Scan barcode
shelfreflectionofficial's reviews
816 reviews
Gallant by V.E. Schwab
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“‘Last night I went beyond the wall. And I met Death.’”
The only other V.E. Schwab book that I’ve read is The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue. My opinion on that book was a bit unpopular. I concluded in my review of that book that nothing really happened. .
And that’s my assessment of this book as well.
Gallant is a YA novel so we at least don’t have to read about a love affair with the devil, but the book just really felt simple and empty and quiet.
Schwab does a good job of setting the scene and creating this atmospheric mysterious vibe. The main character- Olivia- is at an orphanage. She is mute. And she can see ‘ghouls.’
“Merilance may call itself a school, but in truth, it is an asylum for the young and the feral and the fortuneless. The orphaned and unwanted.”
It’s obviously the classic ‘orphan that gets made fun of and the matrons are bad people, and she just wants to find a place where she is wanted.’
Her prized possession is the journal of her mother’s that she has, but it only offers more mystery: what happened to her mom? was she crazy? was she haunted?
Her mother’s last coherent words to her in the journal are- “The shadows are not real, the dreams can never hurt you, and you will be safe as long as you stay away from Gallant.”
Enter: a letter from Olivia’s uncle inviting her to Gallant— the one place she must not go.
So yeah. She goes.
“There are not many futures for a high-tempered orphan who cannot speak.”
I’ve read enough books to know that if I need to warn my kids of anything or make sure they know important information, it’s going to be quite detailed. Just a command NOT to go somewhere with no explanation for why or what will happen if you do is basically a big shove to do exactly that thing. Rookie move, Olivia’s mom.
Most of the book is all this build up of what was going on with Olivia’s mom, and what these ghouls are about, and what’s the deal with Gallant?
“A place this wild, the outside is always trying to get in.”
Gallant is a mansion in somewhat disrepair. There are gray weeds choking the roses. There is a wall in ruins in the garden that her cousin continues to futilely patch. And the ghouls that she can see here are actually deceased family members.
Olivia thinks she finally found a place to belong, but her lone cousin (who decidedly NOT invite her to come) wants her to leave.
“In her mind a family was a sprawling thing, an orchard full of roots and branches. Instead she has been given this single, scowling tree.”
And nothing really happens. For so many pages. And then EVERYTHING happens in like 20 pages.
As I was reading I really wasn’t sure where Schwab was going to take the book. (I didn’t read the book summary beforehand.) Was this just a book of discovery for Olivia? Just learning about herself and a new place? What’s the catch? What’s the conflict?
And then suddenly we’re thrust into a rescue mission. From a villain who is “inevitable.”
This part reads quick and intense, but I wasn’t super invested in it.
I like the idea of a house that holds secrets, and when Olivia discovers the globe thing (as pictured on the cover) where there is this duality of houses, I was intrigued. Reminiscent of the Upside Down on Stranger Things.
But the direction everything took just didn’t do much for me. It wasn’t big enough or complicated enough. The stakes didn’t feel high enough.
And the intricate house sculpture was inconsequential. I feel like a cool and specially designed contraption should have a bigger role in the mysterious mansion.
I thought Olivia was a good character— I hadn’t read a book with a mute character (well I just finished Please Tell Me which has a silent girl but that was trauma-induced silence) so that was interesting to see how the author had her communicate to people and how the reader got to see that interaction.
There were really only a few other prominent characters but prominent is probably too strong of a word. They were there to fill the space and they didn’t do it with much.
I know there was dialogue and noise in the book, because of course there is, but at the same time, it felt like a quiet book. Too quiet. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but something just felt missing.
It kind of reminded me of The Paper Magician— or at least what I remember of reading that book because it was so long ago. There’s some world-building and some weird but potentially interesting stuff going on and you’re following along waiting to see if it’s going to come together and make sense but when you’re done reading you’re just kinda like- What just happened?
There is a unique aspect of this book (other than it’s square appearance). Schwab utilizes imagery. Ink blot art. Again, I’m not sure if this added much for me personally, but it was an interesting element to include as part of Olivia’s mom’s journal. Maybe if I had studied each of the pictures longer I could have picked up some clues or something, but there wasn’t much that ended up hinging on those.
Plus the excerpts that were included about the ‘master’ of the house were white writing on black background in a script-type font and were very hard to read.
Gallant is a book that’s going to be hit or miss for people.
I think for a lot of YA readers it will be a fine read— they’re probably not looking for too complex of a plot, and it’s a pretty clean read if they want to read something eerie. The ghouls are just described as basically partial shadows. The villain is described in more detail and is more creepy, but I don’t think it would be the stuff of nightmares for a teen.
For adults, though, I’m not sure if there’s enough there to really enjoy. The other reviews I read were pretty divided. For some, the writing style is enough to mark it as enjoyable. But others were looking for more plot movement and complexity as I was.
Either way, I think V.E. Schwab is just not the right fantasy author for me.
[Content Advisory: no swearing or sexual content; creepy, ghoulish villain]
The only other V.E. Schwab book that I’ve read is The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue. My opinion on that book was a bit unpopular. I concluded in my review of that book that nothing really happened. .
And that’s my assessment of this book as well.
Gallant is a YA novel so we at least don’t have to read about a love affair with the devil, but the book just really felt simple and empty and quiet.
Schwab does a good job of setting the scene and creating this atmospheric mysterious vibe. The main character- Olivia- is at an orphanage. She is mute. And she can see ‘ghouls.’
“Merilance may call itself a school, but in truth, it is an asylum for the young and the feral and the fortuneless. The orphaned and unwanted.”
It’s obviously the classic ‘orphan that gets made fun of and the matrons are bad people, and she just wants to find a place where she is wanted.’
Her prized possession is the journal of her mother’s that she has, but it only offers more mystery: what happened to her mom? was she crazy? was she haunted?
Her mother’s last coherent words to her in the journal are- “The shadows are not real, the dreams can never hurt you, and you will be safe as long as you stay away from Gallant.”
Enter: a letter from Olivia’s uncle inviting her to Gallant— the one place she must not go.
So yeah. She goes.
“There are not many futures for a high-tempered orphan who cannot speak.”
I’ve read enough books to know that if I need to warn my kids of anything or make sure they know important information, it’s going to be quite detailed. Just a command NOT to go somewhere with no explanation for why or what will happen if you do is basically a big shove to do exactly that thing. Rookie move, Olivia’s mom.
Most of the book is all this build up of what was going on with Olivia’s mom, and what these ghouls are about, and what’s the deal with Gallant?
“A place this wild, the outside is always trying to get in.”
Gallant is a mansion in somewhat disrepair. There are gray weeds choking the roses. There is a wall in ruins in the garden that her cousin continues to futilely patch. And the ghouls that she can see here are actually deceased family members.
Olivia thinks she finally found a place to belong, but her lone cousin (who decidedly NOT invite her to come) wants her to leave.
“In her mind a family was a sprawling thing, an orchard full of roots and branches. Instead she has been given this single, scowling tree.”
And nothing really happens. For so many pages. And then EVERYTHING happens in like 20 pages.
As I was reading I really wasn’t sure where Schwab was going to take the book. (I didn’t read the book summary beforehand.) Was this just a book of discovery for Olivia? Just learning about herself and a new place? What’s the catch? What’s the conflict?
And then suddenly we’re thrust into a rescue mission. From a villain who is “inevitable.”
This part reads quick and intense, but I wasn’t super invested in it.
I like the idea of a house that holds secrets, and when Olivia discovers the globe thing (as pictured on the cover) where there is this duality of houses, I was intrigued. Reminiscent of the Upside Down on Stranger Things.
But the direction everything took just didn’t do much for me. It wasn’t big enough or complicated enough. The stakes didn’t feel high enough.
And the intricate house sculpture was inconsequential. I feel like a cool and specially designed contraption should have a bigger role in the mysterious mansion.
I thought Olivia was a good character— I hadn’t read a book with a mute character (well I just finished Please Tell Me which has a silent girl but that was trauma-induced silence) so that was interesting to see how the author had her communicate to people and how the reader got to see that interaction.
There were really only a few other prominent characters but prominent is probably too strong of a word. They were there to fill the space and they didn’t do it with much.
I know there was dialogue and noise in the book, because of course there is, but at the same time, it felt like a quiet book. Too quiet. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but something just felt missing.
It kind of reminded me of The Paper Magician— or at least what I remember of reading that book because it was so long ago. There’s some world-building and some weird but potentially interesting stuff going on and you’re following along waiting to see if it’s going to come together and make sense but when you’re done reading you’re just kinda like- What just happened?
There is a unique aspect of this book (other than it’s square appearance). Schwab utilizes imagery. Ink blot art. Again, I’m not sure if this added much for me personally, but it was an interesting element to include as part of Olivia’s mom’s journal. Maybe if I had studied each of the pictures longer I could have picked up some clues or something, but there wasn’t much that ended up hinging on those.
Plus the excerpts that were included about the ‘master’ of the house were white writing on black background in a script-type font and were very hard to read.
Gallant is a book that’s going to be hit or miss for people.
I think for a lot of YA readers it will be a fine read— they’re probably not looking for too complex of a plot, and it’s a pretty clean read if they want to read something eerie. The ghouls are just described as basically partial shadows. The villain is described in more detail and is more creepy, but I don’t think it would be the stuff of nightmares for a teen.
For adults, though, I’m not sure if there’s enough there to really enjoy. The other reviews I read were pretty divided. For some, the writing style is enough to mark it as enjoyable. But others were looking for more plot movement and complexity as I was.
Either way, I think V.E. Schwab is just not the right fantasy author for me.
[Content Advisory: no swearing or sexual content; creepy, ghoulish villain]
Please Tell Me by Mike Omer
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
4.0
“She needed to get home, where it was… safe. Where there were no bad men, and where Mommy and Daddy could hug her and her doll.”
I read and really enjoyed Mike Omer’s Abby Mullen series. Please Tell Me is a stand alone novel with quite a different vibe than the Mullen series.
This book is intense and had a nice twist, but it’s a bit darker and it won’t be for all readers.
There are several things in this book that may be turn-offs or triggers for some people so I’ll list them up front: child abduction, a narcissistic parental relationship, quite a few Covid references, and some graphic and violent deaths- we don’t get the play-by-play as they happen but we are told how the people died after the fact and we know that the killer was inspired by several horror films.
Just one of these could be enough for someone not to read a book, so Omer took a risk in combining all of these things into one book. For some, it may be too much.
I wouldn’t be able to read books like these one right after the other and if all his future books continue in this trend I would need to stop, but for a one-off, I could handle it. It helped that there wasn’t a ton of swearing and the violence was not glorified or overdone like a horror novel. There were creepy parts and uncomfortable parts and danger lurking around the corners, but we weren’t subjected to blood everywhere and we weren’t forced into the killer’s mind as he committed his acts.
I wasn’t sure how I was going to like the book when it opens from the POV of a little girl walking along a road without shoes. She had been abducted and she had somehow escaped. It breaks your heart to read her thoughts. That beginning chapter is the only chapter where we are in the little girl’s thoughts.
I was glad that the book didn’t portray her within her captivity because it’s so hard to read about kids going through trauma. Instead, the book is about trying to figure out who took her. She (Kathy) goes to process her experience with a child therapist, Robin— our main character.
Kathy has been so traumatized that she doesn’t speak. If she could have just been able to speak or write (like the title- please tell me), this whole thing would have gone a lot differently, but that’s not how trauma works. There are no neat packages with little bows.
And so, we are drawn through her therapy process through play. Kathy starts to reenact what appears to be violent scenes using little figurines and a dollhouse during her sessions. Robin realizes what she is doing and she tries to help law enforcement by providing details of these sessions that start to match up with murders that have occurred since Kathy was rescued.
Can they help find her abductor before the abductor comes back for Kathy?
Comments
I was mostly satisfied with the direction Omer took everything, but I feel like we needed a little bit more background on what led her abductor to do what they did. It wasn’t clear what was behind that and so the twist feels a bit like a twist just for the sake of a twist instead of a logical progression. It definitely made for a surprise— which I liked— but after we found out, I would have liked more information on motive.
There develops a small romance between Robin and one of the investigators on the cases. I didn’t care for that. It added a bit to the character development of Robin, but not much to the story as a whole. I don’t really like the trope of ‘woman in distress falls for law enforcement person helping her.’ Overdone, not realistic, unnecessary.
I think Robin was a likable character. Some reviewers have mentioned the therapy sessions being boring or repetitive, but I didn’t feel like that when I was reading. I thought it was interesting to see how a therapist would handle these situations. Based on the acknowledgements at the end of the book, it sounds like Omer got a lot of input from professionals so I think what he wrote is a pretty realistic handling. And I appreciated that Omer included that Robin consulted another therapist while treating Kathy to make sure she wasn’t doing anything harmful. She didn’t have an ego and it added to the authenticity of her practice.
There are parts of her character that make her more complex— her relationship with her mother, her divorce, her miscarriage, and her own need for therapy. I think we view people like therapists on these pedestals like they don’t have anything traumatic or dysfunctional in their own lives because they have all this psychological knowledge and know what’s going on. But it makes sense that they should have their own struggles and might need to see their own therapist. I don’t think that makes them a bad therapist, it makes them a normal person.
I think Omer did a great job with some of Robin’s inner dialogue— like when she is doom scrolling on Facebook one night. Omer is very attuned to social media behavior and psychology and I found that section relatable and humorous. Like how she made sure to ‘like’ all the posts about Kathy’s return because she didn’t want to make her own post about it because ‘It always confused her when people stampeded their way to social media to share their feelings.’ but she also didn’t want people to think she didn’t like that Kathy was back. (Side note: Robin has more Facebook friends than me.)
I do wish Robin wasn’t a smoker. It seems like such a stupid habit for anyone to take up now that we KNOW all the harmful effects of smoking. Why would anyone do that?! So it’s hard for me not to see smokers as dumb people. I wish her coping mechanism was something else. Like candy. I don’t know.
One thing I thought was strange as I was reading it was that it felt like Omer only used the word ‘cop’ instead of police officer. Cop just feels like a negative way of referring to officers. If I was talking to my kids I don’t think I would use the term cop. But in the story Robin used ‘cop’ with Kathy.
I did double check this and my perception was a little off from reality. Cop was used 65 times— which is a lot, but then I checked for police and that was like 73. So he did interchange, but my perception while reading was that ‘cop’ was overused.
I know cop is just more informal, but it just feels disrespectful to me. Cop feels like the term perpetrators use. Police feels like the term victims and normal people use. Is that just me?
The Triggers
As mentioned, there are several trigger points or turn-offs.
Child abduction. As a mom, I’ve obviously worried about this scenario multiple times. I think Omer does a good job of portraying Kathy’s mom’s (Claire) struggle with what happened. Kathy was taken from her yard while she was playing and her mom was doing dishes. Claire endures judgment from people about not paying attention to her daughter, and the guilty ‘if onlys’ that plague her. And then once Kathy is back, Claire has to learn how to care for Kathy all over again because of her silence and her reactions to loud noises etc.
Narcissistic parent. Robin’s mom is a classic narcissist. I know of several people who have one of these in their life and the way Omer writes their interactions and dialogue seems very on par with reality. It is a frustrating thing to read and I can see how some who already deal with that in real life would not want that in a book they’re reading.
Covid. I’m not a fan of Covid being included in books. I’ve read a few now where authors have set their stories during or in a world where Covid existed. The way it’s talked about in the book is very pragmatic and normal conversations or comments about people’s lives: when they couldn’t leave their houses, when they had to wear masks, how people were fighting over toilet paper, how people cared if you were vaccinated or not, etc. There was also one reference to a shooter drill in school. It’s not everywhere in the book but it’s more than a few comments. I do think it’s an interesting point within the setting of the book. When Kathy first disappeared and they had the community help search, everyone had masks which obscured the police from really seeing who came out to help (since the abductor often shows up to those kinds of things).
Violent deaths. I won’t go into details here because I’ve already mentioned a few things, but the deaths are based on horror movie scenes and each one was different. I don’t feel like it was written like a horror novel at all which is good. It adds a darkness to the book, but it’s not super descriptive and doesn’t take up a lot of page real estate. Another element of this was that there is mention of these crimes and violence being an erotic experience for the perpetrator.
Recommendation
This is a hard book to know how to recommend. I think people who really don’t have any triggers and they just want an intense thriller will really like this book.
But I just think it’s important for the reader to consider if this combination of things will be okay for them to read.
If it was really graphic and dark I don’t think I would recommend it at all, but I don’t feel like that was the case here. It wasn’t over-the-top, it just had a unique combination of things that could be overwhelming to certain readers.
I would still definitely recommend Omer’s other books (they’re more crime/procedural thrillers with law enforcement being the primary characters) and I’ll keep reading his future books at this point!
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 31 s-words; no sexual content; violence and some graphic deaths described after the fact]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
I read and really enjoyed Mike Omer’s Abby Mullen series. Please Tell Me is a stand alone novel with quite a different vibe than the Mullen series.
This book is intense and had a nice twist, but it’s a bit darker and it won’t be for all readers.
There are several things in this book that may be turn-offs or triggers for some people so I’ll list them up front: child abduction, a narcissistic parental relationship, quite a few Covid references, and some graphic and violent deaths- we don’t get the play-by-play as they happen but we are told how the people died after the fact and we know that the killer was inspired by several horror films.
