Scan barcode
ghostlyprince's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Stalking
Moderate: Alcohol, Child death, Murder, Death, Classism, Bullying, and Panic attacks/disorders
Minor: Homophobia, Confinement, Grief, Kidnapping, Infidelity, Sexual content, and Drug use
agxxo's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
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? It's complicated
4.5
I KNEW IT.
The only reason it’s not a full five stars is because the ending was kind of open ended.
The only reason it’s not a full five stars is because the ending was kind of open ended.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Murder
Minor: Drug use and Homophobia
fallingquinnlove's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
fast-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? Yes
3.0
Read this book in a day, couldn't put it down; felt extremely predictable in some respects (Obviously, if you pick Bram's girlfriend, he is going to pick Saundra. Don't intentionally make enemies with people who scare other people for fun!) , but with enough twists to stay interesting. Very easy to read; kind of the perfect book to get me out of a reading slump (I haven't read YA in years, but I think that's why it worked).
My main thing, I think, is the fact that it felt like it wanted to be a movie. It's extremely visual, and in the way that it borrows intentionally and makes explicit reference to a lot of horror movies (as opposed to horror books), I think there's something genuinely lost in the development of it as a book. I imagine it along the lines of "Do Revenge" or "Bodies Bodies Bodies".
Also, be prepared for Gen-Z language that feels a little out of place, particularly outside of dialogue. It was when Saundra's POV had a line about how Rachel had been acting a little "sus" and someone else had a line about thinking that someone else should "prob/def break up". I'm Gen-Z and it's not inaccurate, but it doesn't feel consistent with the mood that Moldavsky seems to want to create.
Overall though, I did enjoy it, I enjoyed the twists and the motifs Everything to do with masks, especially Bram's masks, was brilliant. And I loved the Frankenstein motif, obviously, with the projector scene and the fact the masks are Frankenstein but painted, and everything about Thayer's Shelley lore drops. I also really liked what was being said about class divides in NYC schools.
My main thing, I think, is the fact that it felt like it wanted to be a movie. It's extremely visual, and in the way that it borrows intentionally and makes explicit reference to a lot of horror movies (as opposed to horror books), I think there's something genuinely lost in the development of it as a book. I imagine it along the lines of "Do Revenge" or "Bodies Bodies Bodies".
Also, be prepared for Gen-Z language that feels a little out of place, particularly outside of dialogue.
Overall though, I did enjoy it, I enjoyed the twists and the motifs
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder and Gaslighting
Moderate: Xenophobia, Drug use, Violence, and Alcohol
Minor: Homophobia and Sexual harassment
cactuspunk's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Alcohol, Bullying, Cursing, Death, Injury/Injury detail, Murder, Sexual content, Violence, Blood, Child death, and Gaslighting
Moderate: Drug use, Homophobia, and Classism
snovella's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Drug use, Sexual content, Death, and Alcohol
Moderate: Sexual harassment
Minor: Homophobia
twelvekindsoftrouble's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
3.25
It was okay. The characters felt a little flat, which kind of put me off. The twist was pretty good, and well-foreshadowed and tied everything up very nicely, which was satisfying, but it didn’t have the OOMPH of an emotional impact that I was looking for. The writing style also didn’t feel. Horror-y enough. Also the modern references to social media are. I can’t do that. Those last two are nit picky. But still.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder, Blood, Death, and Violence
Minor: Homophobia and Suicide
valeriabee's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
fast-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? Yes
5.0
Genuinely was afraid. Mostly because it made me think of what my biggest fears are and how those fears impact my life. Also, Rachel, after having gone through a trauma, has high anxiety and I also suffer from anxiety so part of my fear was just... the anxiety I was feeling while I was reading.
In part, I had anxiety because I was seeing how complicated the whole situation is and how hard it is to know/figure out who is telling the truth. It is so hard to decide who in this book is trust worthy (especially because it's written in first person) and that made my anxiety sky rocket. I didn't like not knowing or being unsure of what I was (and Rachel was) dealing with.
