Scan barcode
ava_xoxo4's review against another edition
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
justinkhchen's review against another edition
4.0
4 stars
An eccentric, but endearing ensemble mystery, I'm 100% onboard with calling The Westing Game a classic; even though it is targeted towards young adults, the story is truly an ageless, timeless joy for those who enjoy a wacky whodunit.
I come to realize I'm very tolerable regarding large cast in books, so The Westing Game's just shy of 20 primary characters isn't a point of complaint — in fact Ellen Raskin is excellent at making each individual distinct and memorable, and the amount of diversity is a pleasant surprise for something written in the 70s (yes, some character setup / description might be a bit passé reading today, but nothing off-color).
Slapstick and hijinks is the name of the game, The Westing Game is by no means an exercise in realism, and as a mystery it is more of a passive experience, letting its silly internal logic reveals the connection, instead of providing clues for the reader to solve puzzles alongside. While I had a lot of fun devouring the first half, I was in a bit of an antics fatigue during its third quarter (the plot was at a standstill), but the last quarter pulled through with the reveal, and became unexpectedly poignant (who knew I would get emotionally attached to these cartoonish characters!).
If you're in the mood for a Knives Out-like experience, this one is definitely worth considering!
An eccentric, but endearing ensemble mystery, I'm 100% onboard with calling The Westing Game a classic; even though it is targeted towards young adults, the story is truly an ageless, timeless joy for those who enjoy a wacky whodunit.
I come to realize I'm very tolerable regarding large cast in books, so The Westing Game's just shy of 20 primary characters isn't a point of complaint — in fact Ellen Raskin is excellent at making each individual distinct and memorable, and the amount of diversity is a pleasant surprise for something written in the 70s (yes, some character setup / description might be a bit passé reading today, but nothing off-color).
Slapstick and hijinks is the name of the game, The Westing Game is by no means an exercise in realism, and as a mystery it is more of a passive experience, letting its silly internal logic reveals the connection, instead of providing clues for the reader to solve puzzles alongside. While I had a lot of fun devouring the first half, I was in a bit of an antics fatigue during its third quarter (the plot was at a standstill), but the last quarter pulled through with the reveal, and became unexpectedly poignant (who knew I would get emotionally attached to these cartoonish characters!).
If you're in the mood for a Knives Out-like experience, this one is definitely worth considering!
allicatca's review against another edition
3.0
I had high expectations for this book but felt let down by the writing. The number of characters and the use of parentheses led to a lot of confusion for me. Who is talking??
The story overall was interesting. I certainly kept reading until the end because I wanted to learn the solution to the mystery. However, I wasn’t super satisfied by the ending.
While I’m at it, I wonder... what age is this book for?? It’s a Scholastic book now but it’s about MURDER and it has some creepy stuff in it.
I might re-read the book to see if I like it better the second time but right now I don’t think I want to read it to my son who is 9.
The story overall was interesting. I certainly kept reading until the end because I wanted to learn the solution to the mystery. However, I wasn’t super satisfied by the ending.
While I’m at it, I wonder... what age is this book for?? It’s a Scholastic book now but it’s about MURDER and it has some creepy stuff in it.
I might re-read the book to see if I like it better the second time but right now I don’t think I want to read it to my son who is 9.
whimsicalmeerkat's review against another edition
3.0
Fun, but for some reason didn't grab my attention like a lot of other things. I still read it multiple times though.
hanket's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
sophlovesbooks41's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
mariahistryingtoread's review against another edition
3.0
This was my favorite book for years when I was a kid. I used to re-read it all the time but it’s been probably over a decade since then. Despite not remembering a ton I still had strong fondness for the book and I am happy to say that for the most part it lived up to a lot of my expectations.
The Westing Game is a very solid children’s mystery. There’s an introduction in my copy from Ann Durrell, a friend and editor to Ellen Raskin, where she mentions that Raskin relied on her to “tell her when her writing was too adult [because] she didn’t know what children’s books were like”. I think that summarizes the overall tone of this book really well.