Just one of these could be enough for someone not to read a book, so Omer took a risk in combining all of these things into one book. For some, it may be too much.
I wouldn’t be able to read books like these one right after the other and if all his future books continue in this trend I would need to stop, but for a one-off, I could handle it. It helped that there wasn’t a ton of swearing and the violence was not glorified or overdone like a horror novel. There were creepy parts and uncomfortable parts and danger lurking around the corners, but we weren’t subjected to blood everywhere and we weren’t forced into the killer’s mind as he committed his acts.
I wasn’t sure how I was going to like the book when it opens from the POV of a little girl walking along a road without shoes. She had been abducted and she had somehow escaped. It breaks your heart to read her thoughts. That beginning chapter is the only chapter where we are in the little girl’s thoughts.
I was glad that the book didn’t portray her within her captivity because it’s so hard to read about kids going through trauma. Instead, the book is about trying to figure out who took her. She (Kathy) goes to process her experience with a child therapist, Robin— our main character.
Kathy has been so traumatized that she doesn’t speak. If she could have just been able to speak or write (like the title- please tell me), this whole thing would have gone a lot differently, but that’s not how trauma works. There are no neat packages with little bows.
And so, we are drawn through her therapy process through play. Kathy starts to reenact what appears to be violent scenes using little figurines and a dollhouse during her sessions. Robin realizes what she is doing and she tries to help law enforcement by providing details of these sessions that start to match up with murders that have occurred since Kathy was rescued.
Can they help find her abductor before the abductor comes back for Kathy?
Comments
I was mostly satisfied with the direction Omer took everything, but I feel like we needed a little bit more background on what led her abductor to do what they did. It wasn’t clear what was behind that and so the twist feels a bit like a twist just for the sake of a twist instead of a logical progression. It definitely made for a surprise— which I liked— but after we found out, I would have liked more information on motive.
There develops a small romance between Robin and one of the investigators on the cases. I didn’t care for that. It added a bit to the character development of Robin, but not much to the story as a whole. I don’t really like the trope of ‘woman in distress falls for law enforcement person helping her.’ Overdone, not realistic, unnecessary.
I think Robin was a likable character. Some reviewers have mentioned the therapy sessions being boring or repetitive, but I didn’t feel like that when I was reading. I thought it was interesting to see how a therapist would handle these situations. Based on the acknowledgements at the end of the book, it sounds like Omer got a lot of input from professionals so I think what he wrote is a pretty realistic handling. And I appreciated that Omer included that Robin consulted another therapist while treating Kathy to make sure she wasn’t doing anything harmful. She didn’t have an ego and it added to the authenticity of her practice.
There are parts of her character that make her more complex— her relationship with her mother, her divorce, her miscarriage, and her own need for therapy. I think we view people like therapists on these pedestals like they don’t have anything traumatic or dysfunctional in their own lives because they have all this psychological knowledge and know what’s going on. But it makes sense that they should have their own struggles and might need to see their own therapist. I don’t think that makes them a bad therapist, it makes them a normal person.
I think Omer did a great job with some of Robin’s inner dialogue— like when she is doom scrolling on Facebook one night. Omer is very attuned to social media behavior and psychology and I found that section relatable and humorous. Like how she made sure to ‘like’ all the posts about Kathy’s return because she didn’t want to make her own post about it because ‘It always confused her when people stampeded their way to social media to share their feelings.’ but she also didn’t want people to think she didn’t like that Kathy was back. (Side note: Robin has more Facebook friends than me.)
I do wish Robin wasn’t a smoker. It seems like such a stupid habit for anyone to take up now that we KNOW all the harmful effects of smoking. Why would anyone do that?! So it’s hard for me not to see smokers as dumb people. I wish her coping mechanism was something else. Like candy. I don’t know.
One thing I thought was strange as I was reading it was that it felt like Omer only used the word ‘cop’ instead of police officer. Cop just feels like a negative way of referring to officers. If I was talking to my kids I don’t think I would use the term cop. But in the story Robin used ‘cop’ with Kathy.
I did double check this and my perception was a little off from reality. Cop was used 65 times— which is a lot, but then I checked for police and that was like 73. So he did interchange, but my perception while reading was that ‘cop’ was overused.
I know cop is just more informal, but it just feels disrespectful to me. Cop feels like the term perpetrators use. Police feels like the term victims and normal people use. Is that just me?
The Triggers
As mentioned, there are several trigger points or turn-offs.
Child abduction. As a mom, I’ve obviously worried about this scenario multiple times. I think Omer does a good job of portraying Kathy’s mom’s (Claire) struggle with what happened. Kathy was taken from her yard while she was playing and her mom was doing dishes. Claire endures judgment from people about not paying attention to her daughter, and the guilty ‘if onlys’ that plague her. And then once Kathy is back, Claire has to learn how to care for Kathy all over again because of her silence and her reactions to loud noises etc.
Narcissistic parent. Robin’s mom is a classic narcissist. I know of several people who have one of these in their life and the way Omer writes their interactions and dialogue seems very on par with reality. It is a frustrating thing to read and I can see how some who already deal with that in real life would not want that in a book they’re reading.
Covid. I’m not a fan of Covid being included in books. I’ve read a few now where authors have set their stories during or in a world where Covid existed. The way it’s talked about in the book is very pragmatic and normal conversations or comments about people’s lives: when they couldn’t leave their houses, when they had to wear masks, how people were fighting over toilet paper, how people cared if you were vaccinated or not, etc. There was also one reference to a shooter drill in school. It’s not everywhere in the book but it’s more than a few comments. I do think it’s an interesting point within the setting of the book. When Kathy first disappeared and they had the community help search, everyone had masks which obscured the police from really seeing who came out to help (since the abductor often shows up to those kinds of things).
Violent deaths. I won’t go into details here because I’ve already mentioned a few things, but the deaths are based on horror movie scenes and each one was different. I don’t feel like it was written like a horror novel at all which is good. It adds a darkness to the book, but it’s not super descriptive and doesn’t take up a lot of page real estate. Another element of this was that there is mention of these crimes and violence being an erotic experience for the perpetrator.
Recommendation
This is a hard book to know how to recommend. I think people who really don’t have any triggers and they just want an intense thriller will really like this book.
But I just think it’s important for the reader to consider if this combination of things will be okay for them to read.
If it was really graphic and dark I don’t think I would recommend it at all, but I don’t feel like that was the case here. It wasn’t over-the-top, it just had a unique combination of things that could be overwhelming to certain readers.
I would still definitely recommend Omer’s other books (they’re more crime/procedural thrillers with law enforcement being the primary characters) and I’ll keep reading his future books at this point!
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 31 s-words; no sexual content; violence and some graphic deaths described after the fact]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence
Moderate: Child abuse, Cursing, and Toxic relationship
The Spy Coast by Tess Gerritsen
adventurous
funny
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
“It’s the story of my life. Leave the bodies behind and move on.”
Tess Gerritsen is known for her Rizzoli and Isles series, of which I’ve read a couple. This is apparently her first swing at an espionage thriller.
I thought it was a really good book with some good characters! I wouldn’t say there was a huge shocking reveal or anything, but it had some nice twists/ mysteries that I didn’t have completely figured out. I think it’s a series I would continue to read.
The basic premise is this:
Retired CIA agent, Maggie Bird, has settled down in a small rural Maine town called Purity. Until a woman comes knocking with news that a former colleague (Diana) has disappeared from Paris. Maggie and Diana parted on less than ideal terms and Maggie has no desire to help out.
“Diana lit the tinder that destroyed my career. My life.”
But when her visitor’s body turns up tortured and dead in her driveway, Maggie has no choice but to get involved.
Her last operation was chaos and someone is back for revenge. If Maggie hopes to return to her idyllic retired life, she must put this to rest.
“When you live in a world of mirrors, the truth is always distorted.”
With the help of her other retired CIA agent friends in town, Maggie crosses the world to Bangkok and Milan and back investigating who has come back to hunt her down.
“Here we are, five old spies with five lifetimes’ worth of experience. Retired does not mean useless. Everyone here has brought their individual tricks of the trade.”
Gerritsen reveals in her author’s note at the end that the idea for this story came from her actual life. She lives in a small town in Maine (Camden, not Purity) and when her doctor husband started seeing patients there they discovered that many of her neighbors were retired CIA agents.
With only a population of 5000 people, she wondered what would lead so many retirees to their little town. Though she could never track down an answer to that question, it inspired The Spy Coast:
“Unassuming retirees with secret past lives make fascinating characters to explore, and that’s how The Spy Coast was born. I wanted to write about spies who don’t look like James Bond but instead are like my neighbors, quietly living as utterly ordinary retirees… until the past comes back to haunt them, and they’re forced to call on old skills they thought they’d never use again.”
I agree that this older cast of spies makes for a unique thriller!
Forms of this have been done in books and movies before though I feel like it’s usually with a humorous bent. But Gerritsen creates her characters to be taken seriously. Sure they have their joint pain and need naps in the afternoons, but they’re still very capable, observant, and intelligent people who can go on real missions.
Is that possible at the ages of 60 and 70+? I don’t know. I haven’t achieved those milestones yet. But Gerritsen didn’t have them literally chasing criminals down the street or fighting in hand-to-hand combat, so she did a good job of getting them in the field in an appropriate but still significant way.
The one character I have mixed feelings about is Jo, the acting police chief in Purity. She’s in her thirties and is trying to do her job in investigating the events surrounding Maggie. But she finds that Maggie and her ‘Martini Club’, as they call themselves, is always one or two steps ahead of her.
Her two catch phrases in the book seemed to be, ‘What the heck is going on?’ and ‘Who are you people?’
I think we’re supposed to like her and admire Jo’s doggedness in doing her job. We’re told she is good at her job and works hard for her community. But at the same time, she looks foolish when she can’t keep up and that these other people are figuring everything out before her. From beginning to end it works this way.
I think I would have liked it more if the Martini Club actually needed Jo’s knowledge or expertise at least once in this book. That there could be some sort of camaraderie. There is no animosity or hostility, but without actually working together, Jo looks the fool.
Perhaps in future books the tables will turn a bit.
I look forward to future books in this series to see what other skills the group has, to see more of the background of their friendships, and to see if the perpetrator at the end comes back into the picture.
I think this is a great book that most people will enjoy. It’s an easy to read spy thriller with unique and likable characters, suspense and danger, and a dash of humor.
Definitely a book I would recommend!
[Content Advisory: a couple handfuls of f- and s- words; a few sentences of sexual content but nothing extended]
Tess Gerritsen is known for her Rizzoli and Isles series, of which I’ve read a couple. This is apparently her first swing at an espionage thriller.
I thought it was a really good book with some good characters! I wouldn’t say there was a huge shocking reveal or anything, but it had some nice twists/ mysteries that I didn’t have completely figured out. I think it’s a series I would continue to read.
The basic premise is this:
Retired CIA agent, Maggie Bird, has settled down in a small rural Maine town called Purity. Until a woman comes knocking with news that a former colleague (Diana) has disappeared from Paris. Maggie and Diana parted on less than ideal terms and Maggie has no desire to help out.
“Diana lit the tinder that destroyed my career. My life.”
But when her visitor’s body turns up tortured and dead in her driveway, Maggie has no choice but to get involved.
Her last operation was chaos and someone is back for revenge. If Maggie hopes to return to her idyllic retired life, she must put this to rest.
“When you live in a world of mirrors, the truth is always distorted.”
With the help of her other retired CIA agent friends in town, Maggie crosses the world to Bangkok and Milan and back investigating who has come back to hunt her down.
“Here we are, five old spies with five lifetimes’ worth of experience. Retired does not mean useless. Everyone here has brought their individual tricks of the trade.”
Gerritsen reveals in her author’s note at the end that the idea for this story came from her actual life. She lives in a small town in Maine (Camden, not Purity) and when her doctor husband started seeing patients there they discovered that many of her neighbors were retired CIA agents.
With only a population of 5000 people, she wondered what would lead so many retirees to their little town. Though she could never track down an answer to that question, it inspired The Spy Coast:
“Unassuming retirees with secret past lives make fascinating characters to explore, and that’s how The Spy Coast was born. I wanted to write about spies who don’t look like James Bond but instead are like my neighbors, quietly living as utterly ordinary retirees… until the past comes back to haunt them, and they’re forced to call on old skills they thought they’d never use again.”
I agree that this older cast of spies makes for a unique thriller!
Forms of this have been done in books and movies before though I feel like it’s usually with a humorous bent. But Gerritsen creates her characters to be taken seriously. Sure they have their joint pain and need naps in the afternoons, but they’re still very capable, observant, and intelligent people who can go on real missions.
Is that possible at the ages of 60 and 70+? I don’t know. I haven’t achieved those milestones yet. But Gerritsen didn’t have them literally chasing criminals down the street or fighting in hand-to-hand combat, so she did a good job of getting them in the field in an appropriate but still significant way.
The one character I have mixed feelings about is Jo, the acting police chief in Purity. She’s in her thirties and is trying to do her job in investigating the events surrounding Maggie. But she finds that Maggie and her ‘Martini Club’, as they call themselves, is always one or two steps ahead of her.
Her two catch phrases in the book seemed to be, ‘What the heck is going on?’ and ‘Who are you people?’
I think we’re supposed to like her and admire Jo’s doggedness in doing her job. We’re told she is good at her job and works hard for her community. But at the same time, she looks foolish when she can’t keep up and that these other people are figuring everything out before her. From beginning to end it works this way.
I think I would have liked it more if the Martini Club actually needed Jo’s knowledge or expertise at least once in this book. That there could be some sort of camaraderie. There is no animosity or hostility, but without actually working together, Jo looks the fool.
Perhaps in future books the tables will turn a bit.
I look forward to future books in this series to see what other skills the group has, to see more of the background of their friendships, and to see if the perpetrator at the end comes back into the picture.
I think this is a great book that most people will enjoy. It’s an easy to read spy thriller with unique and likable characters, suspense and danger, and a dash of humor.
Definitely a book I would recommend!
[Content Advisory: a couple handfuls of f- and s- words; a few sentences of sexual content but nothing extended]
Content Warnings
Minor: Cursing and Sexual content
The Good Doctor by Jessica Payne
mysterious
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“There’s nothing between us but secrets and threats.”
I really liked Payne’s book The Lucky One so I was excited to read another one by her. I didn’t like this one as much as that one, however it had a lot less swearing in it which is a plus.
What took this one down a few notches for me was a lack of mystery, a pretty one-dimensional plot, too much coffee, and the whole oft-used scenario where someone discovers something alarming and gets mad and hurt and even though the other person is like ‘Let me explain…’ the mad/hurt/scared person says ‘No. I will not listen to potential answers. I shall flee the scene and live in confusion and misunderstandings because I just can’t even. And don’t ever touch the same ground as me.’ And if they would have just listened for five whole seconds, everything could have been avoided.
As to the lack of mystery: there is a disclaimer at the beginning which warns readers of physician-assisted suicide in the book. I suppose that’s important in case that’s a trigger for some but for a thriller it felt like the author was giving away information that lessens the suspense.
Thus, I went into it thinking the book was going to be about deaths happening in a hospital and then them realizing it was a doctor assisting patients to die. This is partially right, except we find out pretty soon that the main character, Chloe’s ex-husband (Jameson), is a doctor who does physician-assisted suicides so the ‘mystery’ becomes more about whether or not the higher death rate at the hospital is actually because of him or someone else.
And that part I figured out at like 20%. To be fair, there were a few times where I thought maybe I was wrong after all, but overall, the book didn’t feel like the twisty psychological thriller it promised to be.
Another Annoyance #1:
It’s repeated and hinted at multiple times that Chloe and Jameson have some sort of shared secret that they’re guilty of.
“I never thought I’d get a second chance at happily ever after. Not after what I did, and to someone I loved, no less.”
“After what we did, he isn’t allowed to be the love of my life.”
I got annoyed with all the cloak and dagger stuff surrounding her past because when we find out what they did, we really aren’t surprised at all.
Another Annoyance #2:
The coffee and the wine. I get that it’s the Pacific Northwest and they are coffee fanatics out there and that doctors and nurses require much coffee, but I feel like every time the author needed to move the plot forward she used coffee or wine to do that- Hey let’s get drinks! Hey, can I grab you a coffee? Can you grab me a coffee? Should we go drink coffee? Can you reinsert my coffee IV line?
If you don’t believe me, here are the facts: the word coffee is used 85 times and wine is used 87 times. Folks, that’s much times. I cross-referenced these numbers with a few other digital books I have just to see and those books used these words less than 20.
Perhaps a reader who actually likes coffee will love this, but for me it felt like coffee was it’s own character. And a bitter one at that.
Another Annoyance #3:
I feel like there were a lot of plot holes required for this story to be a thing. I just think it would be pretty hard to hide all of this at a hospital. Especially when they have had a task force created to research the high death rate and determine a cause and then results go missing and people on the task force start dying.
And the hospital has cameras. Sure the camera was off during some of the deaths, but wouldn’t that also be a red flag?
At the end when a character goes missing from their room, even though Chloe had been looking at the cameras previous times, she doesn’t check them at that point. Probably would have helped.
