Scan barcode
A review by buffyb
Sadie Walker is Stranded by Madeleine Roux
2.0
This is the follow-up to Allison Hewitt is Trapped. It takes place after the initial zombie outbreak and it features a different cast of characters.
Nutshell blurb: The city of Seattle has been walled up to protect the inhabitants from the zombies that roam outside. The wall becomes breached, forcing Sadie, her nephew and her friend to flee.
I absolutely loved the first book but this one fell flat for me. I didn't like Sadie AT ALL and I found that there were far too many references to other books, films, tv shows and various aspects of popular culture. I understood most of them but the generations after me are unlikely to know what the heck she's talking about. It's pretty annoying and gets old after a while.
The action is fantastic and it's an exciting story but characterisation is everything to me. It's not good to wish for the main character to get eaten by zombies.
The main character continuously makes stupid decisions but tells herself that she'll never make the same mistakes again. But she does. She makes the stupidest decision at the very end (which I won't spoil for you) and nobody calls her on it. If I lived in a zombie-filled world and one of my camp-mates made this decision, I would consider killing him/her if I ever saw him/her again. But no one seems to care that she did what she did. It's incredibly frustrating to read things like this.
She's also very helpless and relies on others to continually save her.
The author has committed a cardinal sin in my eyes and I feel compelled to point it out.
Please repeat after me: We DO NOT talk trash about another author's writing in our own work.
Of what do you speak, you might ask?
Well, I'll tell you. There's an entire conversation where the characters discuss (and bash) Twilight.
Now, I know that it's super-cool to not like Twilight or anything by Stephanie Meyer and that there have been flame wars all over the internet as to whether or not it's "good". But does that really matter? Are we all not entitled to like or dislike a book according to our own personal tastes?
There's a pettiness and arrogance to immortalising your hatred of someone else's work in your own novel. You're pretty much letting the world know that you think that you're more talented and that your story is better than that of the person you're slating. That's not cool or edgy. It's just kind of mean.
I was really disappointed when I got to that section. I feel that Ms. Roux's writing is quirky and fun and that it can stand on its own without needing to bash another author's work.
Why did you do it, Madeleine? Why????
It completely coloured my perception of this book. From that point on I felt that I was reading the work of a bully; someone who tears others down to make herself look better. Is she really that kind of person? I don't know, but it really struck a chord with me. I'm not sure if I will read the next one when it comes out.
Nutshell blurb: The city of Seattle has been walled up to protect the inhabitants from the zombies that roam outside. The wall becomes breached, forcing Sadie, her nephew and her friend to flee.
I absolutely loved the first book but this one fell flat for me. I didn't like Sadie AT ALL and I found that there were far too many references to other books, films, tv shows and various aspects of popular culture. I understood most of them but the generations after me are unlikely to know what the heck she's talking about. It's pretty annoying and gets old after a while.
The action is fantastic and it's an exciting story but characterisation is everything to me. It's not good to wish for the main character to get eaten by zombies.
The main character continuously makes stupid decisions but tells herself that she'll never make the same mistakes again. But she does. She makes the stupidest decision at the very end (which I won't spoil for you) and nobody calls her on it. If I lived in a zombie-filled world and one of my camp-mates made this decision, I would consider killing him/her if I ever saw him/her again. But no one seems to care that she did what she did. It's incredibly frustrating to read things like this.
She's also very helpless and relies on others to continually save her.
The author has committed a cardinal sin in my eyes and I feel compelled to point it out.
Please repeat after me: We DO NOT talk trash about another author's writing in our own work.
Of what do you speak, you might ask?
Well, I'll tell you. There's an entire conversation where the characters discuss (and bash) Twilight.
Now, I know that it's super-cool to not like Twilight or anything by Stephanie Meyer and that there have been flame wars all over the internet as to whether or not it's "good". But does that really matter? Are we all not entitled to like or dislike a book according to our own personal tastes?
There's a pettiness and arrogance to immortalising your hatred of someone else's work in your own novel. You're pretty much letting the world know that you think that you're more talented and that your story is better than that of the person you're slating. That's not cool or edgy. It's just kind of mean.
I was really disappointed when I got to that section. I feel that Ms. Roux's writing is quirky and fun and that it can stand on its own without needing to bash another author's work.
Why did you do it, Madeleine? Why????
It completely coloured my perception of this book. From that point on I felt that I was reading the work of a bully; someone who tears others down to make herself look better. Is she really that kind of person? I don't know, but it really struck a chord with me. I'm not sure if I will read the next one when it comes out.