Scan barcode
A review by shelfreflectionofficial
A Flicker in the Dark by Stacy Willingham
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
“Monsters don’t hide in the woods; they aren’t shadows in the trees or invisible things lurking in darkened corners. No, the real monsters move in plain sight. They lived among us.”
“I had a taste of what it really felt like: control. Of not only having it, but taking it from someone else. And for one single moment, like a flicker in the dark, it felt good.”
I would recommend reading this book BEFORE you read reviews. I think my opinion of the book changed a bit once I read what other people thought and I might not have enjoyed it as much if I had their voice in my ear while reading.
My first Stacy Willingham book was Only If You’re Lucky and I was not impressed. But from what I saw, people said it deviated from her previous books so I wanted to give her another chance. A Flicker in the Dark, her debut, was nominated for best mystery/thriller on Goodreads so I went there next. Also because I’m not sure it’s wise for me to read All the Dangerous Things about child abduction.
I’m happy to report that I liked this book way better than Only If You’re Lucky.
This book was already better in that it wasn’t the college party scene, though alcohol and pill consumption was a trope involved to instill uncertainty in the reader of being able to trust the main character’s judgment (which I’m not really a fan of).
The Basic Premise
This book is told from the present with flashbacks.
Chloe was 12 when her father was arrested for being their small Louisiana town’s serial killer— 6 young girls in one summer. Chloe was the catalyst for his arrest when she found a box in his closet with the girls’ jewelry.
Chloe now, 20 years later, about to get married, has her own psychologist practice (why do authors always portray therapists and psychologists as pill-popping-mixed-with-alcohol-trauma-haunted-dysfunctional? I’d like my therapist to have at least most of their crap together) in Baton Rouge.
Her past comes back to haunt her when a local teenage girl goes missing. And then another. Everything is eerily similar to her father’s crimes. But he confessed and is in jail. Is this a copycat? Was her father actually innocent? Is she just paranoid? After all, something similar happened when she was in college and she was wrong; she doesn’t want to be wrong again.
Many reviewers thought it was easy to figure out and they knew from early on what the deal was, but I thought Willingham did a good job of making me second guess. Here was my stream of consciousness while reading:
It’s for sure her fiance. Or maybe it’s really her dad and we’re doing this all for nothing. Or it’s her brother. Actually I think it might really be her fiance. Oh, it’s one of those alcohol and pills don’t mix because paranoia things and either it’s all in her head or she does things without knowing it. Nope, it’s the reporter guy. Ah, it IS the fiance. No, it’s too obvious… etc, etc.
Every time we were introduced to a new character I was convinced but then I’d backtrack. And sure, maybe in the end, it wasn’t the biggest twist you’d ever seen, but the readers who downgrade a book because of that and it was a book like this, I just gotta think they’re impossible to please. What do you expect of writers?
I think we talk out of both sides of our mouth when we want a book that we can’t figure out but then we complain because we didn’t figure it out and there weren’t enough clues but then if we figure it out we think it’s a poorly written story because it wasn’t a surprise. Maybe we just read sooooo many thrillers that we’ve made ourselves boring and books predictable.
I don’t know. Some books could be more complex, but I would say that this book was good. I don’t think it was obvious. Some red herrings were maybe too red, but I’m not sure how someone could be utterly convinced of their theory the entire time they’re reading it. And I think that’s the mark of a good book. Something that makes you second guess.
Other Reviewers
Now when I first finished reading, I felt like I enjoyed the book and it would definitely be one I’d recommend. It was one that was hard to put down. But as I read some reviews of other readers, they made some good points. I’ll talk about those here.
This section will have major spoilers so scroll past to the recommendation section if you don’t want to know the answers.
One of the main reviews that influenced me was the first one on the Goodreads page for this book, her name is Alissa. Her review was funny and compelling. I’ll mention a few of her main thoughts and whether I agree.