I’m not familiar with how hospitals work and typically I can suspend reality for the case of a book in a lot of scenarios, but considering the whole high death-rate in a hospital where people might be killing patients is the entire premise and setting for the book, I wish it would have been a more plausible situation.
Another Annoyance #4:
They have a soap dish in their bathroom at home. What kind of psychos prefer bar soap to wash their hands??
Another Annoyance #5:
Chloe finds herself in a bit of a love triangle with her ex-husband and her current fiance. She suspects her ex-husband of murdering patients, but to her fiance it just looks like she’s obsessed with her ex-husband and he’s not super thrilled they’re working so closely together.
It creates some tension between her and her fiance. But no matter how bad it gets, she is just not ‘ready’ to tell him the truth. I get how this is important to the story as Payne wrote it, but I don’t like when a story requires a character to withhold information from a person they wouldn’t. Maybe at first, but there comes a point when withholding the information makes no sense anymore.
Physician-Assisted Suicide
Because this is a major part of the book, let’s talk about this controversial subject. (Also sometimes called ‘death with dignity’ or ‘right to die’ or ‘aid in dying’- AID.)
Whether or not physician-assisted suicide is ethical or moral is not really discussed in the book, it’s kinda just a given:
“he was doing it because he believed people had the right to choose when they died when they were terminally ill. When they were actively in pain and suffering and there was no light at the end of the tunnel.”
“I also knew how much he cared about people. How much he hated to see them in pain, and I knew this came from a place of caring.”
“Jameson was offering a great kindness. A great, horrible kindness.”
“he was so honest that he told me he was doing something that while ethical, was illegal.”
PAS or AID is different than euthanasia because the patient is administering the drugs, not the physician. The physician merely prepares the drugs and is present.
PAS should also not be confused with palliative care which is care given to patients by trying to alleviate symptoms and pain as best as they can as they are dying, which with modern medicine is usually pretty effective.
This is a controversial issue that has a lot of gray areas. Like the character in the book who had ALS, an incurable disease and a painful way to die, it’s hard to think about ‘forcing’ someone to endure that in the last days of their life.
I don’t know if I land on a concrete black-and-white stance in regards to this issue as I think there are so many factors to consider in each case and medical things that I don’t know about.
But here are some thoughts and information about it. It’s worth pondering and thinking through the implications of PAS.
The main argument for PAS is patient autonomy. People want to be in control of when and how they die. It is often driven by severe pain and discomfort that they want to be free of. They believe they should have the right to choose when they die.
However, a Canadian physician interviewed in this article reveals that research studies show that the driving force for patient autonomy is less about their pain and more about their desire to control their death.
He also says, “When death itself can be considered as a medical benefit, the sky seems to be the unfortunate limit for patient autonomy, and it introduces a level of subjectivity into medicine that we wouldn’t otherwise tolerate.”
Oregon, where this book takes place, is one of the eleven states that currently allows PAS. There’s some information coming out of there that gives pause.
After a high profile PAS death in 2014 in Oregon, numbers showed that others who ended their lives this way more than doubled. PAS can actually lead to more PAS just like how the show 13 Reasons Why led to an increase in suicides in teenagers.
Research also shows that doctors weren’t present for one-fourth of the cases. It’s unknown how frequent there are complications with this method of death.
Additionally, another factor often not considered when patients are electing to die is that their judgment may be clouded by clinical depression which can be treated, but this is rarely taken into consideration.
This article listing the arguments for both sides of the issue states, “Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.”
While patient autonomy is important, I am a firm believer in the sanctity of human life. And that life should not be taken. While there are some gray areas as it stands, I think the ‘slippery slope’ opposing argument of PAS is a really important one to think about.
If we start legalizing PAS when patients want to alleviate their pain- where are the lines drawn for that? At what point is it too much pain? Which diseases qualify a patient? It would easily start applying to a broader and broader patient base than it should.
As Wayne Grudem fleshes out in his book Christian Ethics, the ‘right to die’ can also easily become ‘obligated to die.’
“If euthanasia is allowed for some patients, who are suffering, then how can we prevent it from being applied to more and more patients who are suffering?… a society can quickly move from merely allowing the ‘right to die’ to the belief that there is ‘an obligation to die’ on the part of the elderly and the very ill people who are ‘draining resources’ from the society.”
He then goes on to reveal alarming statistics coming out of the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal. It is estimated that “in 1990 nearly 6000 of approximately 130,000 people who died in the Netherlands that year were involuntarily euthanized.”
While there are some examples of people who used PAS that seem right, it’s hard to deny that the legalization of PAS and euthanasia can lead to more and more death. Death of patients that could still recover, death of patients involuntarily, death of infants of children who can’t make those choices for themselves, and an overall subjective scale on what quantifies a life worth living.
Just some thoughts to ponder!
Recommendation
I won’t write Jessica Payne off because I liked her other book and this one shows me she can write without using a lot of swearing. However, there were a few things, as listed above, that made this book a hard one to recommend.
I think if you’re easy to please when it comes to thrillers, you’ll probably enjoy this.
If you’ve read a lot of thrillers and have become a bit picky, my annoyances with this one may be yours as well.
I also would not recommend if physician-assisted suicide is a trigger for you.
[Content Advisory: 17 f-words, 14 s-words, a couple sex scenes are implied but only a few sentences of content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
I really liked Payne’s book The Lucky One so I was excited to read another one by her. I didn’t like this one as much as that one, however it had a lot less swearing in it which is a plus.
What took this one down a few notches for me was a lack of mystery, a pretty one-dimensional plot, too much coffee, and the whole oft-used scenario where someone discovers something alarming and gets mad and hurt and even though the other person is like ‘Let me explain…’ the mad/hurt/scared person says ‘No. I will not listen to potential answers. I shall flee the scene and live in confusion and misunderstandings because I just can’t even. And don’t ever touch the same ground as me.’ And if they would have just listened for five whole seconds, everything could have been avoided.
As to the lack of mystery: there is a disclaimer at the beginning which warns readers of physician-assisted suicide in the book. I suppose that’s important in case that’s a trigger for some but for a thriller it felt like the author was giving away information that lessens the suspense.
Thus, I went into it thinking the book was going to be about deaths happening in a hospital and then them realizing it was a doctor assisting patients to die. This is partially right, except we find out pretty soon that the main character, Chloe’s ex-husband (Jameson), is a doctor who does physician-assisted suicides so the ‘mystery’ becomes more about whether or not the higher death rate at the hospital is actually because of him or someone else.
And that part I figured out at like 20%. To be fair, there were a few times where I thought maybe I was wrong after all, but overall, the book didn’t feel like the twisty psychological thriller it promised to be.
Another Annoyance #1:
It’s repeated and hinted at multiple times that Chloe and Jameson have some sort of shared secret that they’re guilty of.
“I never thought I’d get a second chance at happily ever after. Not after what I did, and to someone I loved, no less.”
“After what we did, he isn’t allowed to be the love of my life.”
I got annoyed with all the cloak and dagger stuff surrounding her past because when we find out what they did, we really aren’t surprised at all.
Another Annoyance #2:
The coffee and the wine. I get that it’s the Pacific Northwest and they are coffee fanatics out there and that doctors and nurses require much coffee, but I feel like every time the author needed to move the plot forward she used coffee or wine to do that- Hey let’s get drinks! Hey, can I grab you a coffee? Can you grab me a coffee? Should we go drink coffee? Can you reinsert my coffee IV line?
If you don’t believe me, here are the facts: the word coffee is used 85 times and wine is used 87 times. Folks, that’s much times. I cross-referenced these numbers with a few other digital books I have just to see and those books used these words less than 20.
Perhaps a reader who actually likes coffee will love this, but for me it felt like coffee was it’s own character. And a bitter one at that.
Another Annoyance #3:
I feel like there were a lot of plot holes required for this story to be a thing. I just think it would be pretty hard to hide all of this at a hospital. Especially when they have had a task force created to research the high death rate and determine a cause and then results go missing and people on the task force start dying.
And the hospital has cameras. Sure the camera was off during some of the deaths, but wouldn’t that also be a red flag?
At the end when a character goes missing from their room, even though Chloe had been looking at the cameras previous times, she doesn’t check them at that point. Probably would have helped.
I’m not familiar with how hospitals work and typically I can suspend reality for the case of a book in a lot of scenarios, but considering the whole high death-rate in a hospital where people might be killing patients is the entire premise and setting for the book, I wish it would have been a more plausible situation.
Another Annoyance #4:
They have a soap dish in their bathroom at home. What kind of psychos prefer bar soap to wash their hands??
Another Annoyance #5:
Chloe finds herself in a bit of a love triangle with her ex-husband and her current fiance. She suspects her ex-husband of murdering patients, but to her fiance it just looks like she’s obsessed with her ex-husband and he’s not super thrilled they’re working so closely together.
It creates some tension between her and her fiance. But no matter how bad it gets, she is just not ‘ready’ to tell him the truth. I get how this is important to the story as Payne wrote it, but I don’t like when a story requires a character to withhold information from a person they wouldn’t. Maybe at first, but there comes a point when withholding the information makes no sense anymore.
Physician-Assisted Suicide
Because this is a major part of the book, let’s talk about this controversial subject. (Also sometimes called ‘death with dignity’ or ‘right to die’ or ‘aid in dying’- AID.)
Whether or not physician-assisted suicide is ethical or moral is not really discussed in the book, it’s kinda just a given:
“he was doing it because he believed people had the right to choose when they died when they were terminally ill. When they were actively in pain and suffering and there was no light at the end of the tunnel.”
“I also knew how much he cared about people. How much he hated to see them in pain, and I knew this came from a place of caring.”
“Jameson was offering a great kindness. A great, horrible kindness.”
“he was so honest that he told me he was doing something that while ethical, was illegal.”
PAS or AID is different than euthanasia because the patient is administering the drugs, not the physician. The physician merely prepares the drugs and is present.
PAS should also not be confused with palliative care which is care given to patients by trying to alleviate symptoms and pain as best as they can as they are dying, which with modern medicine is usually pretty effective.
This is a controversial issue that has a lot of gray areas. Like the character in the book who had ALS, an incurable disease and a painful way to die, it’s hard to think about ‘forcing’ someone to endure that in the last days of their life.
I don’t know if I land on a concrete black-and-white stance in regards to this issue as I think there are so many factors to consider in each case and medical things that I don’t know about.
But here are some thoughts and information about it. It’s worth pondering and thinking through the implications of PAS.
The main argument for PAS is patient autonomy. People want to be in control of when and how they die. It is often driven by severe pain and discomfort that they want to be free of. They believe they should have the right to choose when they die.
However, a Canadian physician interviewed in this article reveals that research studies show that the driving force for patient autonomy is less about their pain and more about their desire to control their death.
He also says, “When death itself can be considered as a medical benefit, the sky seems to be the unfortunate limit for patient autonomy, and it introduces a level of subjectivity into medicine that we wouldn’t otherwise tolerate.”
Oregon, where this book takes place, is one of the eleven states that currently allows PAS. There’s some information coming out of there that gives pause.
After a high profile PAS death in 2014 in Oregon, numbers showed that others who ended their lives this way more than doubled. PAS can actually lead to more PAS just like how the show 13 Reasons Why led to an increase in suicides in teenagers.
Research also shows that doctors weren’t present for one-fourth of the cases. It’s unknown how frequent there are complications with this method of death.
Additionally, another factor often not considered when patients are electing to die is that their judgment may be clouded by clinical depression which can be treated, but this is rarely taken into consideration.
This article listing the arguments for both sides of the issue states, “Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.”
While patient autonomy is important, I am a firm believer in the sanctity of human life. And that life should not be taken. While there are some gray areas as it stands, I think the ‘slippery slope’ opposing argument of PAS is a really important one to think about.
If we start legalizing PAS when patients want to alleviate their pain- where are the lines drawn for that? At what point is it too much pain? Which diseases qualify a patient? It would easily start applying to a broader and broader patient base than it should.
As Wayne Grudem fleshes out in his book Christian Ethics, the ‘right to die’ can also easily become ‘obligated to die.’
“If euthanasia is allowed for some patients, who are suffering, then how can we prevent it from being applied to more and more patients who are suffering?… a society can quickly move from merely allowing the ‘right to die’ to the belief that there is ‘an obligation to die’ on the part of the elderly and the very ill people who are ‘draining resources’ from the society.”
He then goes on to reveal alarming statistics coming out of the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal. It is estimated that “in 1990 nearly 6000 of approximately 130,000 people who died in the Netherlands that year were involuntarily euthanized.”
While there are some examples of people who used PAS that seem right, it’s hard to deny that the legalization of PAS and euthanasia can lead to more and more death. Death of patients that could still recover, death of patients involuntarily, death of infants of children who can’t make those choices for themselves, and an overall subjective scale on what quantifies a life worth living.
Just some thoughts to ponder!
Recommendation
I won’t write Jessica Payne off because I liked her other book and this one shows me she can write without using a lot of swearing. However, there were a few things, as listed above, that made this book a hard one to recommend.
I think if you’re easy to please when it comes to thrillers, you’ll probably enjoy this.
If you’ve read a lot of thrillers and have become a bit picky, my annoyances with this one may be yours as well.
I also would not recommend if physician-assisted suicide is a trigger for you.
[Content Advisory: 17 f-words, 14 s-words, a couple sex scenes are implied but only a few sentences of content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide
Moderate: Cursing and Terminal illness
The Lincoln Highway by Amor Towles
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
4.5
“‘Well that’s life in a nutshell, ain’t it. Lovin’ to go to one place and havin’ to go to another.’”
I really enjoyed Towles’ book, A Gentleman in Moscow. I didn’t like The Lincoln Highway as much. Still a good read, but what I liked about A Gentleman in Moscow was getting to know the primary character, his wit and charm and mischief and because The Lincoln Highway had a larger cast of characters, the whole vibe of the book was different.
It’s a different setting and a different flow.
I will say, I liked it better than what the cover made me think I would. The length of the book and the cover make it seem like a daunting and boring book. If I hadn’t already read one of his books I doubt I would have ended up reading it for those reasons.
But just like A Gentleman in Moscow, what seems like a book that will take forever to read, actually didn’t feel like it took me that long! The story engaged you well enough to keep the pages turning. So I was glad about that.
Probably the two biggest downsides for me was the character of Duchess (because he made me so mad) and the presented plot at the beginning that never really happened. You have these two boys who just lost their dad and they are about to cross the country via The Lincoln Highway to start a new life and supposedly find their mother who left them years ago. The Lincoln Highway because she had written them postcards sent from destinations along the route.
This is the adventure you think you’re going to read. And though this may be a spoiler, I feel like it’s an important one to point out to potential readers: That is not the adventure.
The adventure is three 18-year-old boys traveling 1500 miles (in the wrong direction) in 1950s America over the course of ten days. Instead of traveling West toward San Francisco, they end up heading east side-tracked in New York.
The book is the adventure before ‘the adventure.’ The end of the book is them finally setting out from Times Square toward the other coast.
To me, that was disappointing. I wanted to know what the deal was with their mom and how they were going to find her and what their lives were going to look like. Maybe at each stop of the postcard they would learn something new about their mom or themselves. Instead, it was a reading of constantly diverted plans due to Duchess screwing things up. Whether in books or movies I always have a hard time with the screw-up friend. I’m sure there’s an Enneagram observation to be made about me, but that’s where I’m at with Duchess.
Another thing that influenced the way I read the book was that I kept forgetting that Emmett, Woolly, and Duchess were just teenagers. The story begins with Emmett returning home after finishing his sentence at the juvenile detention center in Salina, KS. Woolly and Duchess had stowed away in the warden’s car and ‘escaped’ undetected. I kept thinking they were adults coming from prison.
The things that happen hit different depending on if they were teenagers or adults. Sometimes I was annoyed or thought they were stupid or questioned their choices, etc, but I had to keep reminding myself that they’re just teenagers so their frontal lobe is not fully developed and that’s really how they would probably act.
I’m not sure if there was anything that could have been written differently to have kept me on the right wavelength; it might have just been an issue with my brain. But I wish I could have visualized them better so I was processing the events in the right light.
Characters
The book is told from multiple POVs. Sally and Duchess in first person, the others in an extended third person narrative that retains a distinct character voice and way of speaking. I don’t have issue with the first person choice, but I wish it would have been used for Emmett’s character. He seemed so central to the story but so distant to the reader. He’s the honorable one you want to root for, but you don’t feel connected to him like the other characters.
Emmett was portrayed as the ‘hero’ type of character who made the right choices and held everything together. Who always knew what to do. He is also now the caretaker of his 8-year-old brother and has a plan for their future.
Billy says of himself that he is the Xenos figure— meaning ‘friend’— who, in stories, is there at just the right time to help. He is that throughout the book. All the characters have a connection to Billy and his book, a trust that puts Billy in some precarious situations but necessary to move the story in the right direction. He’s the character of innocence, who sees the best in people. He’s also the ‘know-it-all’ who likes to do things ‘by the book.’
Duchess. “Fast-talking, liberty-taking, plan-upending paradox known as Duchess.” He is “full of energy and enthusiasm and good intentions. But sometimes his energy and enthusiasm get in the way of his good intentions, and when that happens the consequences often fall on someone else.”
