A review by author_aryoung
It Will Only Hurt for a Moment by Delilah S. Dawson

dark mysterious medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Loveable characters? No

2.0

Thank you NetGalley for the free arc in exchange for my honest review.
 
 When I'd heard that this novel was to be a feminist horror/ thriller, I was really excited for the opportunity to receive and read this ARC. While the contents are technically of a feminist nature, the execution of the concept fell flat for me. 
   We are following 26-year-old Sarah as she flees from her abusive ex and senile alcoholic mother to seek solace at an "off-grid" artists' retreat. It quickly becomes obvious that escaping her troublesome past won't be as easy as Sarah had anticipated. 
   I feel that the beginning of the book should include certain content and trigger warnings as there is animal abuse and death as well as explicit rape scenes which I wasn't entirely prepared for and which threw me off guard. While we are on the topic, I found the barbarism to be unnecessary and simply for shock value, as it did not add anything to the plot. The use of animal cruelty didn't reveal any new information, didn't accelerate the pacing and was only included for "gore factor" which feels tactless and lazy, in my opinion. 
   For a book which dubs itself a "feminist horror", I feel that it fell short on feminism. The whole book, Sarah was degrading and projecting her own insecurities and standards onto the other woman at the retreat. For instance, Gertrude Rose is too dramatic, Antionette is too regal, Kim only cares about male validation and Ingrid is some weird goth. Sarah is so judge-y, I honestly was rooting for her downfall the whole book. 
   For a lack of better ways to describe what I mean to say; it felt as if the author was just using Sarah as a way to project her own thoughts and beliefs into the narrative. For instance, goths are weird, gory, and angry. 19-year-old boys should be angsty, eating all day and listening to Nirvana. The chef was just an angry, controlling snob. I could go on! 
   Sarah is over all just a very negative and unlikable character. The entirety of the novel she is looking down her nose at all the other artists for being "weird" and "unorthodox" with their mediums; music, fashion, calligraphy, sculpting, glass cutting, but may I remind you that Sarah makes vases and plates... VASES AND PLATES. I could cut her some slack if she chose to be original with her medium but it's so anticlimactic and run-of-the-mill. I don't see where she gets off on being an absolute prick. 
   As for the writing itself, I felt that the author tried using 3rd person perspective but it fell flat. Instead of telling us her feelings and what she's thinking, it was used as a way to "question prompt" the audience. If the writing was executed well, I would be asking myself those questions and it wouldn't need to be prompted for me. In addition, I felt it to be redundant and often many chapters were extraneous and offered no real value to the rest of the text other than to show us how millennial the author is. For instance, referencing Taylor Swift and Nirvana and using the word "pic" unironically (repetitively). I know not everyone minds pop-culture references in their books but when it's used on every other page, it begins to feel like a brand deal and product placement. I think that if I had to read any more mentions of Apple and their products. TikTok, and Instagram than I did, I was going to DNF this ARC. AirPods could be generic earbuds and it wouldn't have affected the story at all (except for making it better). I am 22-years-old and I know that if I was planning to go on a 6 week retreat sin internet or cell reception, I would think to bring a few books with me. But naturally 26-year-old Sarah is still relying on her phone to use the reading app... because that makes sense. 
   I felt that there were so so so so so many plot holes: 
1. The animal deaths added nothing to the plot and we never learn the reason they were maimed and killed. 
2. A character died and Sarah thought they looked like they died of fear and they were found holding a certain recurring object in their hand, but we never learn the significance of the object nor how the character really died. 
3. There are glass shards found in some clay but we never learn why or how it was put there- it's implied that a ghost would have done it but there was never any ghost! And the "ghost" only manipulated the glass shards...  
4. THE ENTIRE CONCLUSION! 
There are many many more but I don't want to be a spoiler. 
   Sarah has vision-like dreams about the retreat in its earlier years of operation but if this is a feminist novel, and we can all agree the 97% statistic is valid, then why is Sarah the only woman at the retreat with this connection? Shouldn't all the women be affected? And, with the 97% in mind, why does Sarah walk around the place thinking she is the only person who has gone through some life-altering traumatic event? Sarah's attitude is justified but all the other characters are just dramatic cry babies dealing with their first ever inconveniences? 
   I think this book would be better categorized as a thriller than a horror because WHERE WAS THE HORROR? Unless the scariest thing was meant to be Sarah's superiority complex, nothing was scary! I could predict the ending less than 30% through the book and I'm the kind of reader who believes in suspension of disbelief to enjoy a book... there was no suspending my disbelief with this novel. It was as easy as 1+1. I expected page-turning. heart pounding, mind racing horror and instead I got a glowing blue orb 10 pages from the end of the novel... 
   I feel that if this was to be a well-done feminist horror novel, the rape scenes would have to be less tacky or just not exist. We know rape is bad! We know marital rape was once normalized. We know the feeling of having our "no," go unappreciated. Was there meant to be a moral or theme or was it just an explicit example of what rape can look like? If the point of the scenes were meant to show how women feel about getting raped then I feel the same effect could have been reached without the play-by-play and, instead, the 3rd person narrator could have dome what a 3rd person POV is meant to so and just show us her thought process and how he feels without telling us what is being done to her. It felt like a 6th grade execution  of a women's rights poster board project. "Raping women is bad!" "Consent is key!" "Men used to use women as incubators which is not fair!" Like yes, these are all very obvious points only left to be doubted by incels and ingrates. The only reason this book was given two stars by me, instead of one star, is because of Ingrid. She was the only likable character in all 328 pages!! Over-all I absolutely hated this book and would probably not recommend it to a friend. Maybe I'd recommend it to someone I hate- not for them to learn anything but just because I want them to suffer as much as I did. 

 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings