Scan barcode
A review by muffinamy
The Broken Ones by Sarah A. Denzil
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
This was not for me.
The concept had me intrigued enough. I love an unreliable narrator, and I had Sophie down for that from the second Chloe, the little school girl, was introduced. I thought for SURE that was relevant and that ‘Becca’ was Sophie’s alter - ego (much like ‘Jessie’ was Chloe’s alter - ego) and we were inside of the messed up brain of Sophie who doesn’t realise she’s morphed into the embodiment of her imaginary ‘shadow’ friend from her childhood. Honestly, pretty disappointed that wasn’t the case, because the ending in comparison was rubbish.
The entire realisation of what was happening to Sophie; who Becca was; who ‘shadow’ was; who was stalking them, entirely relied on Maureen, the mother, just totally forgetting she had Alzheimer’s, and being so truly lucid that she could recall every moment of the planning and execution of the illegal selling of her daughter. Now, I was never on board with her lying about her Alzheimer’s, since no person would intentionally soil themselves , require someone to bathe them and have around the clock care all for an act. So how in gods green did she suddenly have the capacity to tell her daughter the entire plan and execution of getting rid of her sister when earlier in the book she was wandering round the garden jangling keys in her face to keep herself entertained?? Did the author just momentarily forget she had really clung onto this character being almost entirely unable to care for themselves bc of the rapidity of the onset of her Alzheimer’s???? Idk I don’t get it.
I’m also really confused about the end?? I presumed since she wasn’t entirely certain on recognising the blonde lady and being complimented on her ‘perfect’ accent that the implication is this is Becca, and she’s going to New York to live with Sophie. But why wasn’t this just made explicit ?? Why is it written as if it’s from Sophie’s point of view, and it’s Sophie pretending to be Becca ignoring her friends and evading the police ?? I just feel like the author tried to make it mysterious but it just made me even more upset about this stupid book and the time I’d wasted reading it. Adding red herrings of an unreliable narrator in the epilogue is stupid. Stop trying to confuse me in the final chapter, I wanted some kind of resolution but yet I’m sat questioning whether my understanding of the ending is right or if it’s trying to imply Sophie killed Becca as well as her mother ???? I don’t know. Bad book.
The concept had me intrigued enough. I love an unreliable narrator, and I had Sophie down for that from the second Chloe, the little school girl, was introduced. I thought for SURE that was relevant and that ‘Becca’ was Sophie’s alter - ego (much like ‘Jessie’ was Chloe’s alter - ego) and we were inside of the messed up brain of Sophie who doesn’t realise she’s morphed into the embodiment of her imaginary ‘shadow’ friend from her childhood. Honestly, pretty disappointed that wasn’t the case, because the ending in comparison was rubbish.
The entire realisation of what was happening to Sophie; who Becca was; who ‘shadow’ was; who was stalking them, entirely relied on Maureen, the mother, just totally forgetting she had Alzheimer’s, and being so truly lucid that she could recall every moment of the planning and execution of the illegal selling of her daughter. Now, I was never on board with her lying about her Alzheimer’s, since no person would intentionally soil themselves , require someone to bathe them and have around the clock care all for an act. So how in gods green did she suddenly have the capacity to tell her daughter the entire plan and execution of getting rid of her sister when earlier in the book she was wandering round the garden jangling keys in her face to keep herself entertained?? Did the author just momentarily forget she had really clung onto this character being almost entirely unable to care for themselves bc of the rapidity of the onset of her Alzheimer’s???? Idk I don’t get it.
I’m also really confused about the end?? I presumed since she wasn’t entirely certain on recognising the blonde lady and being complimented on her ‘perfect’ accent that the implication is this is Becca, and she’s going to New York to live with Sophie. But why wasn’t this just made explicit ?? Why is it written as if it’s from Sophie’s point of view, and it’s Sophie pretending to be Becca ignoring her friends and evading the police ?? I just feel like the author tried to make it mysterious but it just made me even more upset about this stupid book and the time I’d wasted reading it. Adding red herrings of an unreliable narrator in the epilogue is stupid. Stop trying to confuse me in the final chapter, I wanted some kind of resolution but yet I’m sat questioning whether my understanding of the ending is right or if it’s trying to imply Sophie killed Becca as well as her mother ???? I don’t know. Bad book.