And so Duchess is the ‘selfish’ friend that you know has loyalty to the hero, but makes choices for his own benefit and asks forgiveness later. He’s a semi-antagonist. And it drove me nuts. Because we find out more about his background and what led to him being in Salina in the first place and it begs for compassion and grace for his behavior and choices.
But at the same time, he really made some bad choices that could have hurt Emmett and Billy more than they actually did. I don’t like giving a pass to that like- ‘Oh, well… his dad… so how else is he supposed to act?’ No. He can be a decent person and think about the consequences of his actions!
And I went back and forth about it. Again, my compassion landed more during the times where my brain was fully aware of his young age. He’s the guy you wonder how many second-chances you are expected to give.
Woolly is Duchess’s sidekick. Comes from money. In fact, his trust money is the reason he and Duchess left Salina in the first place- to head to the family cabin in the Adirondacks and get it. If you’ve read Rules of Civility (I haven’t), Woolly is related to the Wallace Wolcott in that story.
Woolly is the gentle-spirited, somewhat slow-minded friend who takes pleasure in the simple things. I was a bit confused by his intellect. I couldn’t tell if there was a slowness there or not because someimtes he seemed simple and other times he was making astute observations or using big vocabulary. I do like the writing voice Towles chose for him and that he had his own way of saying things. He was a likable character.
Sally kinda pushes herself into the story, refusing to be left behind to ‘duty’ and ‘service.’ She plays the traditional 50’s woman of the home type of character who spends her days doing laundry and making preserves.
“Time is that which God uses to separate the idle from the industrious… for what is kindness but the performance of an act that is both beneficial to another and unrequired?”
Always with something to do, she identifies with the Martha of the biblical Mary/Martha story in which she feels her service and kindness goes unnoticed and unappreciated. She desires a home of her own and some autonomy in her life.
I suppose another character of the book was Billy’s “compendium” of adventures he carried around with him. The stories of Ulysses, Achilles, Daniel Boone, Monte Cristo, etc. Stories of heroes, adventurers, and travelers. This is the heart of The Lincoln Highway.
To travel, to adventure, to write your story. To discover.
And that’s what we get with Towles’ book. We see them each on their own adventure. They’re in an in-between stage of life. They’re adventuring to find a new home.
Towles’ said the original title of the book was ‘Unfinished Business.’ As you read, you’ll know why. Starting fresh and trying to find a place to land often requires taking care of unfinished business. Tying those loose ends so that you can move on. One character in particular had more of those than the others.
Unique Formatting
Towles did something different with the dialogue in this book. Instead of using quotation marks like normal, he differentiated dialogue by using a dash (—) only. It took some getting used to and wasn’t as distracting or confusing as I thought it would be. Though, I’m not sure if it really accomplished what the author wanted by formatting it that way.
Another unique aspect of the book was that the chapters (or parts) counted down instead of up. The first section is titled ‘10’ and the last was ‘1.’
In an interview, the author stated that “it seemed to me that the reader deserved to have the same experience while reading the book that I had while writing it: of knowing that the story was not open-ended, but ticking down day by day to its inescapable conclusion.”
I like the idea. Although, in some sense the conclusion is open-ended because the book ends with a beginning— a new start on The Lincoln Highway— and we don’t get to know how it ends.
Randos
There were several mentions of Seward, Nebraska and their huge Fourth of July celebration. My sister lives there and I can confirm that even today The Fourth is a big deal! Seward’s population is around 7600, but their Independence Day festivities often garner an attendance of 40,000.
Someday I’ll read a book where a pastor is portrayed as a good person. It was not this day. Pastor John is a train vagabond with ill intent towards Billy and Emmett but with delusions that it’s ‘God’s Will’ that he do the things. Really the theological messages in this book are a bit lacking. Ulysses offers his own theological advice to Billy by saying:
“The Good Lord does not call you to your feet with hymns… He calls you to your feet by making you feel alone and forgotten. For only when you have seen that you are truly forsaken will you embrace the fact that what happens next rests in your hands, and your hands alone.”
We like this message because we like to know that we are in control of our own destiny.
I think it’s interesting to read the verbiage ‘forsaken.’ Because where do you read that in the Bible? Jesus says ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ as he is being crucified. But Christ’s death was the act that tore the veil forever removing that separation between man and God.
Deuteronomy 31:8 (which is repeated in Hebrews 13:5) literally says that God will never leave you nor forsake you.
The idea that God would make us feel alone and forgotten and that what happens is only in our own hands is biblically absurd and not a great way to live life. Just throwing this out there in case anyone was on the verge of labeling Ulysses’ words as profound. Yes, Billy was correct to kick the guy, but that doesn’t mean God wasn’t there or working in that situation. Just saying.
I like the tidbits of history that Towles dutifully puts into his books. In this one he mentioned the Civil Defense Test in New York (practicing for bomb drops) and how deserted Times Square was during those times.
See my original blog post for a picture of The Lincoln Highway route.
Recommendation
I would say if you liked A Gentleman in Moscow, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll LOVE this one, but I think there’s a pretty good chance you won’t hate it.
It’s deceptively long and reads quicker than you’d think.
If you like historical fiction and traveling adventures and 1950s New York, I think this would be a great read for you!
Amor Towles is a great storyteller and great at picking specific settings to put them in.
[Content Advisory: a handful of swear words; one scene at a ‘circus’ that is actually some sort of strip club, but it’s mostly implied and vaguely discussed]
I really enjoyed Towles’ book, A Gentleman in Moscow. I didn’t like The Lincoln Highway as much. Still a good read, but what I liked about A Gentleman in Moscow was getting to know the primary character, his wit and charm and mischief and because The Lincoln Highway had a larger cast of characters, the whole vibe of the book was different.
It’s a different setting and a different flow.
I will say, I liked it better than what the cover made me think I would. The length of the book and the cover make it seem like a daunting and boring book. If I hadn’t already read one of his books I doubt I would have ended up reading it for those reasons.
But just like A Gentleman in Moscow, what seems like a book that will take forever to read, actually didn’t feel like it took me that long! The story engaged you well enough to keep the pages turning. So I was glad about that.
Probably the two biggest downsides for me was the character of Duchess (because he made me so mad) and the presented plot at the beginning that never really happened. You have these two boys who just lost their dad and they are about to cross the country via The Lincoln Highway to start a new life and supposedly find their mother who left them years ago. The Lincoln Highway because she had written them postcards sent from destinations along the route.
This is the adventure you think you’re going to read. And though this may be a spoiler, I feel like it’s an important one to point out to potential readers: That is not the adventure.
The adventure is three 18-year-old boys traveling 1500 miles (in the wrong direction) in 1950s America over the course of ten days. Instead of traveling West toward San Francisco, they end up heading east side-tracked in New York.
The book is the adventure before ‘the adventure.’ The end of the book is them finally setting out from Times Square toward the other coast.
To me, that was disappointing. I wanted to know what the deal was with their mom and how they were going to find her and what their lives were going to look like. Maybe at each stop of the postcard they would learn something new about their mom or themselves. Instead, it was a reading of constantly diverted plans due to Duchess screwing things up. Whether in books or movies I always have a hard time with the screw-up friend. I’m sure there’s an Enneagram observation to be made about me, but that’s where I’m at with Duchess.
Another thing that influenced the way I read the book was that I kept forgetting that Emmett, Woolly, and Duchess were just teenagers. The story begins with Emmett returning home after finishing his sentence at the juvenile detention center in Salina, KS. Woolly and Duchess had stowed away in the warden’s car and ‘escaped’ undetected. I kept thinking they were adults coming from prison.
The things that happen hit different depending on if they were teenagers or adults. Sometimes I was annoyed or thought they were stupid or questioned their choices, etc, but I had to keep reminding myself that they’re just teenagers so their frontal lobe is not fully developed and that’s really how they would probably act.
I’m not sure if there was anything that could have been written differently to have kept me on the right wavelength; it might have just been an issue with my brain. But I wish I could have visualized them better so I was processing the events in the right light.
Characters
The book is told from multiple POVs. Sally and Duchess in first person, the others in an extended third person narrative that retains a distinct character voice and way of speaking. I don’t have issue with the first person choice, but I wish it would have been used for Emmett’s character. He seemed so central to the story but so distant to the reader. He’s the honorable one you want to root for, but you don’t feel connected to him like the other characters.
Emmett was portrayed as the ‘hero’ type of character who made the right choices and held everything together. Who always knew what to do. He is also now the caretaker of his 8-year-old brother and has a plan for their future.
Billy says of himself that he is the Xenos figure— meaning ‘friend’— who, in stories, is there at just the right time to help. He is that throughout the book. All the characters have a connection to Billy and his book, a trust that puts Billy in some precarious situations but necessary to move the story in the right direction. He’s the character of innocence, who sees the best in people. He’s also the ‘know-it-all’ who likes to do things ‘by the book.’
Duchess. “Fast-talking, liberty-taking, plan-upending paradox known as Duchess.” He is “full of energy and enthusiasm and good intentions. But sometimes his energy and enthusiasm get in the way of his good intentions, and when that happens the consequences often fall on someone else.”
And so Duchess is the ‘selfish’ friend that you know has loyalty to the hero, but makes choices for his own benefit and asks forgiveness later. He’s a semi-antagonist. And it drove me nuts. Because we find out more about his background and what led to him being in Salina in the first place and it begs for compassion and grace for his behavior and choices.
But at the same time, he really made some bad choices that could have hurt Emmett and Billy more than they actually did. I don’t like giving a pass to that like- ‘Oh, well… his dad… so how else is he supposed to act?’ No. He can be a decent person and think about the consequences of his actions!
And I went back and forth about it. Again, my compassion landed more during the times where my brain was fully aware of his young age. He’s the guy you wonder how many second-chances you are expected to give.
Woolly is Duchess’s sidekick. Comes from money. In fact, his trust money is the reason he and Duchess left Salina in the first place- to head to the family cabin in the Adirondacks and get it. If you’ve read Rules of Civility (I haven’t), Woolly is related to the Wallace Wolcott in that story.
Woolly is the gentle-spirited, somewhat slow-minded friend who takes pleasure in the simple things. I was a bit confused by his intellect. I couldn’t tell if there was a slowness there or not because someimtes he seemed simple and other times he was making astute observations or using big vocabulary. I do like the writing voice Towles chose for him and that he had his own way of saying things. He was a likable character.
Sally kinda pushes herself into the story, refusing to be left behind to ‘duty’ and ‘service.’ She plays the traditional 50’s woman of the home type of character who spends her days doing laundry and making preserves.
“Time is that which God uses to separate the idle from the industrious… for what is kindness but the performance of an act that is both beneficial to another and unrequired?”
Always with something to do, she identifies with the Martha of the biblical Mary/Martha story in which she feels her service and kindness goes unnoticed and unappreciated. She desires a home of her own and some autonomy in her life.
I suppose another character of the book was Billy’s “compendium” of adventures he carried around with him. The stories of Ulysses, Achilles, Daniel Boone, Monte Cristo, etc. Stories of heroes, adventurers, and travelers. This is the heart of The Lincoln Highway.
To travel, to adventure, to write your story. To discover.
And that’s what we get with Towles’ book. We see them each on their own adventure. They’re in an in-between stage of life. They’re adventuring to find a new home.
Towles’ said the original title of the book was ‘Unfinished Business.’ As you read, you’ll know why. Starting fresh and trying to find a place to land often requires taking care of unfinished business. Tying those loose ends so that you can move on. One character in particular had more of those than the others.
Unique Formatting
Towles did something different with the dialogue in this book. Instead of using quotation marks like normal, he differentiated dialogue by using a dash (—) only. It took some getting used to and wasn’t as distracting or confusing as I thought it would be. Though, I’m not sure if it really accomplished what the author wanted by formatting it that way.
Another unique aspect of the book was that the chapters (or parts) counted down instead of up. The first section is titled ‘10’ and the last was ‘1.’
In an interview, the author stated that “it seemed to me that the reader deserved to have the same experience while reading the book that I had while writing it: of knowing that the story was not open-ended, but ticking down day by day to its inescapable conclusion.”
I like the idea. Although, in some sense the conclusion is open-ended because the book ends with a beginning— a new start on The Lincoln Highway— and we don’t get to know how it ends.
Randos
There were several mentions of Seward, Nebraska and their huge Fourth of July celebration. My sister lives there and I can confirm that even today The Fourth is a big deal! Seward’s population is around 7600, but their Independence Day festivities often garner an attendance of 40,000.
Someday I’ll read a book where a pastor is portrayed as a good person. It was not this day. Pastor John is a train vagabond with ill intent towards Billy and Emmett but with delusions that it’s ‘God’s Will’ that he do the things. Really the theological messages in this book are a bit lacking. Ulysses offers his own theological advice to Billy by saying:
“The Good Lord does not call you to your feet with hymns… He calls you to your feet by making you feel alone and forgotten. For only when you have seen that you are truly forsaken will you embrace the fact that what happens next rests in your hands, and your hands alone.”
We like this message because we like to know that we are in control of our own destiny.
I think it’s interesting to read the verbiage ‘forsaken.’ Because where do you read that in the Bible? Jesus says ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ as he is being crucified. But Christ’s death was the act that tore the veil forever removing that separation between man and God.
Deuteronomy 31:8 (which is repeated in Hebrews 13:5) literally says that God will never leave you nor forsake you.
The idea that God would make us feel alone and forgotten and that what happens is only in our own hands is biblically absurd and not a great way to live life. Just throwing this out there in case anyone was on the verge of labeling Ulysses’ words as profound. Yes, Billy was correct to kick the guy, but that doesn’t mean God wasn’t there or working in that situation. Just saying.
I like the tidbits of history that Towles dutifully puts into his books. In this one he mentioned the Civil Defense Test in New York (practicing for bomb drops) and how deserted Times Square was during those times.
See my original blog post for a picture of The Lincoln Highway route.
Recommendation
I would say if you liked A Gentleman in Moscow, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll LOVE this one, but I think there’s a pretty good chance you won’t hate it.
It’s deceptively long and reads quicker than you’d think.
If you like historical fiction and traveling adventures and 1950s New York, I think this would be a great read for you!
Amor Towles is a great storyteller and great at picking specific settings to put them in.
[Content Advisory: a handful of swear words; one scene at a ‘circus’ that is actually some sort of strip club, but it’s mostly implied and vaguely discussed]
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers
challenging
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
5.0
“What we share is a concern for all children, along with an awareness that boys appear to need special help right now. That is not backlash against female achievement; it is reality and common sense.”
This is no doubt a controversial book. We are in a culture promoting ‘girl power’ and ‘women empowerment’ and males are increasingly just associated with ‘toxic masculinity.’
The War Against Boys is a book written to expose the plight of our young boys. They are falling behind. In many ways, but in one surprising way— academics.
What’s worth noting is that this book was originally published in 2000 and then updated in 2012. As the year is currently 2023, I’m sure some of the statistics are outdated. Although I’d be curious to know in which direction. My guess is that considering the trend toward focusing on females has continued, it’s likely boys have fallen even more behind.
I am a mother of two girls and two boys. And I want them all to succeed in life and to be treated well. I want my girls to feel like their voice matters and that they can pursue any number of careers. I want them to feel equal in worth to boys. I want my boys to know that they still matter. That they are not what’s wrong with the world. That they are not destined to become violent discriminators. I want them to feel like their education matters too and that they do not need to be diminished in order to encourage the females in their lives.
It is a balance isn’t it?
What do they mean by ‘boys are falling behind?’
“studies by the DOE and the Higher Education Research Institute show that, far from being timorous and demoralized, girls outnumber boys in student government, honor societies, and school newspapers. They also receive better grades, do more homework, take more honors courses, read more books, eclipse males on tests of artistic and musical ability, and generally outshine boys on almost every measure of classroom success. At the same time, fewer girls are suspended from school, fewer are held back, and fewer drop out. In the technical language of education experts, girls are more academically ‘engaged.’”
Sommers, a former philosophy professor, discusses things like the wage gap, zero-tolerance policies, value-free education, socialization vs. biology, some lady named Carol Gilligan that apparently did a crap job of creating a legitimate study to prove her conclusions about girls being in despair and boys being violent,… among other evidence to show the ways that policies meant to help girls were potentially not necessary and further, were a hindrance to boys.
For some reason I thought this was going to be a faith-based book— probably because it was quoted in Alisa Childer’s book Live Your Truth (and Other Lies). But this was a secular book. The author dissects the issue from philosophical, social, psychological, and ethical perspectives.
I really liked this book because it put evidence and studies affirming the things I had already been noticing. I am pro-people. And it has made me uncomfortable with how much females are elevated at the expense and denigration of boys and men.
As she states in her book:
“The current plight of boys and young men is, in fact, a women’s issue. Those boys are our sons; they are the people with whom our daughters will build a future. If our boys are in trouble, so are we all.”
With all the things we hear and see about gender equality, this book was pretty enlightening to read and see how well girls are actually doing and how we need to stop ignoring the boys or stop only focusing on getting them to sit still, stop wrestling, and to play with more dolls.
I definitely think this book is worth everyone reading, if only to help us think critically about the ways studies are conducted and used to mislead the masses into potentially harmful policies.
The Gender Gap
It is touted in the media that the gap in education is based on race or class.
But in reality, the main gap in education is gender-based.
“the AAUW obscures the fact that the gender gap favors girls across all ethnic, racial, and social lines.”