It feels like an adult writing a book that kids can read rather than a book ‘for kids’. The distinction is that books ‘for kids’ often fall into the trap of pulling punches in order to cater to the audience; it stems from an underestimation of what kids can handle. A lot of modern children's books seem to do this. I suspect it has to do with what publishers feel is marketable rather than an increase in authors who think kids are dumb.
There’s a fairly sizable ensemble cast and despite not spending a lot of time on everyone you get a decent picture of personality and motivation based on how each character operates in relation to one another. The pairings are super interesting not just because of how they tie back to the mystery, but also in how these seemingly diametrically opposed people help each other grow due to their interactions with each other. As Sam Westing says “it’s not what you have, but what you don’t have that counts”.
The big mystery is fun though I’d argue it’s not totally possible to figure out on your own which kind of puts a damper on it. Admittedly, I’m compromised on that front because I’ve read it before therefore I can’t be sure how much of this is affected by me remembering bits and pieces here and there so your mileage may vary. I will say that there are plenty of little mysteries in addition to the main one interwoven throughout that you can feasibly figure out as well so it didn’t takeaway from my enjoyment overall.
Now onto the not so nice things that downgraded this from the pinnacle of kids fiction I once thought it was.
There was a lot of casual racism. This was published in 1978 so to an extent I suppose it makes sense, but it did mean I enjoyed it less this time around. For instance, Mr. Hoo runs the restaurant at the top of the apartment building and there is a part where two characters riff on what his food might really be made of because they don’t recognize the ethnic names. Mr. Hoo is also fifty years old married to a twenty eight year old Chinese woman who can't speak any English whatsoever which is rife with a metric ton of issues that are totally glossed over. I don't think this book necessarily should have dug into this but I don't think it was properly addressed at all given how it reflects on Mr. Hoo's integrity.
There’s also some really weird implications to Sam Westings’ relationship with Judge Ford - a Black woman who lived in his house as a child whose mother and father worked for Westing. Based on Fords’ age this would make her a Black child in the 40s living in a rich, functionally white (note: Westing was an immigrant, however, this either did not particularly affect him socially or if it did it wasn’t mentioned so I feel comfortable assuming his life was relatively cushy all things considered) mans' house and there’s a ton of things about that whole situation that gave me serious pause reading as an adult. Especially looking at the pretty paternalistic vibes he gave off in the few memories Ford shared of him and the difference in the way he treated her as a kid vs another white female character of a similar age. The whole thing made me very uncomfortable because it was a clear case of a white woman writing about a dynamic she clearly had put no research or real thought into.
Another thing is the way in which Raskin treats her one disabled character in the narrative. Chris Theodorakis has an unspecified muscular degenerative disease that means he uses a wheelchair and has a stutter that makes it hard to understand him. For this reason a lot of characters often treat him like he's stupid and/or infantilize him. The intention of this seems to be to show how their ableism is harmful not just to Chris directly but to themselves as it causes them to underestimate him. The execution, however, is severely lacking. While I enjoy the cast, as I said before it's pretty big. Taking into account the page count there isn't a lot of room for depth. Raskin accomplishes her goal well enough using the characters, but you have to accept that you are not going to get a lot of deep insight. Some characters measure up to these constraints better than others. Chris is one that doesn’t quite hit the mark.
While Raskin tells us several times Chris is a smart kid dealt a bad hand, when Chris is focused on his sections don’t reflect that. It is pointedly established that Chris does not have a developmental disability yet his thought process comes off as rather young for a fifteen year old. He reads as younger than Turtle most of the time despite Chris being two years older than her. It contradicts the whole purpose of his character when you have characters think so pityingly of him and he never properly rises to the occasion to disavow them of this notion. I don't need him to be an forthright, aggressive champion of disability rights. He can still be the quiet, shy kid he was at heart, but I don't think that Raskin effectively communicated that Chris was still a person and the other tenants were wrong to look at him differently.
