You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.56 AVERAGE
3.56 AVERAGE
As always, Quick has filled his latest novel with unique outsider characters that are illustrated with extraordinary detail. Should Nanette do what makes everyone else happy, or explore her own happiness, even if that means losing her friends and disappointing her parents? After reading The Bubblegum Reaper and meeting the author and another fan, she decides to quit everything that doesn't make her happy. This doesn't lead her to happiness, but at least it doesn't make her feel fake anymore. She realizes through tragedy and therapy and new friendships, that just because she doesn't enjoy the same things that the majority of her classmates do, that she doesn't need to conform in order to live her own authentic life.
I have tried to write this review a few times now, but I can't find the best words. Nanette's journey both amazes and terrifies me at the same time. To have pent up all these angry and depressed feelings as well as this intense desire to rebel is crazy that she hadn't let it out earlier. I feel that young people as a whole tend to follow paths of Nanette, Alex, and Oliver; they obsess over one specific thing, trait, or idea. Young minds will chase that thing until the ends of the Earth. I completely understand the obsession of Alex, trying to emulate his literary hero Wrigley. People often mold themselves to fit their interests; even if they're going against the grain. Alex's obsession led him to lash out on his own life and personal relationships. It was fascinating; to watch Nanette discover who she wants to be and meld the two worlds of her life that were as different as night and day. This book came at a great time in my life and I would definitely read this again.
I was sent a manuscript of this novel by the publisher. The following is an somewhat edited version of the feedback I sent them:
Actual rating 3.75
This was my first Matthew Quick novel, and I now understand why people love his work! I managed to read it in one sitting, thoroughly intrigued by this novel that had fallen into Nanette O'Hare's life and changed it.
One thing this book had in boatloads was introspection, which I adore in a novel, and Quick did a marvelous job of painting Nanette and Alex's thoughts.
Nanette's condition was wonderfully written, and gosh, Alex. Poor Alex. His poetry was wonderful and terrifying at times.
As much as I appreciated the novel though, I just found I couldn't quite care for the characters as much as I wanted to, making the experience mostly disconnected. It felt kind of like reading We All Looked Up by Tommy Wallach (which I adored- fantastic introspection, but fell to the same kind of disconnectedness and not really caring about the characters overall).
Although I'm very grateful for all of the literary recommendations I got via Booker throughout! I'll be adding some poetry to my tbr very soon :)
Overall an interesting, quick, and enjoyable read where there is much to be gained in terms of insight into mental illness.
Actual rating 3.75
This was my first Matthew Quick novel, and I now understand why people love his work! I managed to read it in one sitting, thoroughly intrigued by this novel that had fallen into Nanette O'Hare's life and changed it.
One thing this book had in boatloads was introspection, which I adore in a novel, and Quick did a marvelous job of painting Nanette and Alex's thoughts.
Nanette's condition was wonderfully written, and gosh, Alex. Poor Alex. His poetry was wonderful and terrifying at times.
As much as I appreciated the novel though, I just found I couldn't quite care for the characters as much as I wanted to, making the experience mostly disconnected. It felt kind of like reading We All Looked Up by Tommy Wallach (which I adored- fantastic introspection, but fell to the same kind of disconnectedness and not really caring about the characters overall).
Although I'm very grateful for all of the literary recommendations I got via Booker throughout! I'll be adding some poetry to my tbr very soon :)
Overall an interesting, quick, and enjoyable read where there is much to be gained in terms of insight into mental illness.
funny
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
This was... um... interesting?
Everything about this story was just too on-the-nose. Like the characters were all so stereotypical, and the plot was so monotone and predictable except for the. I could tell that the author was trying to send some big message about ~being yourself~ all all that, but really the whole thing was just done so obviously that it was almost annoying.
Like there's this whole chunk of the book where the main character starts speaking in third person, both in the narrative and in her dialogue. Super fucking weird, and SUPER annoying. This was the chunk of the book where she was "experimenting" being different to fit in with her peers, and that was, again, just TOO obvious. It completely ruined the effect of this portion of the book. And then when she ~rediscovers herself~ she starts speaking in first person again. *HUGE EYEROLL*
The ending was super rushed and completely did not flow with the rest of the story, and then at the end of the audiobook there was like a 2 minute song that played that left me just sitting there listening like wtf did I just read and why did I allow myself to sit through all of it???
I didn't have high expectations going into this, but still somehow I was disappointed. The idea of the story really wasn't that bad but the execution of it was just so MEH.
Everything about this story was just too on-the-nose. Like the characters were all so stereotypical, and the plot was so monotone and predictable except for the
Spoiler
random character death that literally offered NOTHING to the storyLike there's this whole chunk of the book where the main character starts speaking in third person, both in the narrative and in her dialogue. Super fucking weird, and SUPER annoying. This was the chunk of the book where she was "experimenting" being different to fit in with her peers, and that was, again, just TOO obvious. It completely ruined the effect of this portion of the book. And then when she ~rediscovers herself~ she starts speaking in first person again. *HUGE EYEROLL*
The ending was super rushed and completely did not flow with the rest of the story, and then at the end of the audiobook there was like a 2 minute song that played that left me just sitting there listening like wtf did I just read and why did I allow myself to sit through all of it???
