Scan barcode
epeolatri's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Death of parent, and Murder
Moderate: Cancer, Child death, Chronic illness, Terminal illness, Violence, and Blood
Minor: Ableism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Infidelity, and Suicide
rieviolet's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Murder
Moderate: Child abuse, Domestic abuse, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Violence, and Blood
Minor: Ableism, Animal death, Cancer, Child death, Fatphobia, Homophobia, Mental illness, Pedophilia, Dementia, and Fire/Fire injury
beatriks's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
Excellent whodunnit and I also liked the surroundimg Story of Susan Rusland.
I would have given a little bit more intro in the beginning, but overall, it was quite a pleasant read.
The fictional interview of Anthony Horowitz with Alan Conway was a real treat.
I would have given a little bit more intro in the beginning, but overall, it was quite a pleasant read.
The fictional interview of Anthony Horowitz with Alan Conway was a real treat.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Blood and Murder
Moderate: Animal death, Child death, Medical content, and Death of parent
Minor: Suicide, Terminal illness, Toxic friendship, and Alcohol
kateschu's review against another edition
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Murder
Moderate: Cancer, Suicide, Terminal illness, Violence, and Blood
Minor: Animal death, Child death, and Cursing
annalisaely's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.0
I read this for a bookclub, and I have to admit this is one of the reason I don't do book clubs. Finding a book that is to everyone's tastes is hard. 1: I like likable characters. There were none in this book. Joy wasn't horrible, but she could hardly carry the book considering the size of her part. 2: I don't like who-dun-its unless the investigator is interesting and likable enough to carry my interest and enjoyment, and I felt meh about Atticus and openly hated the editor (the in story editor, the actual editor is probably a lovely person). Why did I openly hate said editor? Well, I'm autistic. So the first time a body-discoverer was described by a doctor character as "possibly a little autistic" my metaphorical ears perked up and I felt a little stabbing pain in my chest as I internally pleaded to the author, "Please don't be ableist, please don't be horrible to this character."
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism and Terminal illness
Moderate: Animal death, Child death, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, and Death of parent
readerette's review against another edition
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I much preferred the Atticus Pünd story (the "inner" mystery) to the "outer" mystery that wrapped around it about Alan Conway, the author of the Atticus Pünd stories. I didn't much like Susan Ryeland's character voice, and while I didn't guess the whodunnit in either mystery, the behavior of the revealed perpetrator in the "outer" mystery didn't feel in line with their character, which cheapened the whole ending of Susan's story for me.
Content Warnings
Minor: Animal death, Cancer, Child death, Chronic illness, Death, Infidelity, Mental illness, Terminal illness, Violence, Blood, and Grief
frillyflutee's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death and Death
Moderate: Animal death, Cancer, Suicide, and Violence
Minor: Suicidal thoughts and Terminal illness
tashadandelion's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I don't tend to read traditional whodunnits all that often, but something about the literary/meta twist to this book's plot drew me in. I enjoyed it and in particular really liked Susan Ryeland, the book editor-turned-sleuth. The pages turned easily, and I especially liked having to wait for the interrupted mystery-within-a-mystery to be resolved at the very end, but was perhaps slightly let down by the reveal in that story. The reveal in the "real-life" story was far more satisfying and well-constructed, IMO.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death and Violence
Minor: Child death
caitlin_bookchats's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Suicide, and Terminal illness
Minor: Suicidal thoughts