Reviews with content warning for Panic attacks/disorders - Truly Devious

I’ve heard so many great things about Truly Devious, and I am glad to say it did not disappoint!

Truly Devious follows Stevie Bell, a true crime and mystery novel enthusiast, as she begins her first year at Ellingham Academy, a private school for gifted students known for a series of murders that occurred in the 1930s. Stevie arrives at the school, determined to finally solve the case, but does not expect that another crime may take place right in front of her.

This mystery is solved over the course of a trilogy, so the pacing of this book is slower than standalone mysteries I have read. Although I typically don’t enjoy slower placed books, I actually really loved this choice! It was really great to get to know Stevie, her peers, and the school as a whole.

This novel kept me engaged the whole way through, and I am so happy the sequel is out so I can read it very soon!

Content Warnings

m4rtt4's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.75

A good start for the series, though it was very obvious from the text that it's a part of something bigger and doesn't really work as a standalone. The characters felt pretty shallow and stereotypically one-dimensional, but I could brush that off as the book's focus was more on the murders and the atmosphere really managed to creep me out at times — also the surroundings of the boarding school were well created and described. I'm excited to read the sequel, but I seriously hope it's got some more depth and action in it🤞🏻

Content Warnings

themoodreader's review against another edition

Go to review page

mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

Content Warnings

lily1304's review against another edition

Go to review page

fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix

The thing that kept me off guard was the utter lack of concern about the police in this book? All these kids talking to police left and right without their parents present, let alone lawyers? Is that not very obviously a bad idea?? Every single character is like "yeah of course these teens should talk to the police, alone, immediately" literally WHAT

I get that the main character is really into true crime, but it seems like she never took a second to think about the negatives of true crime? You'd think if it's something you've dedicated your life to, even if you're a teenager, you'd read the Wikipedia section called "Criticisms" and think about the glorification of police and the distraction from the everyday, un-podcast-worthy violence that kills many more people than serial killers ever did? A character name-checks J Edgar Hoover! Was that supposed to be ironic??

In the same vein, "anarchists" are this vague shadowy group that operates in the 1930s murder the main character is investigating. The book is clear that the anarchists likely aren't actually responsible, but it's weird they're thrown in there as a Boogeyman without ever examining why they might have had beef with Mr. Rich who founded the school. "He was a philanthropist! A good guy! He funded the town's schools and fire departments and police officers!" HMMM.

That said... I mean, I did stay up late to finish it and i immediately put a hold on the sequel. There's a chance that the series is self aware about these things and will develop some more complex ideas about crime and justice in the later books. I'm genuinely very curious where the story is going.

Content Warnings

maggie_andthebooks's review

Go to review page

adventurous mysterious medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

1.0

Lol originally was a 4 star but the more I thought about it the more I realised I actually didn’t like anything about this story. I think the only think I liked about it was the murder mystery aspect.

I didn’t like the characters, the love story just felt forced and the flash backs were just annoying ans don’t even get me started on the ending!

Full review will be on https://www.instagram.com/maggie_andthebooks/

Content Warnings

tangleroot_eli's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous lighthearted reflective fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No

I really like many things about this book. It's fast-paced and witty and acknowledges its sleuthing roots without being completely wedded to the genre's tropes.

That said, I felt annoyed or outright alarmed about several things in the book that made it harder to get through than I'd expected.

I know how pedantic this sounds, but the kidnapper is not called "Truly Devious." They're called "Devious." The "Truly" is the letter's closing, like "Love, Tipper," "Sincerely, Your Friends at State Farm," etc. And while I bought that Stevie, a 21st-century teenager who probably doesn't write many formal letters, wouldn't know this, the idea that the 1936 characters would look at a letter signed "Truly, Devious" and call that letter-writer "Truly Devious" was one of the least believable parts of the book.
Relatively early in the book, Janelle tells Stevie that Vi uses they/them pronouns. Stevie proceeds to use she/her pronouns for Vi for the rest of the book. From this I have to conclude that either Stevie, Maureen Johnson, or the Katherine Tegen copyeditors don't care about respecting people's pronouns.
I did note the book's one solid clue as to Devious's identity before Stevie starts putting things together in the end. But it was so obvious and heavy-handed in an otherwise subtle book that I immediately dismissed it as a red herring. The fact that it genuinely is a clue? I'm still not sure if that's sloppy writing or sheer genius on Johnson's part.
The book never points toward an adult as a possibility for Hayes's killer. I think this is Johnson's way of showing how little adults matter to Stevie: they're either obstacles to overcome, like her parents, or mentors to learn from, like Larry. But in a book about and allegedly for teenagers, I was disconcerted that the only suspects were teenagers.
How do I loathe David? Let me count the ways. He's not funny. He's not charming. He's a classist, misogynist, douchey edgelord who thinks that being an ass to pretty much everyone he meets is the way to stick it to his morality- and propriety-obsessed father and doesn't realize or care that he's actually recapitulating his father's worst behaviors. The first time he and Stevie kissed, I groaned, "Noooo! Not this asshole!" The “if a boy is mean to you, that means he likes you, and you should totally go along with that” trope needs to die yesterday. After the scene where David wheedles his way into lunch with Stevie's parents, I was so livid I almost couldn't read on. This isn't my first teen sleuth rodeo. I understand that Johnson writes David this way so that when Stevie starts to suspect that Hayes' death was murder, readers immediately think of disdainful, deceitful David and share Stevie's panic: Is he a killer? Has she been making out with a killer? But this is done in such a clunky way that Johnson may as well put David in a T-shirt that says, This schmuck isn't the killer. But if he's not a killer, he's still a schmuck. I'll read to the end of the original trilogy, because I'm too interested in the Ellingham case and Hayes' death not to know how they resolve. But if David continues to be a major player and doesn't have a major character transformation, I'll not be reading the standalones, because no one needs that much schmuck.

Content Warnings

More...