Scan barcode
owlliecat's review against another edition
It was hard to follow. When there was conversations, they were so hard to follow. Like the characters were talking to themselves and each other.
csotterson's review against another edition
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
ladycowbird's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
salmax's review against another edition
2.0
It is through dialogue that we are getting most of the plot of this story, but my god, the dialogue is so badly written.
I felt that we weren’t given enough context to understand why Iris felt so hurt by the letters. She was traumatized beyond my comprehension. We got to read the letters, but then we would get Iris almost begging to be pitied just by saying that the letters destroyed her and made her want to kill herself. But why did they do that? Why do the letters still matter? It felt like it was decided that the letters’ capacity to traumatize was self-explanatory. I tried to imagine being Iris and having my dad send me these letters, but that alone, without explaining the dynamic between her and her dad, didn’t give me enough material to properly synthesize this imagination and use it to empathize. Even a flashback to a real key dialogue between them would have helped. I understand that different people are traumatized by different things and to different extents, but the fact that I need to say this or think this to justify Iris’s reaction tells me that the book failed to make a sufficient connection between how much Iris was hurt by these letters (which we were told) and WHY Iris was so hurt by these letters (which we didn’t really get and which could’ve been done with further context and more flashbacks to encounters between her and her dad.)
When I first started reading this, I felt I was reading something brilliant, something that makes a very unique collage of references from psychology, history, art, so even while I was nearing the end, I kept waiting to be impressed.
I enjoyed the sections about bees in the beginning and about bathrooms in the 2nd part. The exchanges with her students about what not to include in writing were very amusing.
I felt that we weren’t given enough context to understand why Iris felt so hurt by the letters. She was traumatized beyond my comprehension. We got to read the letters, but then we would get Iris almost begging to be pitied just by saying that the letters destroyed her and made her want to kill herself. But why did they do that? Why do the letters still matter? It felt like it was decided that the letters’ capacity to traumatize was self-explanatory. I tried to imagine being Iris and having my dad send me these letters, but that alone, without explaining the dynamic between her and her dad, didn’t give me enough material to properly synthesize this imagination and use it to empathize. Even a flashback to a real key dialogue between them would have helped. I understand that different people are traumatized by different things and to different extents, but the fact that I need to say this or think this to justify Iris’s reaction tells me that the book failed to make a sufficient connection between how much Iris was hurt by these letters (which we were told) and WHY Iris was so hurt by these letters (which we didn’t really get and which could’ve been done with further context and more flashbacks to encounters between her and her dad.)
When I first started reading this, I felt I was reading something brilliant, something that makes a very unique collage of references from psychology, history, art, so even while I was nearing the end, I kept waiting to be impressed.
I enjoyed the sections about bees in the beginning and about bathrooms in the 2nd part. The exchanges with her students about what not to include in writing were very amusing.
bookishbandito's review against another edition
funny
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.25
michellular's review against another edition
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
4.0
nora_ellen4's review against another edition
emotional
funny
lighthearted
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
sinnymonbunz's review against another edition
challenging
funny
reflective
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
4.0
extemporalli's review against another edition
3.5
This novel is about trauma but it’s really really not so much about the scapegoating. I found her writing around that kind of sparse and circumlocutory. Magical realism isn’t really my thing, but she had some really lush descriptions of colors and bees, which I loved. I’ll be carrying around the image of a marigold jumpsuit for some time to come. “I wore red lipstick with purple x’s mixed into it kind of thing. And dark-green shoes. I had on very very dark-green shoes, a black-green vegan leather more like a liquid you would press from a hot tampon you are pulling now, by the lamplight, out of a toad’s omnibus of Anaïs Nin.
…
But it was not lost on me at all that we were sitting in the adjunct office on Broad St. on all this Lenape territory, and that these Lenape, contrary to plaques, never signed a treaty, and that we who live do so in a gruesome aridity.”
…
But it was not lost on me at all that we were sitting in the adjunct office on Broad St. on all this Lenape territory, and that these Lenape, contrary to plaques, never signed a treaty, and that we who live do so in a gruesome aridity.”