First of all, the realisticness of her psychology career. I do not have my PhD in psychology (only a minor) and I don’t know how those things work. I don’t know how pills work. For some this was a big no-no. Her role, her knowledge, her methods, etc. For the average reader, I don’t know if there was anything glaringly false or unrealistic that made me give up on it.
Second, the relationship between Chloe and her fiance— I agree, very unhealthy and a little bizarre. I don’t think I would ever marry someone if there were certain things we just couldn’t talk about. Or being gone all the time like that.
Third, the realisticness of finding the Valium in the hair so quickly— I’m not sure why this got the reviewer so worked up. Police procedurals or crime novels do this all the time. Of course testing takes longer, but the book would be super boring if we had to wait weeks and months between evidence findings. I am totally okay with most procedural accommodations.
Fourth, Chloe sleeping with the reporter. That was ridiculous and didn’t make any sense. Agreed.
Fifth, Chloe going to her old house because she thinks that’s where the killer would take his victims now since it’s abandoned. I actually don’t think that’s so far-fetched. Sure, she should have told someone about it, and definitely brought her phone in, but again, I’ve forgotten my phone in the car enough times to know it’s not so far-fetched, especially under stress and danger. I don’t know— I’m not gonna hate on a book for that.
Sixth, the scene at the end showing up to the house with the ring and then not speaking to her former-fiance… weird. Yes. Seemed like an odd end scene.
Seventh, THIS is probably the main thing that makes me think a little bit less of the book. And this is the biggest spoiler so definitely don’t read this if you haven’t read the book yet.
I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea of her dad going to jail to protect her brother. Alissa says it well in her review: “If my kid was murdering people, you better believe I wouldn't take a murder rap for that little psycho!”
I don’t understand how going to jail instead of your teenage son who murdered, not just one girl, and not just one person on accident, but six girls on purpose, is the best thing for everyone. It’s the best thing for zero people. Your son needs help. He’s not going to get that if no one knows he needs it and the person who does sends himself to jail where he lets everyone think he’s a serial killer, leaving his wife and his daughter to live with his murderous son without his protection. To leave his wife to bear the burden and weight of keeping track of their son. To leave his daughter not knowing the truth about anything. To leave his son free to continue being a little psycho.
Just no. That’s the worst choice he could have possible made and I don’t know if a single parent would actually make that choice.
Since that’s the whole reason for this book, I can’t give it 5 stars. However, while you’re reading it, it’s still enjoyable, so I’m not going to hate on it as much as Alissa. Really, reading other people’s reviews can ruin a lot of books for you because nit-picking a book and pointing out every single consistency takes the fun out of a book.
Again, some books can deserve it, but I don’t think this book is one of them.
I would have preferred a better reason for the dad to go to jail and the son not to— like the dad didn’t know and he just couldn’t prove his innocence, and I think that would have been more reasonable, but that doesn’t negate the entire book for me.
Based on my initial feelings from reading the book, uninfluenced by others, this is still a book that I would recommend reading.
Some reviewers thought it was slow. I didn’t feel that. I read this book pretty fast, it was hard for me to put down. I would say that it is slightly more on the psychological thriller side of things.
Some reviewers thought the writing wasn’t very good. I’m not entirely sure I understood the details of that comment. I wouldn’t say I’m a book-snob, but I’m also not so easily entertained that I tolerate poorly written books— I’ve read several.
I didn’t find the writing annoying or distracting or even more repetitive than any other book.
Recommendation
I’m sure it’s tough to be an author of thrillers where the target audience wants more and more ‘twists’ that they NEVER saw coming and always new plots with no overlap from other types of thrillers. People are hard to please.
I guess I wasn’t hard to please with this book. I don’t know what that says about me, but that’s why I say- go for it. Don’t read reviews before you read it— I am aware of the irony of this statement— and expect a decent thriller.
And really, there are a lot of people who gave this book high ratings, so if you love the book, you are not alone. Let the haters hate.