People attempt to use the wage gap as evidence that boys are doing fine educationally. But further study (like Thomas Sowell’s book Discrimination and Disparities) reveals that there really isn’t a wage gap. When statistics include all the relevant variables and compare apples to apples, women often make more.
“The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked required per week.”
“When mainstream economists consider the wage gap, they find that pay disparities are almost entirely the result of women’s different life preferences— what men and women choose to study in school, where they work, and how they balance their home and career.”
“Today, women in the US earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 60% of master’s degrees, and 52% of PhDs.”
One interesting thing this book explains is that men are most found on the extremes:
“There are far more men than women at the extremes of success and failure. And failure is more common. There may be 480 male CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (20 women), 438 male members of Congress (101 women), and 126,515 full professors (45,571 women). But consider the other side… More than one million Americans are classified by the Department of Labor as ‘discouraged workers.’ These are workers who have stopped looking for jobs because they feel they have no prospects or lack the requisite skills and education. Nearly 60% are men. Consider also that more than 1.5 million men are in prison. For women the figure is 113,462.”
I’m curious to know what the current statistics for these figures would be.
Classroom Strategies
Classroom strategies have changed to become more geared toward girls.
“As our schools become more feelings entered, risk averse, competition-free, and sedentary they move further and further from the characteristic sensibilities of boys.”
I’m not sure how widespread these changes are— my daughter’s school in Iowa has not succumbed to these— but it is concerning. For example, many schools have eliminated tug-of-war and replaced it with tug-of-peace. They have outlawed the game of tag because it creates ‘victims’ and affects self-esteem. Dodgeball is being outlawed because it creates resentment. Recesses are going away. Anything that is a competition is adjusted so that no one’s feelings are hurt.
Activities in classrooms become feelings and imagination-oriented rather than physical. Imaginative play that has good guys and bad guys and superheros, etc is re-directed to something more ‘domesticated.’
“From the earliest age, boys show a distinct preference for active outdoor play, with a strong predilection for games with body contact, conflict, and clearly defined winners and losers. Girls, too, enjoy raucous outdoor play, but they engage in it less.”
Teachers and administration are blurring the lines between rough and tumble play and actual aggression. Boys are getting punished more for things that are not that serious. This was the zero-tolerance policy. It led to more suspensions which is a direct indicator of boys becoming disengaged in school and not going to higher education.
Also because behavior is often factored into grades by young ages and boys tend to ‘act out’ more than girls, their grades are affected adversely.
It’s quite eye-opening to consider the long-term effects of these classroom strategies in how boys relate to and perceive learning and school.
“In classrooms across the country little boys got the message that there was something wrong with them— something the teacher was trying to change. It is doubtful that these efforts at resocialization were ever successful. But they surely succeeded in making lots of little boys confused and unhappy.”
Socialization or Biology?
There are many voices saying that we have socialized gender differences between girls and boys and created these stereotypes of what they are interested in or enjoy playing with. But stereotypes typically come from a place of truth.
Virginia Valian, researcher of gender equity, says, “we don’t accept biology as destiny… We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate… I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.”
But this is two very different things. We vaccinate and inoculate and medicate against harmful things that are in our body—disease— that shouldn’t be there.
“Being a typical little boy or girl is not a pathology in need of a cure.”
“Steven Pinker points to the absurdity of ascribing these universal differences to socialization: ‘It would be an amazing coincidence that in every society the coin flip that assigns each sex to one set of roles would land the same way.’”
I can speak from my own experience that girls and boys play differently. I had two girls first. So when the boys came, our house was already inundated with girl toys and dolls. My boys sometimes play with the dolls or the girls toys, but they more often than not play with the balls and the cars. Even if they push a stroller around it’s usually filled with cars or magnet tiles they’re constantly building with. We didn’t have to teach them that. They were naturally more drawn to those toys and interested in throwing and building and wrestling.
Carol Gilligan
There are two chapters dedicated to discussing Carol Gilligan’s studies and conclusions regarding boys and girls. I won’t go into all of it here but Sommers pokes a lot of holes in the methodology of Gilligan’s work and the fact that she did not release any information to be studied by others.
When a study that claims such ‘profound’ and ‘important’ things that affect half or more of the population, you’d think she would allow her methods to be studied in order to try to replicate them. She has kept records confidential.
Her work was apparently monumental in the movement towards shifting learning strategies to focus on girls and their self-esteem.
“Gilligan’s powerful myth of the incredible shrinking girl did more harm than good. It patronized girls, portraying them as victims of the culture. It diverted attention from the academic deficits of boys. It also gave urgency and credibility to a specious self-esteem movement that wasted everybody’s time.”
Value-Free Education and Morality
Another interesting classroom movement was the shift to “value-free” education.
“‘Values clarification’ was popular in the 1970s. Proponents of values clarification consider it inappropriate for a teacher to encourage students, however subtly or indirectly, to adopt the values of the teacher or the community. The cardinal sin is to impose values on the student.”
The school shouldn’t be teaching morals? Why would someone oppose that?
“Those who oppose directive moral education often call it a form of brainwashing or indoctrination. That is sheer confusion. To brainwash children undermines their autonomy and rational self-mastery, and diminishes their freedom. To educate them and to teach them to be competent, self-controlled, and morally responsible in their actions increases their freedom and deepens their humanity.”
Of course there are some areas of morality that people differ from— like when we start to talk about where morals come from and why we care about them and who decides what is right and wrong. But it also seems naive to think you can actually teach a classroom without instilling some version of morals, boundaries, or guidelines that dictate how people are treated in the classroom and beyond.
I like how the author states that: “Leaving children to discover their own values is a little like putting them in a chemistry lab full of volatile substances and saying, ‘Discover your own compounds, kids.’”
It is a service to children to develop ethics and morals in them from a young age. It helps them become autonomous adults functioning in the world.
Value-free education often becomes teaching kids to ‘question everything.’ But:
“Too often, we teach students to question principles before they understand them.”
Children benefit from having boundaries and learning principles. They do not benefit from a ‘free-for-all’ environment.
It was in this chapter on morality that Sommers talked about an organization called Positive Action that seemed to be doing good things in teaching kids to know, care about, and act upon morals.
“My message is not to ‘let boys be boys.’’ Boys should not be left to their boyishness but should rather be guided and civilized… History teaches us that masculinity without morality is lethal. But masculinity constrained by morality is powerful and consecutive, and a gift to women.”
“Children need to be moral more than they need to be in touch with their feelings. They need to be well educated more than they need classroom self-esteem exercises and support groups. Nor are they improved by having their femininity or masculinity “reinvented.” Emotional fixes are not the answer. Genuine self-esteem comes with pride in achievement, which is the fruit of disciplined effort.”
Inner Turmoil
A lot of the conclusions made by gender theorists is that girls and boys alike are both struggling with some sort of inner turmoil: girls because they are being oppressed by males in our socialization process and boys because they are being told to separate from their mothers and become men which causes them to become violent.
But, as Sommers provides evidence in this book— that is not actually the case. And the evidence supposedly accumulated to support that claim is inconclusive and poorly gathered.
“Before we call for radical changes in the way we rear our male children, we ought to ask the boy reformers to tell us why there are so many seemingly healthy boys who, despite having been “pushed from their mothers,” are nonviolent, morally responsible human beings. How do those who say boys are disturbed account for the fact that in any given year less than one half of 1 percent of males under eighteen are arrested for a violent crime?”
“To be sure, adolescence is a time of some ‘inner turmoil’— for boys and girls, in America and everywhere else, from time immemorial. But American children, boys as well as girls, are on the whole psychologically sound. They are not isolated, full of despair, or ‘hiding parts of themselves from the world’s gaze’— no more so, at least, than any other age group in the population.”
Other Countries
Sommers brings up Great Britain and Australia as being ahead of the US in identifying this plight of young boys and taking measures to help boys succeed academically. One way they do that is same-sex education classes— boys’ schools and girls’ schools.
I’m not sure how I feel about that solution. I can see how it would definitely help academics. I’m curious to know how certain social factors are affected by that scenario. And would the pros outweigh the cons? (She also describes in this book the success vocational schools have had in the US— that was intriguing information to me as well.)
Sommers rightly points out that the attitude of these countries about this problem is significantly different than the US.
“The mood in Great Britain and Australia is constructive and informed by good research and common sense. The mood in the United States is contentious, ideological, and cowed by gender politics.”
I hate that so many problems become politicized which in turn really just means we run circles around the problem and nothing helpful is ever done about it. Great Britain and Australia— can you send some of your common sense to the powers that be over here?!
“Americans seem all too ready to entertain almost any suggestion that a large group of outwardly normal people are suffering from some pathological affliction.”
That is a true statement too. As a whole, our country’s critical thinking skills have disappeared lately and everyone’s feelings are running the show.
And that means everyone loses.
“Most of all, we need a change of attitude. The women’s lobby, the Department of Education, the gender theorists in our schools of education, the ACLU, the authors of the Perkins Act Reauthorization, and the president of the United States are so carried away with girl power they have forgotten about our male children. They have distracted themselves and the nation from acknowledging a plain and simple fact: American boys across the ability spectrum and in all age groups have become second-class citizens in the nation’s schools.”
Recommendation
I’ve included a lot here— perhaps you’ve skipped over most of it. That’s okay. Especially if you plan to read the book for yourself.
I think ‘The War Against Boys’ is an important voice to have in the mix when we’re thinking about gender differences and how kids learn, play, and develop.
Gender differences is taboo right now, but all it takes is to have girls and boys of your own to see that gender difference is a very real and very natural thing. We would be naive to treat it as a disease we’ve created that needs to be cured.
I hope people read this book and recognize the things we need to pay attention to when it comes to our boys. And to see that boys’ success and future in the world is integral to girls’ success and future. There is no superior or inferior gender.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say this is a ‘war’ as the title suggests, but I definitely think boys are becoming more and more disadvantaged as activists continue to denigrate the male gender and slap unfair labels on them as a group and then punish them for it.
I would recommend everyone read this book— an oft-silenced perspective— and think about the ways we can encourage our boys to be engaged in school and learning and thus be better developed and prepared for adult life.
This is no doubt a controversial book. We are in a culture promoting ‘girl power’ and ‘women empowerment’ and males are increasingly just associated with ‘toxic masculinity.’
The War Against Boys is a book written to expose the plight of our young boys. They are falling behind. In many ways, but in one surprising way— academics.
What’s worth noting is that this book was originally published in 2000 and then updated in 2012. As the year is currently 2023, I’m sure some of the statistics are outdated. Although I’d be curious to know in which direction. My guess is that considering the trend toward focusing on females has continued, it’s likely boys have fallen even more behind.
I am a mother of two girls and two boys. And I want them all to succeed in life and to be treated well. I want my girls to feel like their voice matters and that they can pursue any number of careers. I want them to feel equal in worth to boys. I want my boys to know that they still matter. That they are not what’s wrong with the world. That they are not destined to become violent discriminators. I want them to feel like their education matters too and that they do not need to be diminished in order to encourage the females in their lives.
It is a balance isn’t it?
What do they mean by ‘boys are falling behind?’
“studies by the DOE and the Higher Education Research Institute show that, far from being timorous and demoralized, girls outnumber boys in student government, honor societies, and school newspapers. They also receive better grades, do more homework, take more honors courses, read more books, eclipse males on tests of artistic and musical ability, and generally outshine boys on almost every measure of classroom success. At the same time, fewer girls are suspended from school, fewer are held back, and fewer drop out. In the technical language of education experts, girls are more academically ‘engaged.’”
Sommers, a former philosophy professor, discusses things like the wage gap, zero-tolerance policies, value-free education, socialization vs. biology, some lady named Carol Gilligan that apparently did a crap job of creating a legitimate study to prove her conclusions about girls being in despair and boys being violent,… among other evidence to show the ways that policies meant to help girls were potentially not necessary and further, were a hindrance to boys.
For some reason I thought this was going to be a faith-based book— probably because it was quoted in Alisa Childer’s book Live Your Truth (and Other Lies). But this was a secular book. The author dissects the issue from philosophical, social, psychological, and ethical perspectives.
I really liked this book because it put evidence and studies affirming the things I had already been noticing. I am pro-people. And it has made me uncomfortable with how much females are elevated at the expense and denigration of boys and men.
As she states in her book:
“The current plight of boys and young men is, in fact, a women’s issue. Those boys are our sons; they are the people with whom our daughters will build a future. If our boys are in trouble, so are we all.”
With all the things we hear and see about gender equality, this book was pretty enlightening to read and see how well girls are actually doing and how we need to stop ignoring the boys or stop only focusing on getting them to sit still, stop wrestling, and to play with more dolls.
I definitely think this book is worth everyone reading, if only to help us think critically about the ways studies are conducted and used to mislead the masses into potentially harmful policies.
The Gender Gap
It is touted in the media that the gap in education is based on race or class.
But in reality, the main gap in education is gender-based.
“the AAUW obscures the fact that the gender gap favors girls across all ethnic, racial, and social lines.”
People attempt to use the wage gap as evidence that boys are doing fine educationally. But further study (like Thomas Sowell’s book Discrimination and Disparities) reveals that there really isn’t a wage gap. When statistics include all the relevant variables and compare apples to apples, women often make more.
“The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked required per week.”
“When mainstream economists consider the wage gap, they find that pay disparities are almost entirely the result of women’s different life preferences— what men and women choose to study in school, where they work, and how they balance their home and career.”
“Today, women in the US earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 60% of master’s degrees, and 52% of PhDs.”
One interesting thing this book explains is that men are most found on the extremes:
“There are far more men than women at the extremes of success and failure. And failure is more common. There may be 480 male CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (20 women), 438 male members of Congress (101 women), and 126,515 full professors (45,571 women). But consider the other side… More than one million Americans are classified by the Department of Labor as ‘discouraged workers.’ These are workers who have stopped looking for jobs because they feel they have no prospects or lack the requisite skills and education. Nearly 60% are men. Consider also that more than 1.5 million men are in prison. For women the figure is 113,462.”
I’m curious to know what the current statistics for these figures would be.
Classroom Strategies
Classroom strategies have changed to become more geared toward girls.
“As our schools become more feelings entered, risk averse, competition-free, and sedentary they move further and further from the characteristic sensibilities of boys.”
I’m not sure how widespread these changes are— my daughter’s school in Iowa has not succumbed to these— but it is concerning. For example, many schools have eliminated tug-of-war and replaced it with tug-of-peace. They have outlawed the game of tag because it creates ‘victims’ and affects self-esteem. Dodgeball is being outlawed because it creates resentment. Recesses are going away. Anything that is a competition is adjusted so that no one’s feelings are hurt.
Activities in classrooms become feelings and imagination-oriented rather than physical. Imaginative play that has good guys and bad guys and superheros, etc is re-directed to something more ‘domesticated.’
“From the earliest age, boys show a distinct preference for active outdoor play, with a strong predilection for games with body contact, conflict, and clearly defined winners and losers. Girls, too, enjoy raucous outdoor play, but they engage in it less.”
Teachers and administration are blurring the lines between rough and tumble play and actual aggression. Boys are getting punished more for things that are not that serious. This was the zero-tolerance policy. It led to more suspensions which is a direct indicator of boys becoming disengaged in school and not going to higher education.
Also because behavior is often factored into grades by young ages and boys tend to ‘act out’ more than girls, their grades are affected adversely.
It’s quite eye-opening to consider the long-term effects of these classroom strategies in how boys relate to and perceive learning and school.
“In classrooms across the country little boys got the message that there was something wrong with them— something the teacher was trying to change. It is doubtful that these efforts at resocialization were ever successful. But they surely succeeded in making lots of little boys confused and unhappy.”
Socialization or Biology?
There are many voices saying that we have socialized gender differences between girls and boys and created these stereotypes of what they are interested in or enjoy playing with. But stereotypes typically come from a place of truth.
Virginia Valian, researcher of gender equity, says, “we don’t accept biology as destiny… We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate… I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.”
But this is two very different things. We vaccinate and inoculate and medicate against harmful things that are in our body—disease— that shouldn’t be there.
“Being a typical little boy or girl is not a pathology in need of a cure.”
“Steven Pinker points to the absurdity of ascribing these universal differences to socialization: ‘It would be an amazing coincidence that in every society the coin flip that assigns each sex to one set of roles would land the same way.’”
I can speak from my own experience that girls and boys play differently. I had two girls first. So when the boys came, our house was already inundated with girl toys and dolls. My boys sometimes play with the dolls or the girls toys, but they more often than not play with the balls and the cars. Even if they push a stroller around it’s usually filled with cars or magnet tiles they’re constantly building with. We didn’t have to teach them that. They were naturally more drawn to those toys and interested in throwing and building and wrestling.
Carol Gilligan
There are two chapters dedicated to discussing Carol Gilligan’s studies and conclusions regarding boys and girls. I won’t go into all of it here but Sommers pokes a lot of holes in the methodology of Gilligan’s work and the fact that she did not release any information to be studied by others.
When a study that claims such ‘profound’ and ‘important’ things that affect half or more of the population, you’d think she would allow her methods to be studied in order to try to replicate them. She has kept records confidential.
Her work was apparently monumental in the movement towards shifting learning strategies to focus on girls and their self-esteem.
