Reviews

Wilson turns a simple concept into a story of a man going down a rabbit hole of morally grey. I usually don't like books where nothing really happens--the main plotline happens years before the "present" and is recounted to the narrator--but I think this one did a good job of showing how the journey of Jeff Cook. He and Francis become/are the same person, a person who toes the line between ambition and exploitation, human and God, morality and deserving. But Wilson does a fantastic job of showing how Jeff grapples with this and how he has convinced himself that he is a decent person and that he did what he had to do in any given situation. I think a lot of people think this, that even though the sum of our decisions may ultimately make us bad people the individual decisions we make are morally good. It's interesting to me too because the unnamed narrator (Wilson in another universe?) seems to almost take after this perceived inevitable plunge into morally grey behavior. He recognizes Francis as a bad person, he recognizes Jeff as a bad person--and yet even though he writes that he never intended/wanted to write a book about what Jeff told him in the first place, he HAS written a book. He's written a book that he's likely going to profit off of and build a life from.

inthebelljar's review

Go to review page

3.0

I enjoyed Mouth to Mouth alright, but I think the biggest issue with this book is how it has been marketed/blurbed. This is absolutely not a thriller - I wouldn't even say it's a mystery or anything like that. It really came across more of a literary character study with questions of morality and truth and how we twist things to match our mental image of ourselves.

The primary story of Mouth to Mouth already happened years ago and is being told within a frame story: our narrating main character runs into a college classmate (whom he barely knew back in the day) while waiting for a delayed flight to Germany, his classmate - Jeff Cook - proceeds to tell him a pretty messed up story about his life right after graduation, beginning with him saving the life of a stranger at the beach. Despite the two never having been friends, Jeff admits he's never told anyone this before. The primary question of the novella then becomes: Why is Jeff telling him this story? Why now? Why the main character of all people?

I liked a lot of the questions and themes explored in this - but I felt like it was almost too long despite being under 200 pages. Not much happens! And that's fine in some ways, I liked the weird unhinged reveal of Jeff going from just curious about if the guy he saved is okay (and totally wanting a reward, regardless of what he said) to viewing himself as some sort of God-like judge of whether this man he saved deserved to be saved. I liked the ways that Jeff manipulated his story to make him seem so reasonable and a decent, good guy despite the literal stalking and eventual murder - how he rejects the idea that he's just like the man he saves and grows to hate despite being a real mirror image of him.

But also: why even have this frame story? The narrator doesn't point anything out that I didn't already notice. In fact, it felt a bit heavy-handed at times to have him saying things like, "oh isn't that stalking?", etc., when yes, I already kind of got that Jeff was being creepy and crossing lines, thank you. I understand that partially this is because Jeff (like the man he saved) had a brush with the void/death and wants to make sure his thoughts/beliefs are shared before he's gone for good, and the main character is an author who he hopes will immortalize him (in a positive light). Also, obviously, the main character delivers the final twist of the knife, that he did the research and the man he saved didn't die of heart failure but was most likely killed by Jeff himself - but I think there could have been other ways to do this. I don't know. I also just felt like the story dragged at times - critiques of fortune and the art world, interludes between the story Jeff is telling that didn't add much in my opinion (yes, random bartender, Jeff does seem toxic).

I still enjoyed it and I liked a lot of what was explored and I do love stories that get into the heads of horrible people justifying their actions/worldviews but this kind of meandered and was a bit heavy-handed at times. If you go into this understanding it isn't a thriller, I think it can still be enjoyable and something that makes you think but I ultimately came away just thinking "Well, that was alright," at the end.

slovenlymuse's review

Go to review page

3.0

Giving this one a 3.5. It's a kind of fascinating, kind of horrible book, like a trainwreck you can't look away from. The main concern of the book is to examine our need to control our own narrative: the idea that the stories we tell ourselves ABOUT ourselves come from a part of our brain that, as the protagonist says, "is not concerned with truth... only plausibility." The plot wasn't excellent, but its point was well-made. Glad I read it.

dhivya's review

Go to review page

mysterious slow-paced

Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.0

raegold's review

Go to review page

5.0

An intriguing novel that I did not want to put down. Great storytelling. Clever title and cover. It all just fits perfectly.

thesaltybrunette's review

Go to review page

challenging reflective tense medium-paced

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

3.0

clpayne's review

Go to review page

2.0

I don’t think this is a bad book, but it just didn’t keep my attention. I wasn’t necessarily excited to pick it back up and instead just looked forward to it being finished.

More...