You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.17 AVERAGE
3.17 AVERAGE
Terrible writing, the dialogue in particular is awful.
2.5
This isn’t as fun as “Summer of Fear”, but it’s not unreadable. The end twist is really dumb, though. I kept wondering the whole time why this wasn’t adapted as a 1970s TV movie until they pull the “he was the same guy all along” bit, which only works if you can’t see the killer outside of your imagination. Also, coward move not to actively state that this takes place in Albuquerque when it clearly does.
This isn’t as fun as “Summer of Fear”, but it’s not unreadable. The end twist is really dumb, though. I kept wondering the whole time why this wasn’t adapted as a 1970s TV movie until they pull the “he was the same guy all along” bit, which only works if you can’t see the killer outside of your imagination. Also, coward move not to actively state that this takes place in Albuquerque when it clearly does.
This is one of Lois Duncan's best. The central mystery is both horrific and well-managed. In contrast to the film adaptation, Duncan's novel has stronger character motivations and interest in the moral complexities the characters face.
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A friend recommended this and the kindle version has been updated to include cell phones and updated attire. My version had a Q&A with the author regarding what she updated. I've not read the original and I enjoyed this version.
I grew up watching the movie, and watching it a lot. I enjoyed it and the book is very different. This is not a bad thing, the book is good and you can see how the movie is based on it. Of course I enjoy the movie more as I watched it first.
The story follows a group of four friends, a year on from a hit and run. They have a pact to keep it secret until someone starts contacting them about what they did.
I grew up watching the movie, and watching it a lot. I enjoyed it and the book is very different. This is not a bad thing, the book is good and you can see how the movie is based on it. Of course I enjoy the movie more as I watched it first.
The story follows a group of four friends, a year on from a hit and run. They have a pact to keep it secret until someone starts contacting them about what they did.
I thought it was good and creepy when I was in 6th grade.
This is an "updated" version of the book, which apparently meant that the author went back in and made some random mentions of the existence of cell phones and computers, but no one ever actually uses these things even when it would make sense to do so (because everyone's "cell" is always, conveniently, dead).
These weird bits of "modernization" were made completely anachronistic by the fact that nothing else was changed. All the 1970's dialogue and cultural norms and, yes even the sexism... Those were all still there. It made for a very odd reading experience and made me wish I'd had the original copy so that the sexism and fat shaming could have at least been "of the time."
It was still fun and quick and a good lead in to the (very different) movie.
These weird bits of "modernization" were made completely anachronistic by the fact that nothing else was changed. All the 1970's dialogue and cultural norms and, yes even the sexism... Those were all still there. It made for a very odd reading experience and made me wish I'd had the original copy so that the sexism and fat shaming could have at least been "of the time."
It was still fun and quick and a good lead in to the (very different) movie.
Watched the movie a lot as a teen. Never knew it was based on a book. It was an okay read overall. The differences from the movie kept me interested. I knew going in that it would more of a mystery than straight up horror / slasher but the mystery still wasn’t the forefront of the story so that was kinda disappointing. It was more focused on their personal and interpersonal connections.
This is one of those cases where the movie improved upon the source material in my opinion. Very dryly written, with teenagers talking like no teenager would, and more often than not Lois Duncan opts for telling us instead of showing us what's going on. It lacks suspension or sympathetic or interesting characters. The movie only kept some of the very basic elements but changed most everything else, and I think that was a smart move.