“Gilligan’s powerful myth of the incredible shrinking girl did more harm than good. It patronized girls, portraying them as victims of the culture. It diverted attention from the academic deficits of boys. It also gave urgency and credibility to a specious self-esteem movement that wasted everybody’s time.”
Value-Free Education and Morality
Another interesting classroom movement was the shift to “value-free” education.
“‘Values clarification’ was popular in the 1970s. Proponents of values clarification consider it inappropriate for a teacher to encourage students, however subtly or indirectly, to adopt the values of the teacher or the community. The cardinal sin is to impose values on the student.”
The school shouldn’t be teaching morals? Why would someone oppose that?
“Those who oppose directive moral education often call it a form of brainwashing or indoctrination. That is sheer confusion. To brainwash children undermines their autonomy and rational self-mastery, and diminishes their freedom. To educate them and to teach them to be competent, self-controlled, and morally responsible in their actions increases their freedom and deepens their humanity.”
Of course there are some areas of morality that people differ from— like when we start to talk about where morals come from and why we care about them and who decides what is right and wrong. But it also seems naive to think you can actually teach a classroom without instilling some version of morals, boundaries, or guidelines that dictate how people are treated in the classroom and beyond.
I like how the author states that: “Leaving children to discover their own values is a little like putting them in a chemistry lab full of volatile substances and saying, ‘Discover your own compounds, kids.’”
It is a service to children to develop ethics and morals in them from a young age. It helps them become autonomous adults functioning in the world.
Value-free education often becomes teaching kids to ‘question everything.’ But:
“Too often, we teach students to question principles before they understand them.”
Children benefit from having boundaries and learning principles. They do not benefit from a ‘free-for-all’ environment.
It was in this chapter on morality that Sommers talked about an organization called Positive Action that seemed to be doing good things in teaching kids to know, care about, and act upon morals.
“My message is not to ‘let boys be boys.’’ Boys should not be left to their boyishness but should rather be guided and civilized… History teaches us that masculinity without morality is lethal. But masculinity constrained by morality is powerful and consecutive, and a gift to women.”
“Children need to be moral more than they need to be in touch with their feelings. They need to be well educated more than they need classroom self-esteem exercises and support groups. Nor are they improved by having their femininity or masculinity “reinvented.” Emotional fixes are not the answer. Genuine self-esteem comes with pride in achievement, which is the fruit of disciplined effort.”
Inner Turmoil
A lot of the conclusions made by gender theorists is that girls and boys alike are both struggling with some sort of inner turmoil: girls because they are being oppressed by males in our socialization process and boys because they are being told to separate from their mothers and become men which causes them to become violent.
But, as Sommers provides evidence in this book— that is not actually the case. And the evidence supposedly accumulated to support that claim is inconclusive and poorly gathered.
“Before we call for radical changes in the way we rear our male children, we ought to ask the boy reformers to tell us why there are so many seemingly healthy boys who, despite having been “pushed from their mothers,” are nonviolent, morally responsible human beings. How do those who say boys are disturbed account for the fact that in any given year less than one half of 1 percent of males under eighteen are arrested for a violent crime?”
“To be sure, adolescence is a time of some ‘inner turmoil’— for boys and girls, in America and everywhere else, from time immemorial. But American children, boys as well as girls, are on the whole psychologically sound. They are not isolated, full of despair, or ‘hiding parts of themselves from the world’s gaze’— no more so, at least, than any other age group in the population.”
Other Countries
Sommers brings up Great Britain and Australia as being ahead of the US in identifying this plight of young boys and taking measures to help boys succeed academically. One way they do that is same-sex education classes— boys’ schools and girls’ schools.
I’m not sure how I feel about that solution. I can see how it would definitely help academics. I’m curious to know how certain social factors are affected by that scenario. And would the pros outweigh the cons? (She also describes in this book the success vocational schools have had in the US— that was intriguing information to me as well.)
Sommers rightly points out that the attitude of these countries about this problem is significantly different than the US.
“The mood in Great Britain and Australia is constructive and informed by good research and common sense. The mood in the United States is contentious, ideological, and cowed by gender politics.”
I hate that so many problems become politicized which in turn really just means we run circles around the problem and nothing helpful is ever done about it. Great Britain and Australia— can you send some of your common sense to the powers that be over here?!
“Americans seem all too ready to entertain almost any suggestion that a large group of outwardly normal people are suffering from some pathological affliction.”
That is a true statement too. As a whole, our country’s critical thinking skills have disappeared lately and everyone’s feelings are running the show.
And that means everyone loses.
“Most of all, we need a change of attitude. The women’s lobby, the Department of Education, the gender theorists in our schools of education, the ACLU, the authors of the Perkins Act Reauthorization, and the president of the United States are so carried away with girl power they have forgotten about our male children. They have distracted themselves and the nation from acknowledging a plain and simple fact: American boys across the ability spectrum and in all age groups have become second-class citizens in the nation’s schools.”
Recommendation
I’ve included a lot here— perhaps you’ve skipped over most of it. That’s okay. Especially if you plan to read the book for yourself.
I think ‘The War Against Boys’ is an important voice to have in the mix when we’re thinking about gender differences and how kids learn, play, and develop.
Gender differences is taboo right now, but all it takes is to have girls and boys of your own to see that gender difference is a very real and very natural thing. We would be naive to treat it as a disease we’ve created that needs to be cured.
I hope people read this book and recognize the things we need to pay attention to when it comes to our boys. And to see that boys’ success and future in the world is integral to girls’ success and future. There is no superior or inferior gender.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say this is a ‘war’ as the title suggests, but I definitely think boys are becoming more and more disadvantaged as activists continue to denigrate the male gender and slap unfair labels on them as a group and then punish them for it.
I would recommend everyone read this book— an oft-silenced perspective— and think about the ways we can encourage our boys to be engaged in school and learning and thus be better developed and prepared for adult life.
Brilliant Maps for Curious Minds: 100 New Ways to See the World by Ian Wright
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
This isn’t really a book that you ‘read’ as it’s basically just a book of interesting maps. But I still counted it for my reading challenge, so sue me.
Ian Wright maintains a popular website called Brilliant Maps in which he creates and compiles interesting maps. This book comes from there and includes 100 color maps organized by category (Geography, History, National Identity, Nature, etc).
There is an introduction in the book that explains some of the background and the author shares some of his favorite maps or the most popular maps on his website.
The rest of the book is just full page, color maps that depict a variety of information from a world plug & socket map, to maps on populations, about wars or products and much more. Some are surprising, some are funny.
Even though there are not many words to read, you’ll still learn a lot in studying this book!
Here are some of the maps I liked most or thought were surprising or interesting:
There is a map showing each country’s highest source of imports. By and large China is the most represented. However, it’s the least represented in Europe in which most countries import from Germany.
There is a map that lists the various locations around the world with the longest names and then their meanings. For such long names, the meanings are often short and comical. The longest location in Australia means: ‘the devil urinates.’
There is a map that shows all the countries that the UK has invaded… which is almost everywhere.
There is a map that shows that Nordic countries have a lot more love for heavy metal music than other countries!
There is a map that shows that there are more annual murders in the US than many other countries combined— countries that include basically all of Europe, Australia, Japan, China, and Canada. What?! That’s an insane statistic to me.
Also along those same lines, the prison population in the US is almost double that of Russia. Is that because Russia just kills their criminals? I wonder if their annual murder count would increase if you take into account government executions?
There is a map that shows terrorist attacks across the world and their intensity. In the NW part of South America there is a large concentration of terrorist attacks that I found interesting. I’m not sure what the motive behind those are.
There is a map that shows the fastest growing religion per country. I do find this map a little misleading because showing per country doesn’t actually tell you which religion is fastest growing overall globally (which I believe is Christianity)
Looking at these maps encourages you to do further study, to ask the question ‘why?’ and try to figure out what could lead to the results we see. While most of the maps are pretty one-dimensional, many of the maps can interact with each other and flesh out the ‘why’ a little more.
For example, there is a map that shows the fertility rates of different countries (how many kids per household) and there is a map that shows the average age of people in different countries. You can see the correlation between lower fertility rates and higher average age. The less kids people have the older, over all, their population will be. Among many things, this does have an economic impact on a country and the fact that the US Social Security program is about bankrupt is exhibit A.
I think my favorite map is on page 117. See my original blog post for a picture of it. There is a circle placed on the map and the following statistics are true of the people INSIDE the circle vs OUTSIDE the circle. First- The population of the circle is larger than the population outside the circle.
But also: inside the circle (vs outside) are more Muslims, more Hindus, more Buddhists, and more Communists. Also inside this circle is one of the least densely populated countries in the world (Mongolia), the highest mountain (Everest), and the deepest ocean trench (Mariana). It was a little mind-blowing to think about all of this.
Although some of it isn’t surprising because we know how populous China, Tokyo, and India are. I heard a statistic that 1 in 6 people in the world lives in India. And their land mass is smaller than the United States.
Anywho, well done to Ian Wright for figuring this map out! I don’t know what it all means… I just know it’s interesting!
Recommendation
It’s a fun and interesting book to read and may be a good discussion starter, a good resource for teachers, or just a nice little coffee table book.
The book is high quality and you’ll learn some stuff.
Would recommend.
Ian Wright maintains a popular website called Brilliant Maps in which he creates and compiles interesting maps. This book comes from there and includes 100 color maps organized by category (Geography, History, National Identity, Nature, etc).
There is an introduction in the book that explains some of the background and the author shares some of his favorite maps or the most popular maps on his website.
The rest of the book is just full page, color maps that depict a variety of information from a world plug & socket map, to maps on populations, about wars or products and much more. Some are surprising, some are funny.
Even though there are not many words to read, you’ll still learn a lot in studying this book!
Here are some of the maps I liked most or thought were surprising or interesting:
There is a map showing each country’s highest source of imports. By and large China is the most represented. However, it’s the least represented in Europe in which most countries import from Germany.
There is a map that lists the various locations around the world with the longest names and then their meanings. For such long names, the meanings are often short and comical. The longest location in Australia means: ‘the devil urinates.’
There is a map that shows all the countries that the UK has invaded… which is almost everywhere.
There is a map that shows that Nordic countries have a lot more love for heavy metal music than other countries!
There is a map that shows that there are more annual murders in the US than many other countries combined— countries that include basically all of Europe, Australia, Japan, China, and Canada. What?! That’s an insane statistic to me.
Also along those same lines, the prison population in the US is almost double that of Russia. Is that because Russia just kills their criminals? I wonder if their annual murder count would increase if you take into account government executions?
There is a map that shows terrorist attacks across the world and their intensity. In the NW part of South America there is a large concentration of terrorist attacks that I found interesting. I’m not sure what the motive behind those are.
There is a map that shows the fastest growing religion per country. I do find this map a little misleading because showing per country doesn’t actually tell you which religion is fastest growing overall globally (which I believe is Christianity)
Looking at these maps encourages you to do further study, to ask the question ‘why?’ and try to figure out what could lead to the results we see. While most of the maps are pretty one-dimensional, many of the maps can interact with each other and flesh out the ‘why’ a little more.
For example, there is a map that shows the fertility rates of different countries (how many kids per household) and there is a map that shows the average age of people in different countries. You can see the correlation between lower fertility rates and higher average age. The less kids people have the older, over all, their population will be. Among many things, this does have an economic impact on a country and the fact that the US Social Security program is about bankrupt is exhibit A.
I think my favorite map is on page 117. See my original blog post for a picture of it. There is a circle placed on the map and the following statistics are true of the people INSIDE the circle vs OUTSIDE the circle. First- The population of the circle is larger than the population outside the circle.
But also: inside the circle (vs outside) are more Muslims, more Hindus, more Buddhists, and more Communists. Also inside this circle is one of the least densely populated countries in the world (Mongolia), the highest mountain (Everest), and the deepest ocean trench (Mariana). It was a little mind-blowing to think about all of this.
Although some of it isn’t surprising because we know how populous China, Tokyo, and India are. I heard a statistic that 1 in 6 people in the world lives in India. And their land mass is smaller than the United States.
Anywho, well done to Ian Wright for figuring this map out! I don’t know what it all means… I just know it’s interesting!
Recommendation
It’s a fun and interesting book to read and may be a good discussion starter, a good resource for teachers, or just a nice little coffee table book.
The book is high quality and you’ll learn some stuff.
Would recommend.
Straight Shooter: A Memoir of Second Chances and First Takes by Stephen A. Smith
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
“Do anything but bore them or lie to them, and you’ll be okay.”
Stephen A. Smith. An ESPN household name. Accurately self-described as bombastic, you’ll typically come across Stephen A. yelling— I mean speaking passionately— about all matters of things, not just sports, and giving you his hot take, ready to defend everything he says.
I was first ‘introduced’ to Stephen A. through a colleague who would listen to him every afternoon. I learned a lot about sports and “Staying Off the Weeeeeeeeeed!”
Even though I can only take him in small doses, I gotta respect a guy who is willing to tell it like it is. When I saw he had written a book I was interested to hear more about his story. I don’t read much about people in the sporting industry so I decided who better to hear it from than someone who is a ‘straight shooter’?
“Love me or hate me— it’s always one or the other— my story is one about what my world is like and what I’ve learned along the way.”
“You’ll see how love, belief, perseverance, self-awareness, family, friendships, and mentorship can take you places you’ve never been.”
He tells all in this book and walks us through his childhood, his college years, his first jobs, his big break, his suspension, his return, and everything in between. He doesn’t avoid the controversies that have become attached to his name or pretend he’s never made mistakes.
Perhaps he presents himself in a better light than he was (similar to Spare)— I have no way of knowing— but he admits many times where he was wrong or immature. He explains how he learned from his different mistakes and how they made him a better man and a better employee.
Again, I don’t regularly watch his show so I was never keeping up with all the news around him, but he talks briefly about when Max Kellerman left the show and I sense that there is more to that story than he says. He says he has nothing but good things to say about Kellerman and that they just didn’t jive well in the format of the show, but he also goes on to say that they only had one conversation since he left the show. He said it was cordial but working together every day for years and you never speak after that when you both still work at the same place? That doesn’t add up. So I think there’s more there than he lets on.
Overall, I felt like Stephen A. was true to his claims to tell it how it is. The ups and downs, the wins and losses, the success and the hardships that make up his life. He even exposes the many shortcomings (generous word) of his father.
“My mother made me promise that I wouldn’t [write a memoir] until after she died. I had told her I would have to write the truth about everything, including my father. She did not want anyone to read about that while she was alive.”
He kept his promise. His mother died in 2017 after battling colon cancer. The close and deep relationship he had with his mom (or ‘Mommy’ as he refers to her throughout the book) is very evident. He credits his mom for all the success he had because it was her who raised him and his sisters and provided for them.
“My family was not poor because we lacked the funds to live better— my father had a steady job and my mother worked… We were poor because my dad had another family on the side… That’s where he spent all his money, when he wasn’t gambling.”
His dad was a piece of work who continually took advantage of his family until his final day. It shows that Stephen A. had a lot of resilience and funneled those hardships into hard work, determination, grit, and a ‘don’t take no for an answer’ attitude. He was going to make something of himself and he was going to be a better man than his father- to be the man of the house and to provide for his family.
I think my favorite moment in the book was when he landed his first big contract and drives to see his mom to tell her- “It’s my turn now.”
If you’re familiar with Stephen A. Smith you probably already know that he did not play sports professionally and really didn’t even play them in high school or college save a stint at Winston-Salem. His basketball career ended when he blew out his knees.
But that did not stop him from advancing in life. He was already preparing to enter the broadcasting and journalism industry. He had his sights set on the ‘World Wide Leader in Sports’ and was going to do whatever it took to get there.
He talks a lot about his first jobs at newspapers and covering high school sports. He even covered the crime beat in NY for awhile.
His older brother, Basil, died in a car accident in 1992, but had told Stephen A.: ‘You’re going to be a household name.’
“Those words would push me during the years that followed whenever I felt too tired, too frustrated, too apprehensive, too apathetic, or even just too pleasantly distracted.”
Many reviewers say that the book read like a long resume, listing all of his jobs and accomplishments. And I suppose in a way that’s accurate. But I’m not sure it’s contrary to what I would expect to read about. People typically want to know ‘What did it take for you to make it?’ ‘What brought you to where you are today?’ And I felt like this book tells us exactly that.
I did get a little bored in some parts and the name-dropping did nothing for me because I don’t even know who most of the people were (except the obvious ones).
I do think he gives a lot of insight on how he became successful in a business like he’s in. How to become a TV personality. How to be valuable. And why he is the way he is.
Here are some of those things:
“Be impactful. That’s the difference between an employee and a talent… it was never enough for me just to do a job well— everything I did had to have an impact. I wanted to become someone whom nobody else could be like. And who wouldn’t be forgotten. I wanted to do stories that would guarantee that I would never be expendable.”
“Being connected to the same street element that a lot of the players were connected to helped make me an unorthodox journalist.”
“Everybody’s watching what I’m watching, so if I soft-pedaled an opinion about something I saw, viewers would see right through it and view me as something less than ‘real,’ and authenticity has been in short supply throughout the industry for years. That just wasn’t me.”
“I’d forgotten to ask myself if what I want is consistent with the bottom line of the company that’s paying me. If the answer is no, then the only thing you can do is accept the rules of the game until you gain enough influence to change them.”