I didn't have high expectations going into this, but still somehow I was disappointed. The idea of the story really wasn't that bad but the execution of it was just so MEH.
hopeful
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
The tagline is "in the vein of Perks of being a wallflower" but it fails to mention, that as Chbosky did with that book and John Green with his various novels, this book is at its core an ode to The Catcher in the Rye.
The idea that we emulate our favorite characters to the point of doing things we wouldn't dare before and then "blame" it on the book is something Salinger knew very well. Mathew Quick's Salinger-like author Booker struggles with this, claiming it's not his fault what kids take from his novel, going as far as refusing to speak about it and taking it out of print.
Salinger didn't go that far. Chbosky didn't either, nor has John Green.
Because Booker is right: it's not his fault. It's an interesting exploration of just how dangerous and wonderful literature can be: on the one hand, it pushes us to do things we didn't dare before; on the other, people can easily attribute fault to the authors if things go wrong. The thing is, though: books might give us courage, but it's unfair to blame it on them if a kid kills someone (like John Lennon's infamous murderer). Those thoughts were there before, stories simply give us a little push in a direction we were already going.
We can see it in our protagonist, Nanette, her thoughts and feelings of not fitting in were already there, her wish to stop pretending to be someone she wasn't, the need to quit certain toxic friendships, the anger and sadness toward her parents...it was all there, Booker just gave her the courage to say it aloud.
Books change us, but they don't put in our heads nothing that wasn't there before: it just makes it all click or come together. For better or for worse. It's up to us to decide if what clicks is right or wrong.
John Green famously once said: "books belong to their readers" and refuses to talk about what he truly meant at the end of “Looking for Alaska”. Chbosky has been vague enough about Charlie's future even though everyone keeps asking him to write a sequel. Even Sylvia Plath, with what happened to the girl in "The bell jar". We could easily look up her biography and think that the girl was Plath and she died anyway.
But we often forget: authors are humans. They write things often to make sense of what themselves are feeling. That's the difference between this kind of fiction and genre novels: they aren't written with the purpose of solving a mystery or appealing to the masses: they come from the heart.
So it doesn't matter what the author meant, it matters what me make of it as individuals.
The idea that we emulate our favorite characters to the point of doing things we wouldn't dare before and then "blame" it on the book is something Salinger knew very well. Mathew Quick's Salinger-like author Booker struggles with this, claiming it's not his fault what kids take from his novel, going as far as refusing to speak about it and taking it out of print.
Salinger didn't go that far. Chbosky didn't either, nor has John Green.
Because Booker is right: it's not his fault. It's an interesting exploration of just how dangerous and wonderful literature can be: on the one hand, it pushes us to do things we didn't dare before; on the other, people can easily attribute fault to the authors if things go wrong. The thing is, though: books might give us courage, but it's unfair to blame it on them if a kid kills someone (like John Lennon's infamous murderer). Those thoughts were there before, stories simply give us a little push in a direction we were already going.
We can see it in our protagonist, Nanette, her thoughts and feelings of not fitting in were already there, her wish to stop pretending to be someone she wasn't, the need to quit certain toxic friendships, the anger and sadness toward her parents...it was all there, Booker just gave her the courage to say it aloud.
Books change us, but they don't put in our heads nothing that wasn't there before: it just makes it all click or come together. For better or for worse. It's up to us to decide if what clicks is right or wrong.
John Green famously once said: "books belong to their readers" and refuses to talk about what he truly meant at the end of “Looking for Alaska”. Chbosky has been vague enough about Charlie's future even though everyone keeps asking him to write a sequel. Even Sylvia Plath, with what happened to the girl in "The bell jar". We could easily look up her biography and think that the girl was Plath and she died anyway.
But we often forget: authors are humans. They write things often to make sense of what themselves are feeling. That's the difference between this kind of fiction and genre novels: they aren't written with the purpose of solving a mystery or appealing to the masses: they come from the heart.
So it doesn't matter what the author meant, it matters what me make of it as individuals.
A great coming of age tale. Some parts euphoric, other parts tragic, but I think a lot of young people can relate to events in this novel.
Whew. Pretentious and humorless. Features an annoying main character, a shallow plot, but completely lacks Quick's usual wit and flair. Lots of literary references, but ends up a meaningless mishmash of events. His choice of writing in the voice of a female teen protagonist fell flat.
Not recommended. Go back and reread Silver Linings Playbook or The Good Luck of Right now.
Not recommended. Go back and reread Silver Linings Playbook or The Good Luck of Right now.
this book was excellent.I love Matthew Quick he is an excellent writer.The book had a good story .The main character Nanette O Hara was excellent .I identified with her and I loved it how there was a book that the characters read.Pull the dust jacket of the book and get a surprise.One thing I did not like is when Nanette spoke it third person. Matthew Quick can write anything .I recommend this book .