Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lenorayoder's reviews
150 reviews
I really liked this book, but it also left me feeling unsatisfied.
I loved the main character, but wish we got to sit a little more with the rest. I never feel like I really got to know anyone but Silas. That's maybe just the hazard of having a POV character who doesn’t enjoy or understand socializing, but even considering that I think Daphne should have had more dimension given the connection I'm supposed to believe Silas has with her. I found myself not really believing their love story, and I think part of that was Daphne feeling as vague as everyone else in Silas' life (except maybe his brother).
I also found the pacing a little odd. I've come to the conclusion that I think this book should have been a trilogy. There's enough world and plot here for three books. Because we just get one the pacing feels weird, a lot of the characters don't have enough dimension or impact, and we don't get as immersed in the world as we could be. There are several points in this book where Silas does something that we're told is unprecedented or a big deal, but because we haven't had time to get used to the status quo, Silas upending it doesn't have as much impact as it should. We should experience what this world is like, not be told what it's like.
Okay, quick fire: Solid ending. Loved everything with the rabbit metaphor/imagery. Unlike Daphne, I did believe in the connection between Silas and the groundskeeper, so I'm sad he didn't appear more or show up at the end of the book at all. Loved that dude. Some fun world-building that I wish I got more of. Will definitely be picking up another book of White's.
I loved the main character, but wish we got to sit a little more with the rest. I never feel like I really got to know anyone but Silas. That's maybe just the hazard of having a POV character who doesn’t enjoy or understand socializing, but even considering that I think Daphne should have had more dimension given the connection I'm supposed to believe Silas has with her. I found myself not really believing their love story, and I think part of that was Daphne feeling as vague as everyone else in Silas' life (except maybe his brother).
I also found the pacing a little odd. I've come to the conclusion that I think this book should have been a trilogy. There's enough world and plot here for three books. Because we just get one the pacing feels weird, a lot of the characters don't have enough dimension or impact, and we don't get as immersed in the world as we could be. There are several points in this book where Silas does something that we're told is unprecedented or a big deal, but because we haven't had time to get used to the status quo, Silas upending it doesn't have as much impact as it should. We should experience what this world is like, not be told what it's like.
Okay, quick fire: Solid ending. Loved everything with the rabbit metaphor/imagery. Unlike Daphne, I did believe in the connection between Silas and the groundskeeper, so I'm sad he didn't appear more or show up at the end of the book at all. Loved that dude. Some fun world-building that I wish I got more of. Will definitely be picking up another book of White's.
things i didn’t like from the first book were amplified, and the plot wasn’t compelling enough to make up for it this time. i liked carrie’s story and that all the siblings react differently to their trauma, but everything else is a bit of a mess. so much is frustrating about this book that i can’t stand to list it all right now
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Like the idea, love a gothic, don’t love the execution. The story is told from a future Cathy’s perspective in a way that doesn’t let us marinate in the siblings’ situation. There are both fantastical and realistic elements at play, but because neither are leaned into enough I felt trapped in an unsatisfying middle ground.
Theincest is interesting in concept but the weakness of both Cathy and Chris’ character writing makes the whole development of their relationship from platonic to romantic feel almost boring. The way Cathy is written in general when it comes to anything sexual or romantic is very frustrating.
I won’t get into it more, but overall it just feels like the book doesn’t delve deep enough into the characters and their changing selves and relationships. Very cool premise, I’m compelled to read more of the series and want to know what happens. I just think it could be so much better.
The
I won’t get into it more, but overall it just feels like the book doesn’t delve deep enough into the characters and their changing selves and relationships. Very cool premise, I’m compelled to read more of the series and want to know what happens. I just think it could be so much better.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Confinement, Incest, Toxic relationship, Religious bigotry
Moderate: Child death, Rape, Sexism, Blood, Vomit, Grief, Death of parent, Sexual harassment, Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Animal death, Eating disorder, Suicidal thoughts, Terminal illness, Medical content, Cannibalism, Car accident, Murder
A book with a lot of promise that fell a little flat for me. I liked the setup of the book, and also really enjoyed the ending. The middle's a little muddy. Even the author seems to lose interest in the main plot of the scavenger hunt, and the only interesting B-plot (Georgia's) is, by nature, barely doing anything in the middle of the book.
I think the big problem with this book is its side characters and plots, although Chloe's character isn't fabulously written either. Other than Georgia, they all feel very token. Everything we know about them is surface-level and/or vague, and everyone who isn't a straight up villain has some sort of queer identity by the end of the book. That wouldn't be a problem, except that even Chloe's other close friends feel like token characters. We know as much about Ash as we do the student body president, even though one is Chloe's close friend and the other is just a classmate she's friendly with. Ash's only significant dialogue is when they're talking about their queer identity, and that feels more like a pattern in this book than an isolated incident. That's a problem.