“I never liked making enemies; I just don’t care if I have any.”
As he mentioned often, First Take (his big break and current show on ESPN), is a debate format show. The purpose is to debate which requires opposing viewpoints and arguing. It wouldn’t be a show if the two hosts agreed on everything. This format is where he really thrives because he always has an opinion and he knows his stuff.
I gotta say, as a woman, I’m not sure this format would work the same if it was all women. I think this often about sports— men somehow can yell at each other and debate and play rough sports and all that and still be friends at the end of it. I’m sure there are women who are able to do it without taking offense, but I’m just sitting over here like- Uh-oh… Are they mad at each other? Are their feelings hurt? Are they still friends?
Stephen A. did confirm- he never took anything personally and he was friends with both Skip Bayless and Kellerman when they were on the show.
He makes an interesting remark about his demeanor as a black man that gave me something to reflect on: “In my business, if you’re white and loud, you’re passionate. If you’re black and loud, you’re angry.”
I’m not sure what I think about this but I’ve contemplated my own reaction to someone talking loud, whether it’s sports news or reality shows, and trying to gauge- do I perceive differently loud black vs loud white people? Do I attribute anger or passion disproportionately? I don’t know, but it’s definitely something to be aware of and if it’s true, it makes me wonder why it would be like that?
It really is impressive what he can do. Whether you love him or hate him, you can see how his show would get high ratings.
He talked often about desiring to see more diversity (black people) at ESPN or in prominent positions of success. I feel like ESPN has been pretty diverse for awhile. I don’t think I’ve ever watched anything sports-related that has been all or really even mostly white.
Now the men to women ratio is the biggest disparity. Which frankly, makes sense. Women in general do not care as much about or aren’t as interested in sports as men. So the percentage of applicants to employees checks out. But I’m guessing it’s a lot harder to be a woman in Stephen A. Smith’s industry than a black man.
I’d be interested in reading a book from a woman who works with ESPN and get her take on the environment and the challenges she had to face.
One thing that I like and respect about Stephen A. Smith is that he seems to really think for himself. He says he’s politically independent, and I’m apt to believe him. He regularly calls himself an unapologetic black man and champions the success and advancement of black people in all industries, but he is not out there to just appease the black community. He takes it seriously to represent black people well, but some of his takes have offended even black people. He’s not a yes-man.
He writes about his interview with Trump and his opinion of him (“an utter disgrace” because he was not a president for the people but only for the people who voted for him) but he also backs the funding of police. He also regularly admonishes players for their drug usage.
“I had friends who got caught up in the drug game. They were shot and killed, became addicts, or ended up in jail. Those appeared to be the only three options in the drug game.”
I’m not sure if he’s exactly in the middle, but true independents are hard to come by and he seems as close as any. I think true independents are the most interesting because they don’t necessarily follow the narrative of a political party. I’d be curious to know more about what platforms from each side he picks to make up his politics.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but from what I’ve seen his opinions are mostly thoughtful not impulsive. Authentic and not pandering.
And he’s gotten himself into trouble. Which is really not that hard in today’s culture because every little word is scrutinized and people are ready to pounce and call for your head or at the very least, your job. He knows that firsthand.
I get the money-making, shareholder appeasing part of corporate America, but at the same time I’m tired of it. I’m tired of people being forced to apologize for saying something that offended someone, even if what they said was true.
He quotes Wake Forest soccer coach Coach Chyzowych who said, “Call it like it is. You’re not in the business to be liked. You’re in the business to be respected. Honesty, integrity, and fairness is what gets you respect. Not being liked.”
Again, I don’t agree with everything Stephen A. says, but I admire that he does not accept the position where he only says what will get him high fives.
One thing that I don’t respect (with the knowledge I have) about Stephen A. Smith is my own hot take. And it’s personal. But he talks about it in his book so I feel like it’s fair game.
He says, “I’ve never married, partly because I’m usually on the road for well over half the year, but mainly because I’ve never wanted to dishonor my marital vows, as my father did so flagrantly.”
I can respect this. If you don’t think you can keep your marital vows, don’t get married. That’s all fine and good. But he’s got two daughters with different mothers. Even if they didn’t make it ‘official’ how is this any different from breaking vows? You have one daughter, but then, essentially, he did go and have another family.
A major difference is that he clearly loves his daughters and everything he does is for them and their future, unlike his dad. I don’t doubt his love for his daughters. That seems very evident with the way he talks about them.
My issue is that he seems to think he has found a loophole that is really not a loophole. He is open about the time in his life where he was basically a womanizer. Not settling down, just chasing beautiful women when it was convenient. After he had his daughter that changed for him. But apparently not for long, because he had a second daughter with a second woman.
I know. I don’t have the whole story and I’m not claiming to know anything. Maybe the mothers of his daughters did not want to marry him or be with him anymore. That very well could be. I just felt like from the beginning Stephen A. Smith lamented his broken family and desired to not replicate that himself. I would just challenge that dishonoring can happen whether there is a piece of paper involved or not and that that does hurt people. He experienced it as a child and I would bet that his daughters might have some of the same feelings he did. Today’s culture is trying to eliminate the nuclear family and make it seem like all forms of family are equally ideal and beneficial, but that’s just simply not true.
The last part of the book is a recollection of his serious bout of Covid that was exacerbated by pneumonia. It was a near-death experience for him that really caused him to reflect on his life and change some things.
He never downplayed the priority of work in his life. He was more than dedicated to his work and spent many long hours doing his job and traveling for it.
“Success breeds a lot of things. But what it often breeds most is an insatiable appetite to keep succeeding.”
“My definition of ‘winning’ had to change.”
I’m glad he came to this realization when he could still make changes. He lamented all the family events he missed and the memories he wasn’t able to make. It’s not an easy thing to change your definition of winning, because it’s not like everyone else is doing it.
To people in general, fame and fortune is the marker of winning. Stephen A. had that. But he admitted that it didn’t satisfy. Because people are more important than money. People are more important than recognition on TV or on social media.
If more people changed their definition of ‘winning’ I think the world would be a better place!
Recommendation
If you enjoy reading memoirs, I think you’ll like this book. It may be a different kind of celebrity than you’re used to reading about because sports is a bit niche in terms of books, but it’s always interesting to read about successful people’s lives, their backgrounds, and what led to their success.
I think sports-interested people will enjoy this more than others, but you don’t have to care about sports to get something out of it. It’s not really a book that puts sports on a pedestal or even breaks down any particular game or match.
Sports is his job, but there’s a lot more that makes up the person of Stephen A. Smith and you’ll find that in these pages.
[Side note: Does the subtitle bother anyone else? I think it would be better to say First Takes and Second Chances than Second Chances and First Takes…. because First comes before Second… that’s Sports 101.]
[Content Advisory: many d-words, and a few f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Stephen A. Smith. An ESPN household name. Accurately self-described as bombastic, you’ll typically come across Stephen A. yelling— I mean speaking passionately— about all matters of things, not just sports, and giving you his hot take, ready to defend everything he says.
I was first ‘introduced’ to Stephen A. through a colleague who would listen to him every afternoon. I learned a lot about sports and “Staying Off the Weeeeeeeeeed!”
Even though I can only take him in small doses, I gotta respect a guy who is willing to tell it like it is. When I saw he had written a book I was interested to hear more about his story. I don’t read much about people in the sporting industry so I decided who better to hear it from than someone who is a ‘straight shooter’?
“Love me or hate me— it’s always one or the other— my story is one about what my world is like and what I’ve learned along the way.”
“You’ll see how love, belief, perseverance, self-awareness, family, friendships, and mentorship can take you places you’ve never been.”
He tells all in this book and walks us through his childhood, his college years, his first jobs, his big break, his suspension, his return, and everything in between. He doesn’t avoid the controversies that have become attached to his name or pretend he’s never made mistakes.
Perhaps he presents himself in a better light than he was (similar to Spare)— I have no way of knowing— but he admits many times where he was wrong or immature. He explains how he learned from his different mistakes and how they made him a better man and a better employee.
Again, I don’t regularly watch his show so I was never keeping up with all the news around him, but he talks briefly about when Max Kellerman left the show and I sense that there is more to that story than he says. He says he has nothing but good things to say about Kellerman and that they just didn’t jive well in the format of the show, but he also goes on to say that they only had one conversation since he left the show. He said it was cordial but working together every day for years and you never speak after that when you both still work at the same place? That doesn’t add up. So I think there’s more there than he lets on.
Overall, I felt like Stephen A. was true to his claims to tell it how it is. The ups and downs, the wins and losses, the success and the hardships that make up his life. He even exposes the many shortcomings (generous word) of his father.
“My mother made me promise that I wouldn’t [write a memoir] until after she died. I had told her I would have to write the truth about everything, including my father. She did not want anyone to read about that while she was alive.”
He kept his promise. His mother died in 2017 after battling colon cancer. The close and deep relationship he had with his mom (or ‘Mommy’ as he refers to her throughout the book) is very evident. He credits his mom for all the success he had because it was her who raised him and his sisters and provided for them.
“My family was not poor because we lacked the funds to live better— my father had a steady job and my mother worked… We were poor because my dad had another family on the side… That’s where he spent all his money, when he wasn’t gambling.”
His dad was a piece of work who continually took advantage of his family until his final day. It shows that Stephen A. had a lot of resilience and funneled those hardships into hard work, determination, grit, and a ‘don’t take no for an answer’ attitude. He was going to make something of himself and he was going to be a better man than his father- to be the man of the house and to provide for his family.
I think my favorite moment in the book was when he landed his first big contract and drives to see his mom to tell her- “It’s my turn now.”
If you’re familiar with Stephen A. Smith you probably already know that he did not play sports professionally and really didn’t even play them in high school or college save a stint at Winston-Salem. His basketball career ended when he blew out his knees.
But that did not stop him from advancing in life. He was already preparing to enter the broadcasting and journalism industry. He had his sights set on the ‘World Wide Leader in Sports’ and was going to do whatever it took to get there.
He talks a lot about his first jobs at newspapers and covering high school sports. He even covered the crime beat in NY for awhile.
His older brother, Basil, died in a car accident in 1992, but had told Stephen A.: ‘You’re going to be a household name.’
“Those words would push me during the years that followed whenever I felt too tired, too frustrated, too apprehensive, too apathetic, or even just too pleasantly distracted.”
Many reviewers say that the book read like a long resume, listing all of his jobs and accomplishments. And I suppose in a way that’s accurate. But I’m not sure it’s contrary to what I would expect to read about. People typically want to know ‘What did it take for you to make it?’ ‘What brought you to where you are today?’ And I felt like this book tells us exactly that.
I did get a little bored in some parts and the name-dropping did nothing for me because I don’t even know who most of the people were (except the obvious ones).
I do think he gives a lot of insight on how he became successful in a business like he’s in. How to become a TV personality. How to be valuable. And why he is the way he is.
Here are some of those things:
“Be impactful. That’s the difference between an employee and a talent… it was never enough for me just to do a job well— everything I did had to have an impact. I wanted to become someone whom nobody else could be like. And who wouldn’t be forgotten. I wanted to do stories that would guarantee that I would never be expendable.”
“Being connected to the same street element that a lot of the players were connected to helped make me an unorthodox journalist.”
“Everybody’s watching what I’m watching, so if I soft-pedaled an opinion about something I saw, viewers would see right through it and view me as something less than ‘real,’ and authenticity has been in short supply throughout the industry for years. That just wasn’t me.”
“I’d forgotten to ask myself if what I want is consistent with the bottom line of the company that’s paying me. If the answer is no, then the only thing you can do is accept the rules of the game until you gain enough influence to change them.”
“I never liked making enemies; I just don’t care if I have any.”
As he mentioned often, First Take (his big break and current show on ESPN), is a debate format show. The purpose is to debate which requires opposing viewpoints and arguing. It wouldn’t be a show if the two hosts agreed on everything. This format is where he really thrives because he always has an opinion and he knows his stuff.
I gotta say, as a woman, I’m not sure this format would work the same if it was all women. I think this often about sports— men somehow can yell at each other and debate and play rough sports and all that and still be friends at the end of it. I’m sure there are women who are able to do it without taking offense, but I’m just sitting over here like- Uh-oh… Are they mad at each other? Are their feelings hurt? Are they still friends?
Stephen A. did confirm- he never took anything personally and he was friends with both Skip Bayless and Kellerman when they were on the show.
He makes an interesting remark about his demeanor as a black man that gave me something to reflect on: “In my business, if you’re white and loud, you’re passionate. If you’re black and loud, you’re angry.”
I’m not sure what I think about this but I’ve contemplated my own reaction to someone talking loud, whether it’s sports news or reality shows, and trying to gauge- do I perceive differently loud black vs loud white people? Do I attribute anger or passion disproportionately? I don’t know, but it’s definitely something to be aware of and if it’s true, it makes me wonder why it would be like that?
It really is impressive what he can do. Whether you love him or hate him, you can see how his show would get high ratings.
He talked often about desiring to see more diversity (black people) at ESPN or in prominent positions of success. I feel like ESPN has been pretty diverse for awhile. I don’t think I’ve ever watched anything sports-related that has been all or really even mostly white.
Now the men to women ratio is the biggest disparity. Which frankly, makes sense. Women in general do not care as much about or aren’t as interested in sports as men. So the percentage of applicants to employees checks out. But I’m guessing it’s a lot harder to be a woman in Stephen A. Smith’s industry than a black man.
I’d be interested in reading a book from a woman who works with ESPN and get her take on the environment and the challenges she had to face.
One thing that I like and respect about Stephen A. Smith is that he seems to really think for himself. He says he’s politically independent, and I’m apt to believe him. He regularly calls himself an unapologetic black man and champions the success and advancement of black people in all industries, but he is not out there to just appease the black community. He takes it seriously to represent black people well, but some of his takes have offended even black people. He’s not a yes-man.
He writes about his interview with Trump and his opinion of him (“an utter disgrace” because he was not a president for the people but only for the people who voted for him) but he also backs the funding of police. He also regularly admonishes players for their drug usage.
“I had friends who got caught up in the drug game. They were shot and killed, became addicts, or ended up in jail. Those appeared to be the only three options in the drug game.”
I’m not sure if he’s exactly in the middle, but true independents are hard to come by and he seems as close as any. I think true independents are the most interesting because they don’t necessarily follow the narrative of a political party. I’d be curious to know more about what platforms from each side he picks to make up his politics.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but from what I’ve seen his opinions are mostly thoughtful not impulsive. Authentic and not pandering.
And he’s gotten himself into trouble. Which is really not that hard in today’s culture because every little word is scrutinized and people are ready to pounce and call for your head or at the very least, your job. He knows that firsthand.
I get the money-making, shareholder appeasing part of corporate America, but at the same time I’m tired of it. I’m tired of people being forced to apologize for saying something that offended someone, even if what they said was true.
He quotes Wake Forest soccer coach Coach Chyzowych who said, “Call it like it is. You’re not in the business to be liked. You’re in the business to be respected. Honesty, integrity, and fairness is what gets you respect. Not being liked.”
Again, I don’t agree with everything Stephen A. says, but I admire that he does not accept the position where he only says what will get him high fives.
One thing that I don’t respect (with the knowledge I have) about Stephen A. Smith is my own hot take. And it’s personal. But he talks about it in his book so I feel like it’s fair game.
He says, “I’ve never married, partly because I’m usually on the road for well over half the year, but mainly because I’ve never wanted to dishonor my marital vows, as my father did so flagrantly.”
I can respect this. If you don’t think you can keep your marital vows, don’t get married. That’s all fine and good. But he’s got two daughters with different mothers. Even if they didn’t make it ‘official’ how is this any different from breaking vows? You have one daughter, but then, essentially, he did go and have another family.
A major difference is that he clearly loves his daughters and everything he does is for them and their future, unlike his dad. I don’t doubt his love for his daughters. That seems very evident with the way he talks about them.
My issue is that he seems to think he has found a loophole that is really not a loophole. He is open about the time in his life where he was basically a womanizer. Not settling down, just chasing beautiful women when it was convenient. After he had his daughter that changed for him. But apparently not for long, because he had a second daughter with a second woman.
I know. I don’t have the whole story and I’m not claiming to know anything. Maybe the mothers of his daughters did not want to marry him or be with him anymore. That very well could be. I just felt like from the beginning Stephen A. Smith lamented his broken family and desired to not replicate that himself. I would just challenge that dishonoring can happen whether there is a piece of paper involved or not and that that does hurt people. He experienced it as a child and I would bet that his daughters might have some of the same feelings he did. Today’s culture is trying to eliminate the nuclear family and make it seem like all forms of family are equally ideal and beneficial, but that’s just simply not true.
The last part of the book is a recollection of his serious bout of Covid that was exacerbated by pneumonia. It was a near-death experience for him that really caused him to reflect on his life and change some things.
He never downplayed the priority of work in his life. He was more than dedicated to his work and spent many long hours doing his job and traveling for it.
“Success breeds a lot of things. But what it often breeds most is an insatiable appetite to keep succeeding.”
“My definition of ‘winning’ had to change.”
I’m glad he came to this realization when he could still make changes. He lamented all the family events he missed and the memories he wasn’t able to make. It’s not an easy thing to change your definition of winning, because it’s not like everyone else is doing it.
