories of his old life and his old loves.
Years ago, James Frey dazzled me with A Million Little Pieces and My Friend Leonard. I loved those books so much, and while I was aware of some of the controversy surrounding Pieces, I don't think I fully grasped it. Katerina is a strange book--a memoir type story hidden as a novel that loosely covers Frey's life, including the time he wrote a novel that was sort of a memoir. Following? Confused? Me too.
I thought Katerina was a book, fiction, but it's really Frey's retelling of his life, trying to cast himself as a sympathetic character (I think? Jay doesn't exactly come across as all that likeable.). It did intrigue me enough to read up more on the past controversies of his life and truly, the end result was that I didn't care for Katerina all that much, and I felt disillusioned about Pieces, a book I really enjoyed. Sigh.
Katerina uses the same stream of consciousness writing style from Pieces, and if you don't want your writing filled with profanity and sex, I wouldn't go near Katerina with a ten-foot pole. There's drinking--so much drinking here--that it physically pained me at times. It's an emotional read--Frey excels at that--and there are some twists. I won't lie, I found it interesting at times, and narcissistic and boring at others. Jay is hard to like in the past and present (the book splits it time between the two), but I do not think Frey cares, and it covers Frey's scandals lightly disguised as Jay's.
It's a beautiful love letter to Paris; the descriptions of the city are wonderful. There's no real characterization of Jay's beloved Katerina (the person), though, and many descriptions are just repetitive. The ending comes up quickly, as well.
Overall, while I found pieces of this novel engaging, I was disappointed overall. Honestly, I'll probably never be able to capture the magic I found in Frey's early works. 2.5 stars.
Jay leaves college, determined to become a writer, and heads to Paris. There he meets a young model, Katerina, and falls in love. Twenty-five years later, Jay is a writer--famous and rich--but he's lost his way. Then he receives a message from a lost love. The message draws him back to memories of his old life and his old loves.
Years ago, James Frey dazzled me with A Million Little Pieces and My Friend Leonard. I loved those books so much, and while I was aware of some of the controversy surrounding Pieces, I don't think I fully grasped it. Katerina is a strange book--a memoir type story hidden as a novel that loosely covers Frey's life, including the time he wrote a novel that was sort of a memoir. Following? Confused? Me too.
I thought Katerina was a book, fiction, but it's really Frey's retelling of his life, trying to cast himself as a sympathetic character (I think? Jay doesn't exactly come across as all that likeable.). It did intrigue me enough to read up more on the past controversies of his life and truly, the end result was that I didn't care for Katerina all that much, and I felt disillusioned about Pieces, a book I really enjoyed. Sigh.
Katerina uses the same stream of consciousness writing style from Pieces, and if you don't want your writing filled with profanity and sex, I wouldn't go near Katerina with a ten-foot pole. There's drinking--so much drinking here--that it physically pained me at times. It's an emotional read--Frey excels at that--and there are some twists. I won't lie, I found it interesting at times, and narcissistic and boring at others. Jay is hard to like in the past and present (the book splits it time between the two), but I do not think Frey cares, and it covers Frey's scandals lightly disguised as Jay's.
It's a beautiful love letter to Paris; the descriptions of the city are wonderful. There's no real characterization of Jay's beloved Katerina (the person), though, and many descriptions are just repetitive. The ending comes up quickly, as well.
Overall, while I found pieces of this novel engaging, I was disappointed overall. Honestly, I'll probably never be able to capture the magic I found in Frey's early works. 2.5 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated To Tell You The Truth in Books
Oct 8, 2020
A twisty thriller with a disappointing ending
Lucy Harper is a famous writer, known for her crime fiction stories featuring her beloved character, Eliza. Her work has made her wealthy, something that particularly pleases her husband, Dan, a once aspiring writer who now "manages" Lucy's career and money. Lucy and Dan's life and marriage look perfect from the outside, but they are anything but. Then Dan suddenly goes missing. His disappearance reminds Lucy of another time someone vanished from her life: her younger brother, Teddy, who was lost in the woods very near the house Lucy and Dan now live in. Soon Lucy finds herself reminded more and more of her past, which seems to be quickly and dangerously colliding with her present.
"After all, what kind of person creates a character who walks right out of their books and into their life? He would think I'd lost my mind."
I absolutely adore Gilly Macmillan and her books, but this was not one of my all-time favorites. It's still good, though, and twisty, and I will admit that I didn't guess the (rather bizarre) outcome. However, the ending leaves much to be desired and does not wrap everything up, which left me frustrated. (And seemed to kick off a trend in my recent thrillers, where things end with plot pieces left hanging--I'm not okay with this.)
Lucy is an unreliable narrator extraordinaire--ever since she was small, she's had a best friend named Eliza. Why yes, Eliza happens to be the name of her fictional character, as well. Lucy talks to her imaginary friend, who seems to have untold power over her. If this sounds weird and creepy, it is, and Macmillan does a good job with the eerie oddity of it all and allowing us to wonder if we can trust anything that Lucy--or Eliza--say. Knowing who and what to believe is certainly a central theme here.
Dan, meanwhile, is absolutely despicable, and I was not too sad when he disappeared, honestly. The story alternates between present-day, with Lucy's point of view, and the past, around the time Teddy disappeared. It's certainly compelling. All in all, I would have probably rated this 4-stars if there had been a better ending, versus one that felt rushed and forced, without tying up all the loose ends. This is still a good, atmospheric thriller, with plenty of twists. 3.5 stars. And if you want to read more from Macmillan, I highly recommend The Perfect Girl or her Jim Clemo series--all books that I adore.
"After all, what kind of person creates a character who walks right out of their books and into their life? He would think I'd lost my mind."
I absolutely adore Gilly Macmillan and her books, but this was not one of my all-time favorites. It's still good, though, and twisty, and I will admit that I didn't guess the (rather bizarre) outcome. However, the ending leaves much to be desired and does not wrap everything up, which left me frustrated. (And seemed to kick off a trend in my recent thrillers, where things end with plot pieces left hanging--I'm not okay with this.)
Lucy is an unreliable narrator extraordinaire--ever since she was small, she's had a best friend named Eliza. Why yes, Eliza happens to be the name of her fictional character, as well. Lucy talks to her imaginary friend, who seems to have untold power over her. If this sounds weird and creepy, it is, and Macmillan does a good job with the eerie oddity of it all and allowing us to wonder if we can trust anything that Lucy--or Eliza--say. Knowing who and what to believe is certainly a central theme here.
Dan, meanwhile, is absolutely despicable, and I was not too sad when he disappeared, honestly. The story alternates between present-day, with Lucy's point of view, and the past, around the time Teddy disappeared. It's certainly compelling. All in all, I would have probably rated this 4-stars if there had been a better ending, versus one that felt rushed and forced, without tying up all the loose ends. This is still a good, atmospheric thriller, with plenty of twists. 3.5 stars. And if you want to read more from Macmillan, I highly recommend The Perfect Girl or her Jim Clemo series--all books that I adore.
Score Creator: compose music
Music and Entertainment
App
Score Creator is a musical composition application that is specially designed for mobile platform....
What Makes Sammy Run?
Book
Everyone of us knows someone who runs. He is one of the symptoms of our times - from the little man...