The culmination of his storyline being him receiving some new drug that helps him to speak and move easier resulting in him kind of just dropping off from working on the mystery entirely to focus on that instead doesn't help matters. Especially since his personhood is only demonstrably respected by people other than Denton Deere after he goes through the first round of medication.
A lot of the characters do not really meaningfully contribute to the story - they're more cogs to keep the really important parts moving - so Chris is not special in that regard, however, I feel that because his story did revolve around his disability not defining him the mishandling of his story does stand out more clearly than some of the others who also were not given enough to do.
Another one of the characters had a developmentally delayed daughter who is referred to as a ‘Mongoloid’ child; a now outdated term for Down Syndrome. Again it was the late 70s when this was written and this seems like it was common nomenclature at the time, so I get it, I just don't like it.
In general, I don't believe that white people can't write about other races or able-bodied people can't write about disabled people, however this book definitely was written at a time where the care and consideration we expect out of authors now was not at all a requirement for writing these kinds of characters. That's not to let anybody off the hook because I'm sure there were plenty of authors who were perfectly capable of traversing that whole potential minefield without offending anyone or being racist or ableist, easily but I'm trying to let you know that to a point you should read this book as you would a classic like The Great Gatsby or something- times were just different.
I also don't mean to oversell it. There are problematic elements, but it's not as virulent as you might think based on how much time I spent writing on it in this review.
Anyways, I do still love this book. It's funny and charming and I love the way the story unfolds. It has its faults yet I would still recommend it. Though I will say that if you're looking to give this to a kid reading this you should be on hand to explain how we have grown in our perceptions of certain aspects.
The Westing Game is a very solid children’s mystery. There’s an introduction in my copy from Ann Durrell, a friend and editor to Ellen Raskin, where she mentions that Raskin relied on her to “tell her when her writing was too adult [because] she didn’t know what children’s books were like”. I think that summarizes the overall tone of this book really well.
It feels like an adult writing a book that kids can read rather than a book ‘for kids’. The distinction is that books ‘for kids’ often fall into the trap of pulling punches in order to cater to the audience; it stems from an underestimation of what kids can handle. A lot of modern children's books seem to do this. I suspect it has to do with what publishers feel is marketable rather than an increase in authors who think kids are dumb.
There’s a fairly sizable ensemble cast and despite not spending a lot of time on everyone you get a decent picture of personality and motivation based on how each character operates in relation to one another. The pairings are super interesting not just because of how they tie back to the mystery, but also in how these seemingly diametrically opposed people help each other grow due to their interactions with each other. As Sam Westing says “it’s not what you have, but what you don’t have that counts”.
The big mystery is fun though I’d argue it’s not totally possible to figure out on your own which kind of puts a damper on it. Admittedly, I’m compromised on that front because I’ve read it before therefore I can’t be sure how much of this is affected by me remembering bits and pieces here and there so your mileage may vary. I will say that there are plenty of little mysteries in addition to the main one interwoven throughout that you can feasibly figure out as well so it didn’t takeaway from my enjoyment overall.
Now onto the not so nice things that downgraded this from the pinnacle of kids fiction I once thought it was.
There was a lot of casual racism. This was published in 1978 so to an extent I suppose it makes sense, but it did mean I enjoyed it less this time around. For instance, Mr. Hoo runs the restaurant at the top of the apartment building and there is a part where two characters riff on what his food might really be made of because they don’t recognize the ethnic names. Mr. Hoo is also fifty years old married to a twenty eight year old Chinese woman who can't speak any English whatsoever which is rife with a metric ton of issues that are totally glossed over. I don't think this book necessarily should have dug into this but I don't think it was properly addressed at all given how it reflects on Mr. Hoo's integrity.
