Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
Read via a #netgalley ARC, and WOW. I was not expecting to DEVOUR this like I did!! Compelling, well written, and _hot_!!
I received “Like a House on Fire” by Lauren McBrayer from the publisher as an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All my opinions in this post are my own.
I was really intrigued by the premise of this book and was really excited to get into it! I wasn’t really disappointed. While I felt there were parts which seemed to make me question some decisions, A lot of it was able to come off as raw and really thought provoking. It really does make you stop and think, and times I needed time away from the book as well because it is a heavy and deep novel that tackles topics that aren't at all lighthearted. I overall thought it was a decent read, just more intense than what I was originally expecting.
I was really intrigued by the premise of this book and was really excited to get into it! I wasn’t really disappointed. While I felt there were parts which seemed to make me question some decisions, A lot of it was able to come off as raw and really thought provoking. It really does make you stop and think, and times I needed time away from the book as well because it is a heavy and deep novel that tackles topics that aren't at all lighthearted. I overall thought it was a decent read, just more intense than what I was originally expecting.
Like a House on Fire is like no other book I have read. The storyline was beautifully authentic and complex: a married woman navigating the dualities of life, sexual fluidity, and love, but what captivated me the most was how the author wrote Merit’s character. I have never been so different from a character but also able to identify with one in so many ways. Merit’s thought process, how and why she chose certain things to say and other things to keep to herself, and her raw humor and at times incomprehensible emotions made her so lifelike that at the very end of the book, which I had to re read because I was so shocked, I was reminded she was only fiction.
4.5 stars. Beautifully and brutally written. Not without its flaws, but by the end I was shedding real tears over the complicated human experiences that wove the tapestry of the whole story. A read I won't soon forget.
emotional
funny
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Merit was terrified. She was completely unafraid…. She felt like some other person. She felt completely like herself.
A straight woman writes a novel about two straight women who turn gay for each other.
I might not have read it if I’d known that’s what it was. But I actually didn’t hate it – although I can see why some do. (For a fun take on all that’s terrible about it, check out this review by Bandit.)
Bandit's astute criticisms aside, I found it to be a thoughtful and well-written exploration of the fluidity of some women’s attractions. And of marriage. And infidelity. And the unfulfilling aspects of parenting.
If you read it, be sure not to skip the conversation with the author at the end. The epilogue changes everything, and she almost didn’t write it. I’m not sure I trust her explanation, but I found that little nugget intriguing - mostly for what it says about the author.
I’m really conflicted about this one.
I was drawn in with the premise: two women, both in heterosexual relationships, become intense friends and eventually question their sexuality. I love explorations of queerness, platonic intimacy, and friendships. And the intense friendship was done really well. Perfect description of when you just connect with someone.
However, there were a few things that bothered me about this one. First, the author never once mentions the word “bisexual” throughout the entire thing. It’s either “lesbian” “gay” or “straight”. There was one mention of “queer” however. For example, she constantly reflects to herself (in a vaguely horrified tone) “am I a lesbian now?!”, and both her and Jane view sexuality as extremely black and white. And hello!! Bisexuals and pansexuals exist! The whole book just seemed like the encompassing phrase that straight women say “it would be so much EASIER with a woman!” It didn’t have the nuanced exploration of sexuality and intimacy that I wanted. Everything was just … better with Jane.
Also the infidelity. And yes, her husband was incompetent. Just the prime example of a dude not doing any emotional labour. But that doesn’t mean he deserved someone cheating on him. Breaking someone’s trust shouldn’t be justified because you didn’t communicate with him like, at all! I definitely think Merrit should have maybeeeeee questioned herself or maybe felt a BIT more guilty for her choices?!
I was curious about the author, and when I did some light digging, you find out this book and its metaphors are vaguely autobiographical. She talks about this book helping her realise her own marriage wasn’t going where she wanted it to, and potentially an examination of her own sexuality. Hilariously, she says in an interview, “I couldn’t yet see that the call was coming from inside the house”, while writing this book. This made me a bit more sympathetic to the story, and some of the language used. It was why the main character sounded the way she did. You can sense the fear and the misery of Merritt when she was with her husband, and why the ending was almost dreamlike in its idealism. The author herself is probably learning still about what it means to be queer, and different ways of defining sexuality. But please, for the love of god, someone send her an article on bisexuality.
I was drawn in with the premise: two women, both in heterosexual relationships, become intense friends and eventually question their sexuality. I love explorations of queerness, platonic intimacy, and friendships. And the intense friendship was done really well. Perfect description of when you just connect with someone.
However, there were a few things that bothered me about this one. First, the author never once mentions the word “bisexual” throughout the entire thing. It’s either “lesbian” “gay” or “straight”. There was one mention of “queer” however. For example, she constantly reflects to herself (in a vaguely horrified tone) “am I a lesbian now?!”, and both her and Jane view sexuality as extremely black and white. And hello!! Bisexuals and pansexuals exist! The whole book just seemed like the encompassing phrase that straight women say “it would be so much EASIER with a woman!” It didn’t have the nuanced exploration of sexuality and intimacy that I wanted. Everything was just … better with Jane.
Also the infidelity. And yes, her husband was incompetent. Just the prime example of a dude not doing any emotional labour. But that doesn’t mean he deserved someone cheating on him. Breaking someone’s trust shouldn’t be justified because you didn’t communicate with him like, at all! I definitely think Merrit should have maybeeeeee questioned herself or maybe felt a BIT more guilty for her choices?!
I was curious about the author, and when I did some light digging, you find out this book and its metaphors are vaguely autobiographical. She talks about this book helping her realise her own marriage wasn’t going where she wanted it to, and potentially an examination of her own sexuality. Hilariously, she says in an interview, “I couldn’t yet see that the call was coming from inside the house”, while writing this book. This made me a bit more sympathetic to the story, and some of the language used. It was why the main character sounded the way she did. You can sense the fear and the misery of Merritt when she was with her husband, and why the ending was almost dreamlike in its idealism. The author herself is probably learning still about what it means to be queer, and different ways of defining sexuality. But please, for the love of god, someone send her an article on bisexuality.
Book club pick. Not something I'd typically reach for but enjoyable.
medium-paced