But also, if you liked this one, I still wouldn’t recommend her book Only If You’re Lucky. Does not measure up to this one.
[Content Advisory: many f- and s-words]
“I had a taste of what it really felt like: control. Of not only having it, but taking it from someone else. And for one single moment, like a flicker in the dark, it felt good.”
I would recommend reading this book BEFORE you read reviews. I think my opinion of the book changed a bit once I read what other people thought and I might not have enjoyed it as much if I had their voice in my ear while reading.
My first Stacy Willingham book was Only If You’re Lucky and I was not impressed. But from what I saw, people said it deviated from her previous books so I wanted to give her another chance. A Flicker in the Dark, her debut, was nominated for best mystery/thriller on Goodreads so I went there next. Also because I’m not sure it’s wise for me to read All the Dangerous Things about child abduction.
I’m happy to report that I liked this book way better than Only If You’re Lucky.
This book was already better in that it wasn’t the college party scene, though alcohol and pill consumption was a trope involved to instill uncertainty in the reader of being able to trust the main character’s judgment (which I’m not really a fan of).
The Basic Premise
This book is told from the present with flashbacks.
Chloe was 12 when her father was arrested for being their small Louisiana town’s serial killer— 6 young girls in one summer. Chloe was the catalyst for his arrest when she found a box in his closet with the girls’ jewelry.
Chloe now, 20 years later, about to get married, has her own psychologist practice (why do authors always portray therapists and psychologists as pill-popping-mixed-with-alcohol-trauma-haunted-dysfunctional? I’d like my therapist to have at least most of their crap together) in Baton Rouge.
Her past comes back to haunt her when a local teenage girl goes missing. And then another. Everything is eerily similar to her father’s crimes. But he confessed and is in jail. Is this a copycat? Was her father actually innocent? Is she just paranoid? After all, something similar happened when she was in college and she was wrong; she doesn’t want to be wrong again.
Many reviewers thought it was easy to figure out and they knew from early on what the deal was, but I thought Willingham did a good job of making me second guess. Here was my stream of consciousness while reading:
It’s for sure her fiance. Or maybe it’s really her dad and we’re doing this all for nothing. Or it’s her brother. Actually I think it might really be her fiance. Oh, it’s one of those alcohol and pills don’t mix because paranoia things and either it’s all in her head or she does things without knowing it. Nope, it’s the reporter guy. Ah, it IS the fiance. No, it’s too obvious… etc, etc.
Every time we were introduced to a new character I was convinced but then I’d backtrack. And sure, maybe in the end, it wasn’t the biggest twist you’d ever seen, but the readers who downgrade a book because of that and it was a book like this, I just gotta think they’re impossible to please. What do you expect of writers?
I think we talk out of both sides of our mouth when we want a book that we can’t figure out but then we complain because we didn’t figure it out and there weren’t enough clues but then if we figure it out we think it’s a poorly written story because it wasn’t a surprise. Maybe we just read sooooo many thrillers that we’ve made ourselves boring and books predictable.
I don’t know. Some books could be more complex, but I would say that this book was good. I don’t think it was obvious. Some red herrings were maybe too red, but I’m not sure how someone could be utterly convinced of their theory the entire time they’re reading it. And I think that’s the mark of a good book. Something that makes you second guess.
Other Reviewers
Now when I first finished reading, I felt like I enjoyed the book and it would definitely be one I’d recommend. It was one that was hard to put down. But as I read some reviews of other readers, they made some good points. I’ll talk about those here.
This section will have major spoilers so scroll past to the recommendation section if you don’t want to know the answers.
One of the main reviews that influenced me was the first one on the Goodreads page for this book, her name is Alissa. Her review was funny and compelling. I’ll mention a few of her main thoughts and whether I agree.
First of all, the realisticness of her psychology career. I do not have my PhD in psychology (only a minor) and I don’t know how those things work. I don’t know how pills work. For some this was a big no-no. Her role, her knowledge, her methods, etc. For the average reader, I don’t know if there was anything glaringly false or unrealistic that made me give up on it.