There’s also some really weird implications to Sam Westings’ relationship with Judge Ford - a Black woman who lived in his house as a child whose mother and father worked for Westing. Based on Fords’ age this would make her a Black child in the 40s living in a rich, functionally white (note: Westing was an immigrant, however, this either did not particularly affect him socially or if it did it wasn’t mentioned so I feel comfortable assuming his life was relatively cushy all things considered) mans' house and there’s a ton of things about that whole situation that gave me serious pause reading as an adult. Especially looking at the pretty paternalistic vibes he gave off in the few memories Ford shared of him and the difference in the way he treated her as a kid vs another white female character of a similar age. The whole thing made me very uncomfortable because it was a clear case of a white woman writing about a dynamic she clearly had put no research or real thought into.
Another thing is the way in which Raskin treats her one disabled character in the narrative. Chris Theodorakis has an unspecified muscular degenerative disease that means he uses a wheelchair and has a stutter that makes it hard to understand him. For this reason a lot of characters often treat him like he's stupid and/or infantilize him. The intention of this seems to be to show how their ableism is harmful not just to Chris directly but to themselves as it causes them to underestimate him. The execution, however, is severely lacking. While I enjoy the cast, as I said before it's pretty big. Taking into account the page count there isn't a lot of room for depth. Raskin accomplishes her goal well enough using the characters, but you have to accept that you are not going to get a lot of deep insight. Some characters measure up to these constraints better than others. Chris is one that doesn’t quite hit the mark.
While Raskin tells us several times Chris is a smart kid dealt a bad hand, when Chris is focused on his sections don’t reflect that. It is pointedly established that Chris does not have a developmental disability yet his thought process comes off as rather young for a fifteen year old. He reads as younger than Turtle most of the time despite Chris being two years older than her. It contradicts the whole purpose of his character when you have characters think so pityingly of him and he never properly rises to the occasion to disavow them of this notion. I don't need him to be an forthright, aggressive champion of disability rights. He can still be the quiet, shy kid he was at heart, but I don't think that Raskin effectively communicated that Chris was still a person and the other tenants were wrong to look at him differently.
The culmination of his storyline being him receiving some new drug that helps him to speak and move easier resulting in him kind of just dropping off from working on the mystery entirely to focus on that instead doesn't help matters. Especially since his personhood is only demonstrably respected by people other than Denton Deere after he goes through the first round of medication.
A lot of the characters do not really meaningfully contribute to the story - they're more cogs to keep the really important parts moving - so Chris is not special in that regard, however, I feel that because his story did revolve around his disability not defining him the mishandling of his story does stand out more clearly than some of the others who also were not given enough to do.
Another one of the characters had a developmentally delayed daughter who is referred to as a ‘Mongoloid’ child; a now outdated term for Down Syndrome. Again it was the late 70s when this was written and this seems like it was common nomenclature at the time, so I get it, I just don't like it.
In general, I don't believe that white people can't write about other races or able-bodied people can't write about disabled people, however this book definitely was written at a time where the care and consideration we expect out of authors now was not at all a requirement for writing these kinds of characters. That's not to let anybody off the hook because I'm sure there were plenty of authors who were perfectly capable of traversing that whole potential minefield without offending anyone or being racist or ableist, easily but I'm trying to let you know that to a point you should read this book as you would a classic like The Great Gatsby or something- times were just different.
I also don't mean to oversell it. There are problematic elements, but it's not as virulent as you might think based on how much time I spent writing on it in this review.
Anyways, I do still love this book. It's funny and charming and I love the way the story unfolds. It has its faults yet I would still recommend it. Though I will say that if you're looking to give this to a kid reading this you should be on hand to explain how we have grown in our perceptions of certain aspects.
cyntea_'s review against another edition
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
natasha_saidikowski's review against another edition
5.0
This book was just as good as I remembered. I’d forgotten many of the details, remembering only the overarching themes and that I greatly enjoyed it. I was not disappointed by child-me’s taste in books.
I highly recommend this for anyone looking for a book version of Clue or Knives Out.
This book also feels very ahead of its time, considering it was written in the late ‘70s. Hats off to Ellen Raskin.
I highly recommend this for anyone looking for a book version of Clue or Knives Out.
This book also feels very ahead of its time, considering it was written in the late ‘70s. Hats off to Ellen Raskin.