My other big problem is Shara herself. Chloe and Shara have the bones of a really interesting dynamic and relationship , but the book only alludes to or tells us about the most interesting parts of it, instead of letting us see for ourselves. They barely interact. We get all this build up of Shara as a villain , and then it turns out she's never even done anything mean . The closest she gets is turning on her dad , and that's more heroic than villainous . Like the Chloe herself says, the potential villain side of Shara is more interesting than her being nice and innocent . Unfortunately, McQuiston teases and then refuses to deliver on exploring a relationship between two people who are kind of mean but work romantically anyway , and I think that's a shame.
reflective
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
What a lovely little book! I think there's room here for more, but I still really liked it as is. Love the toad. Even with such a short space Miles manages to be such a real, tragic character. Summer itself feels like a character and really lends a certain something to the magical feel of the story. Wish I'd read this when I was a kid!
funny
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Read this online back in the day and decided to reread and help my library's stats at the same time. So nostalgic! I laughed, I kicked my feet!
I'm perhaps one of the few who prefers the old style, so I really enjoyed rereading the first part of this book. I love all the hockey terminology interludes, and they're a big reason I understood anything that was happening when I first watched Letterkenny lol. I still got a rush of endorphins at that first kiss between Bitty and Jack . Ah!
On reread the plotting is a little lacking, but I still really enjoyed this read and have Book 2 on hold. 4 stars!
To get it out of the way, this is not the most well-written book. Gordeeva isn't a writer, and professes no interest in writing throughout this book. That must be where co-author E.M. Swift comes in... and let's just say dude should have stuck to sports writing. This is a memoir.
But what's really interesting about this book is what peeks out at you from between the lines. Life during the Soviet Union, the dynamics of the Soviet-era sports club, Russian culture, how young athletes are treated, the isolation of being the youngest skater in a group, Gordeeva's naivete, the strange dynamic of her relationship with Sergei Grinkov... it's all fascinating and a better biographer would have expanded on these things but instead as the reader you just get little peeks at what seems like a deep underbelly. I hope someday someone takes a closer look at this story (and what comes after) and writes an amazing book.
Diverse cast of characters:
No
I know Little Women is a beloved classic so this will ruffle some feathers, but I was so disappointed in this read. I grew up on the 90's movie and loved it, I toured the house when I was a kid, and I've heard enough cool things about Alcott that her letters/journals are on my TBR. But this book was a slog. If I weren't accounting for the first part/book being essentially a children's book and the whole thing being written in the 1800's, this would have been 2 stars.
The first part has the issue of feeling more like a collection of short stories than a book. It felt like the kind of book that you would read to your kid a chapter at a time before bed. The formula of one or more sisters doing something "wrong," experiencing consequences, and then getting a little religious/moral lecture from Marmee and promising to do better was tiring. It doesn't leave room for any subtlety or nuance, and often Alcott is just telling us stuff instead of showing us. One of the books supposed strengths is it's characters, but they behave in such formulaic ways for so much of this first part that they feel more like caricatures than people. Jo is somewhat the exception to this, I suppose because she's the character based on Alcott herself.
Some of my favorite bits of the first part are exceptions to the above. Notably, John's story in the Camp Laurence chapter about the knight wanting to free a captive princess gives us insight into his character, shows us how he feels about Meg, and feels quite romantic without out-right telling us that John wants to marry Meg . I love that the story gets wildly off-track as the "Rigmarole" game continues, but as the last story-teller Laurie brings the story back to the knight . Alcott manages to convey his support for John, his love for the Marches, and that he thinks John should be more active about his feelings. Unfortunately this is somewhat ruined in a few chapters when Alcott feels the need to outright tell us these things, but I loved the subtlety while it lasted.
The second part felt more like a cohesive novel and I started it with a lot of relief, but it soon fell back into the short-story pattern of the first part. The messages about marriage feel very outdated, and Meg feels like a shadow of herself after the wedding chapter . I found Beth's quiet struggle to accept her fate compelling , and the talk she has with Jo when she finally reveals that struggle is very moving .
Throughout the book Amy's portrayal has felt off to me, and I finally came to the conclusion that Alcott just... doesn't like Amy.
I have more Thoughts but this is long enough. I'm glad I read this, but I wish it lived up to the hype. I'm going to go watch the adaptations and try to find fan fiction about Amy.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Sexism
Minor: Animal death, Racism, Xenophobia, War
I liked this and it was fairly engaging. Some very nice prose. I'm primarily interested in characters and this book is primarily interested in world-building, so it's 3 instead of 4 stars for me. My ratings are subjective and this just wasn't my cup of tea.