Second, the relationship between Chloe and her fiance— I agree, very unhealthy and a little bizarre. I don’t think I would ever marry someone if there were certain things we just couldn’t talk about. Or being gone all the time like that.
Third, the realisticness of finding the Valium in the hair so quickly— I’m not sure why this got the reviewer so worked up. Police procedurals or crime novels do this all the time. Of course testing takes longer, but the book would be super boring if we had to wait weeks and months between evidence findings. I am totally okay with most procedural accommodations.
Fourth, Chloe sleeping with the reporter. That was ridiculous and didn’t make any sense. Agreed.
Fifth, Chloe going to her old house because she thinks that’s where the killer would take his victims now since it’s abandoned. I actually don’t think that’s so far-fetched. Sure, she should have told someone about it, and definitely brought her phone in, but again, I’ve forgotten my phone in the car enough times to know it’s not so far-fetched, especially under stress and danger. I don’t know— I’m not gonna hate on a book for that.
Sixth, the scene at the end showing up to the house with the ring and then not speaking to her former-fiance… weird. Yes. Seemed like an odd end scene.
Seventh, THIS is probably the main thing that makes me think a little bit less of the book. And this is the biggest spoiler so definitely don’t read this if you haven’t read the book yet.
I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea of her dad going to jail to protect her brother. Alissa says it well in her review: “If my kid was murdering people, you better believe I wouldn't take a murder rap for that little psycho!”
I don’t understand how going to jail instead of your teenage son who murdered, not just one girl, and not just one person on accident, but six girls on purpose, is the best thing for everyone. It’s the best thing for zero people. Your son needs help. He’s not going to get that if no one knows he needs it and the person who does sends himself to jail where he lets everyone think he’s a serial killer, leaving his wife and his daughter to live with his murderous son without his protection. To leave his wife to bear the burden and weight of keeping track of their son. To leave his daughter not knowing the truth about anything. To leave his son free to continue being a little psycho.
Just no. That’s the worst choice he could have possible made and I don’t know if a single parent would actually make that choice.
Since that’s the whole reason for this book, I can’t give it 5 stars. However, while you’re reading it, it’s still enjoyable, so I’m not going to hate on it as much as Alissa. Really, reading other people’s reviews can ruin a lot of books for you because nit-picking a book and pointing out every single consistency takes the fun out of a book.
Again, some books can deserve it, but I don’t think this book is one of them.
I would have preferred a better reason for the dad to go to jail and the son not to— like the dad didn’t know and he just couldn’t prove his innocence, and I think that would have been more reasonable, but that doesn’t negate the entire book for me.
Based on my initial feelings from reading the book, uninfluenced by others, this is still a book that I would recommend reading.
Some reviewers thought it was slow. I didn’t feel that. I read this book pretty fast, it was hard for me to put down. I would say that it is slightly more on the psychological thriller side of things.
Some reviewers thought the writing wasn’t very good. I’m not entirely sure I understood the details of that comment. I wouldn’t say I’m a book-snob, but I’m also not so easily entertained that I tolerate poorly written books— I’ve read several.
I didn’t find the writing annoying or distracting or even more repetitive than any other book.
Recommendation
I’m sure it’s tough to be an author of thrillers where the target audience wants more and more ‘twists’ that they NEVER saw coming and always new plots with no overlap from other types of thrillers. People are hard to please.
I guess I wasn’t hard to please with this book. I don’t know what that says about me, but that’s why I say- go for it. Don’t read reviews before you read it— I am aware of the irony of this statement— and expect a decent thriller.
And really, there are a lot of people who gave this book high ratings, so if you love the book, you are not alone. Let the haters hate.
But also, if you liked this one, I still wouldn’t recommend her book Only If You’re Lucky. Does not measure up to this one.
[Content Advisory: many f- and s-words]
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cursing