Moldavsky does a wonderful job of setting up and revealing the villain, the monster. I think it's in the way that she really makes you doubt yourself. For a minute you think, Rachel is right, it's this person... but then you think no way it doesn't add up. Or obviously it has to be this other person, why don't they realize this... but then why would it be them? What motivates them? Moldavsky really drives home the idea that "the real monsters aren't the ones created by man. The real monster is man himself." Something that Mary Shelley has proven to us in her own work 200 years ago with Frankenstein. I mean, it speaks to the common misconception and mislabelling of Mary Shelley's monster. People often address the green 'monster' as Frankenstein, but really he is Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein is the doctor. I don't say this to be pretentious, but to point out that the fact that Dr. Frankenstein is the real monster, but people don't want to believe that their peers are capable of monstrosities, so they reassign the role to the supernatural, to the least human. It's not wrong to say Frankenstein is the monster, it's only wrong if you're not referring to the Doctor. Shelley and Moldavsky's point is that people are scarier than any supernatural horror movie or book.
It's funny because I was telling my friends about this book earlier and when I told them a fun fact I learned about Mary Shelley from this book, it gave me another realization of how the revelation at the end redefines the scene. It was so crazy to me how perfectly set up the revelation is. When you get to it you might think "oh duh thats so obvious it makes the most sense," but I think that's only because Moldavsky sets it up so well without giving it away.
Reading this book also prompted me to ask my students (who are high school students) whether they think people their age are capable of empathy, rather, how much empathy they think their age group has the capacity for. Then, what kind of person they think of when they think of an empathetic person. Because books like these where the rich kids are such... assholes, really makes me wonder whether it has to do with age, upbringing, privilege, etc. Like what is interfering with their capacity to have empathy or to simply not be assholes. I was surprised by my students honest answers, but also by their lack in faith for the capacity towards empathy in their age group. (I think it definitely is partially a developmental thing, you learn as you grow older and experience more life -- but it is very nuanced).
In part, I had anxiety because I was seeing how complicated the whole situation is and how hard it is to know/figure out who is telling the truth. It is so hard to decide who in this book is trust worthy (especially because it's written in first person) and that made my anxiety sky rocket. I didn't like not knowing or being unsure of what I was (and Rachel was) dealing with.
Moldavsky does a wonderful job of setting up and revealing the villain, the monster. I think it's in the way that she really makes you doubt yourself. For a minute you think, Rachel is right, it's this person... but then you think no way it doesn't add up. Or obviously it has to be this other person, why don't they realize this... but then why would it be them? What motivates them? Moldavsky really drives home the idea that "the real monsters aren't the ones created by man. The real monster is man himself." Something that Mary Shelley has proven to us in her own work 200 years ago with Frankenstein. I mean, it speaks to the common misconception and mislabelling of Mary Shelley's monster. People often address the green 'monster' as Frankenstein, but really he is Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein is the doctor. I don't say this to be pretentious, but to point out that the fact that Dr. Frankenstein is the real monster, but people don't want to believe that their peers are capable of monstrosities, so they reassign the role to the supernatural, to the least human. It's not wrong to say Frankenstein is the monster, it's only wrong if you're not referring to the Doctor. Shelley and Moldavsky's point is that people are scarier than any supernatural horror movie or book.
It's funny because I was telling my friends about this book earlier and when I told them a fun fact I learned about Mary Shelley from this book, it gave me another realization of how the revelation at the end redefines the scene. It was so crazy to me how perfectly set up the revelation is. When you get to it you might think "oh duh thats so obvious it makes the most sense," but I think that's only because Moldavsky sets it up so well without giving it away.
Reading this book also prompted me to ask my students (who are high school students) whether they think people their age are capable of empathy, rather, how much empathy they think their age group has the capacity for. Then, what kind of person they think of when they think of an empathetic person. Because books like these where the rich kids are such... assholes, really makes me wonder whether it has to do with age, upbringing, privilege, etc. Like what is interfering with their capacity to have empathy or to simply not be assholes. I was surprised by my students honest answers, but also by their lack in faith for the capacity towards empathy in their age group. (I think it definitely is partially a developmental thing, you learn as you grow older and experience more life -- but it is very nuanced).
Content Warnings
Graphic: Panic attacks/disorders, Murder, Mental illness, and Torture
Moderate: Bullying, Emotional abuse, Homophobia, Toxic relationship, and Violence
More...