To people in general, fame and fortune is the marker of winning. Stephen A. had that. But he admitted that it didn’t satisfy. Because people are more important than money. People are more important than recognition on TV or on social media.
If more people changed their definition of ‘winning’ I think the world would be a better place!
Recommendation
If you enjoy reading memoirs, I think you’ll like this book. It may be a different kind of celebrity than you’re used to reading about because sports is a bit niche in terms of books, but it’s always interesting to read about successful people’s lives, their backgrounds, and what led to their success.
I think sports-interested people will enjoy this more than others, but you don’t have to care about sports to get something out of it. It’s not really a book that puts sports on a pedestal or even breaks down any particular game or match.
Sports is his job, but there’s a lot more that makes up the person of Stephen A. Smith and you’ll find that in these pages.
[Side note: Does the subtitle bother anyone else? I think it would be better to say First Takes and Second Chances than Second Chances and First Takes…. because First comes before Second… that’s Sports 101.]
[Content Advisory: many d-words, and a few f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Content Warnings
Minor: Cursing
The Book of Cold Cases by Simone St. James
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
5.0
“I’ve always believed that murder is the healthiest obsession.”
I specifically read this book for its supernatural bent (for a reading challenge) so I knew what I was getting myself into.
Those who are hardcore ghost thrillers and horror readers may find it too mild, but for someone like me who does not particularly enjoy supernatural thrillers (because they’re either demonic or it’s too easy to use ghosts as explanations) I thought this book had just the right amount of supernatural in relation to the rational.
I felt satisfied with the answers I got yet I still definitely felt the spooky vibes and imagined some of the jump scare moments that would have happened had it been a movie. It made for a great October read!
The main character of the book is Shea Collins who moonlights as a true crime researcher and writer on her website- The Book of Cold Cases. I think one of the main things I wish was different in this book was that as readers we would have felt more connected to Shea.
She still experiences PTSD and some paranoia because of a traumatic event that happened to her when she was nine. She is a bit of a recluse— doesn’t have any friends, occasionally sees her sister’s family, mostly just stays at home. Her job is just a way to pass the time in the story so it doesn’t really tell us much about her either. She just feels distant and not much personality other than her obsession with researching murders.
We do see some character development throughout the book, but the connection points were still small.
The premise of the book is this:
Shea stumbles upon an opportunity to interview Beth Greer, the acquitted but suspected serial killer in at least two murders in their small Oregon lake town during the 70s. It’s been many years since then but the murders were never solved.
Two seemingly random men were shot point-blank on the side of the road and found with a note that read:
“Am I bitter or am I sweet? Ladies can be either.”
…. the Lady Killer. Dun dun dun!
As I am writing this I am realizing I don’t think I like this nickname for the killer. It could read as a female killer or a killer of females. But the people who were killed were men. I think I would have thought of something different. UNLESS St. James wanted to tie in the ending. Which then I guess I like it.
ANYWAY.
After spending time with Beth in her creepy old mansion on the cliffs (“It was an abomination, that’s why she liked it.”), Shea realizes she is now involved in something otherworldly. The faucets turn on by themselves. She hears footsteps. Cabinet doors are all open at the same angle. Her voice recorder picks up a whispered voice that says ‘I’m still here.’
She believes Beth didn’t really kill those men, but knows more than she’s telling. Unless Beth truly is the manipulative murderer the public believed her to be...
“You have so many questions, so many things you want to know. You’ve come closer than anyone else ever has. You’ve almost finished the game, Shea. You’ve almost won. Just use your brain and figure out the last part.”
“Even though she never told the end of the story, she knew the sweet girl was the one who got eaten. The bitter girl was the one who survived.”
The book is formatted with chapters told from both Shea’s present-day POV and Beth’s 1970s POV. Then there are a few other excerpts from interviews or newspapers that provide background info.
I agree with some reviewers who wish ‘the twist’ would have been later in the book. I think it was divulged around halfway through. But at the same time, it seems like it needed to be out there so that Shea had leads to follow.
I like some of the other ‘uncertainties’ in the book that added mystery. I don’t want to give anything away so I won’t name them specifically, and they ended up being nothing, but the fact that something COULD have come from them was a nice element in the story to maintain suspense.
I am wondering one thing though— shouldn’t phone calls to prisoners be recorded? Never mind, I don’t think they did back in the 70s.
Recommendation
If you want a mysterious, spooky read that’s not demonic, gory, or over-the-top supernatural, this is a great option!
If you want something more hardcore, you may find this one boring.
There was a handful of swear words, but otherwise a pretty clean book. I think I would read another one of SImone St. James’ books.
[Content Advisory: handful of f- and s-words; no sexual content; no graphic gore other than a description of blood on the floor and the fact that the men were shot in the face.]
I specifically read this book for its supernatural bent (for a reading challenge) so I knew what I was getting myself into.
Those who are hardcore ghost thrillers and horror readers may find it too mild, but for someone like me who does not particularly enjoy supernatural thrillers (because they’re either demonic or it’s too easy to use ghosts as explanations) I thought this book had just the right amount of supernatural in relation to the rational.
I felt satisfied with the answers I got yet I still definitely felt the spooky vibes and imagined some of the jump scare moments that would have happened had it been a movie. It made for a great October read!
The main character of the book is Shea Collins who moonlights as a true crime researcher and writer on her website- The Book of Cold Cases. I think one of the main things I wish was different in this book was that as readers we would have felt more connected to Shea.
She still experiences PTSD and some paranoia because of a traumatic event that happened to her when she was nine. She is a bit of a recluse— doesn’t have any friends, occasionally sees her sister’s family, mostly just stays at home. Her job is just a way to pass the time in the story so it doesn’t really tell us much about her either. She just feels distant and not much personality other than her obsession with researching murders.
We do see some character development throughout the book, but the connection points were still small.
The premise of the book is this:
Shea stumbles upon an opportunity to interview Beth Greer, the acquitted but suspected serial killer in at least two murders in their small Oregon lake town during the 70s. It’s been many years since then but the murders were never solved.
Two seemingly random men were shot point-blank on the side of the road and found with a note that read:
“Am I bitter or am I sweet? Ladies can be either.”
…. the Lady Killer. Dun dun dun!
As I am writing this I am realizing I don’t think I like this nickname for the killer. It could read as a female killer or a killer of females. But the people who were killed were men. I think I would have thought of something different. UNLESS St. James wanted to tie in the ending. Which then I guess I like it.
ANYWAY.
After spending time with Beth in her creepy old mansion on the cliffs (“It was an abomination, that’s why she liked it.”), Shea realizes she is now involved in something otherworldly. The faucets turn on by themselves. She hears footsteps. Cabinet doors are all open at the same angle. Her voice recorder picks up a whispered voice that says ‘I’m still here.’
She believes Beth didn’t really kill those men, but knows more than she’s telling. Unless Beth truly is the manipulative murderer the public believed her to be...
“You have so many questions, so many things you want to know. You’ve come closer than anyone else ever has. You’ve almost finished the game, Shea. You’ve almost won. Just use your brain and figure out the last part.”
“Even though she never told the end of the story, she knew the sweet girl was the one who got eaten. The bitter girl was the one who survived.”
The book is formatted with chapters told from both Shea’s present-day POV and Beth’s 1970s POV. Then there are a few other excerpts from interviews or newspapers that provide background info.
I agree with some reviewers who wish ‘the twist’ would have been later in the book. I think it was divulged around halfway through. But at the same time, it seems like it needed to be out there so that Shea had leads to follow.
I like some of the other ‘uncertainties’ in the book that added mystery. I don’t want to give anything away so I won’t name them specifically, and they ended up being nothing, but the fact that something COULD have come from them was a nice element in the story to maintain suspense.
I am wondering one thing though— shouldn’t phone calls to prisoners be recorded? Never mind, I don’t think they did back in the 70s.
Recommendation
If you want a mysterious, spooky read that’s not demonic, gory, or over-the-top supernatural, this is a great option!
If you want something more hardcore, you may find this one boring.
There was a handful of swear words, but otherwise a pretty clean book. I think I would read another one of SImone St. James’ books.
[Content Advisory: handful of f- and s-words; no sexual content; no graphic gore other than a description of blood on the floor and the fact that the men were shot in the face.]
The Curse of Penryth Hall by Jess Armstrong
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“The past was no good to anyone, and digging about in it only brought about unpleasantness. It was best to leave it where it was. Past.”
This kept in line with my ‘spooky’ reads for October thus far. It’s a gothic mystery set in the brooding moors of the Cornish countryside in the 1920s.
There were some unexpected things and then some forgotten things that made this book not my favorite, but I think a lot of people will probably still like it. Plus the ending was ‘mostly’ satisfying which is good.
If you’re looking for a completely supernatural type of book and a murder that is only explained through ghosts or curses, etc, then you won’t find it here. Armstrong wove together reality and supernatural elements throughout the story and some were explained away, but she did leave a bit of mystery and intrigue by the end. I liked the balance as I am not a fan of books where it’s completely about the haunting things.
(We’ll see how I like The Book of Cold Cases which I’m reading next as I know it has some supernatural elements!)
The basic premise is this:
Ruby Vaughn, an orphaned and exiled girl from America who lives with a likable, bookish old man in Exeter, is tasked with taking some ancient and “dangerous” books to a "folk healer” in the Cornish countryside.
A simple task brings her to death’s doorstep at Penryth Hall, the place of heirs and curses.
But Ruby, being a rational and logical thinker is convinced that the death cannot be explained away by a ‘curse.’
“There’s no such thing as magic, Mr. Kivell. No curses. No monsters in the night. None of it. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for what happened to Sir Edward and I intend to get to the bottom of it.”
But if she gets too close to the truth, she might be next!
So who is this Ruby Vaughn character and do we like her?
“Between leaving America, war, and the death of my parents, I’d become a different creature. An almost feral fatalistic thing, living from chance to chance, existing only because death didn’t want anything to do with me. At least not yet.”
I like that she is a strong and courageous and smart girl, though a bit reckless. She spent time during the Great War on the front lines carting injured soldiers to safety. She is no stranger to death or danger.
I also like her relationship to Owen, the father-figure she lives with. We find out Ruby’s parents and sister died on the sinking of the Lusitania ship during the war. (Side note: If that interests you, read The Glass Ocean by Beatriz Williams). Before that happened, though, Ruby was exiled from her high-society life in New York because of a scandal. She was young, only 16, but during a time when men had the upper-hand, her vulnerability to a man in power resulted in her forced departure.
Owen also lost his family— his wife before the war and his sons during. “Leaving him a father in need of a child, and I a child in need of a father.”
I think Owen is my favorite character of the book. I thought he was caring and funny and I appreciated that though they shared familial grief and brokenness, they could do life together and bear each other’s burdens, looking after one another and creating a new family. Owen also has a curious twinkle in his eye and I have a feeling if this book turns into a series as it was hinted at, he’s got a lot of adventure left in him!
Ruby is also a rebellious one. She would be the ‘flapper’ type of girl, throwing parties of debauchery and resisting the restraints of societal norms. Instead of a flapper dress though, you would find her in pants, holding a whiskey, arguing with men, and loving whomever she pleases.
That last trait was one aspect I was not expecting.
The murdered man— Sir Edward— was married to her lifelong best friend, Tamsyn (a female). Tamsyn and Ruby had apparently been lovers to some degree and Tamsyn had broken Ruby’s heart at some point during the war. We are not given a lot of details of this.
Throughout the book we see regularly that Ruby still has feelings for Tamsyn and is struggling between loving her and being mad at her.
“I’d expressly vowed to never set foot in the godforsaken county ever again.”
“‘You walk around looking as if she’s ripped out your heart and is carrying it around with her in her pocket, and you can’t decide whether to go fetch it back or leave it where it is. Anyone can see that.’”
As for sexual content, there is none, but we are privy to Ruby’s thoughts and feelings toward both Tamsyn and another character (Ruan) that tell us of her love.
While I like a courageous woman who is willing to push against certain societal norms, I’m not sure if I liked her character as a whole. I’m not into glorified debauchery and rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
“I’d been around the world, to war and back, and done things that would make the most wicked of men blush.”
I don’t know what she means here, but I know enough to know I’m not a fan of it.
Who knows what direction Armstrong could choose to take Ruby in any future books? For some that may be exciting, but for me, I don’t think I’ll continue to read it.
So we’ve got Ruby as our main character and from whose POV the book is told, but our other main character is the folk-healer— Ruan— also known as the Pellar.
“What is a Pellar, Mrs. Pemrose? The way you speak of him he sounds like a cross between a physician, a witch, and priest.”
Though it didn’t fully come to fruition (at least in this book) we have the makings of an enemies-to-lovers type of situation. They begin at odds because Ruby doesn’t believe in curses or magic. She’s trying to figure this guy out and see what his angle is.
“The man was harder to read than my own penmanship.”
But as the story progresses, Ruby witnesses things she can’t explain. Plus there is some sort of supernatural connection between her and Ruan that adds to the mystery and their special bond.
This is where some of the magic remains a mystery. I’m not sure if the author did this intentionally, but to me, it feels like a loose end that was forgotten.
Ruby says that magic can’t be real "Because if such a thing were real, it opened up a box of questions about my own past that I wasn’t ready to answer.”
We know that Ruby has dreams that become reality. We know that she used to sleepwalk as a child. We know that she was “born in the cowl” which is rare and may or may not have some sort of supernatural effect? We also know that her and Ruan share the same birthday.
These are elements that hint at this ‘box of questions’ about her past. But that’s as far as we get. It was kind of a let down not to know more about her dreams as they are a main feature in this book’s story.
Another odd thing that was confusing was some of the ‘terms of endearment’ Armstrong had her characters use. As we don’t find out about Ruby’s romantic love for Tamsyn right away— it seems like just a really deep friendship at first— it became weird when Ruby’s first interaction with Mrs. Pemrose in the bedroom hints at romantic love as well.
Mrs. Pemrose calls her ‘lover.’ Which I’ve only heard used in a romantic context. The interaction alluded to some sort of memory they shared when Ruby had visited for Tamysn’s wedding. Nothing is further said about it.
It is only until later when another person uses that term ‘lover’ to Ruby in a situation that did not hint at romance that we realize there was nothing further to divulge between Ruby and Mrs. Pemrose.
So I think it must just be a cultural term they used then, as they often call Ruby ‘maid’ as well. But it was weird and misleading, especially considering Armstrong had already introduced an LGBTQ relationship. How were readers supposed to navigate the potential relationships if someone was called ‘lover’ non-romantically?
I was a bit put off by Ruby’s distaste for the vicar. It’s probably because I automatically feel defensive when someone mocks or hates Christianity. I mean the vicar is an immoral guy who has no business leading a church and was probably preaching an unbiblical religion (we have no way of knowing and it’s not a tenet of the story) so I don’t fault her for being against the man. But by hearing all of her thoughts surrounding the church or God in general, I’m not convinced she would think fondly of any vicar.
It’s an easy trope to use an immoral and preying religious man as a villain in a story. I know why it’s done, but I don’t have to like it.
Part of what adds to the ‘gothic’ and moody feel of the book is the Cornish setting.
“The old Cornish folkways predate even the Romans. There are things that occur there no one can explain, no one dares question. After all, Tintagel is the birthplace of Arthur, they say. The seat of kings.”
Many stories of giants, pixies, mermaids, and beasts have their origins in Cornwall. While they talked of pixies (piskies) in the book, I think there could have been more ‘story-telling’ around these myths or curses. The Curse of Penryth Hall is not of the fantasy genre so I’m not sure how much incorporation could still be done in the time period chosen for the story, but I wish there had been more lore intertwined with the curse.
Along those same lines, I think there were ‘secrets’ of the house that were hinted at but not really elaborated on that I think would have also added to the spooky vibes. It was more of an afterthought when they could have been played up more.
Randos
I learned a few interesting things that prove Jess Armstrong did her research. At the beginning it is mentioned that Ruby has constructed an in-ground pool at their house and that she thought it would become popular soon. The first hotel swimming pool in America was at the Biltmore in the 1930s so the timing of this was probably right and also weird to think about!
Also, sunglasses were mentioned. And I realized I had never thought about when those were invented. Sunglasses started to become more popular in the 1920s, so again, timely insertion. Look at Wikipedia's page for sunglasses and you'll find some interesting sunglasses Inuits created to block the sun's exposure.
Lastly, ‘Old Nick’ is another term for the devil. I hadn’t heard that before. It’s odd to be so similar to Old St. Nick (Father Christmas). I did a little research and it appears there is no certain explanation for where Old Nick was derived from.
“‘She was murdered… here?’ I repeated, staring at the rug. ‘It was thirty years ago, maid. I doubt there’s a great house in this country without a death or twelve within its walls.’ she said.”
This quote stuck out to me because I just read B.A. Paris’s book The Therapist in which a woman finds out her boyfriend bought a house where someone was just murdered and didn’t tell her about it and she refused to live there. So it was interesting to see this take and realize older houses have seen a lot of things. So, does the age of the house matter when considering whether or not to live somewhere someone was murdered? I’ve been curious to ponder what factors would influence a person’s choice.
“I was struck by the tenuous line between life and death on a farm. Everything was more real. More vital here than back in the ballrooms and theaters of New York.”
This quote also struck me as I recently heard someone talking about the political climate of a rural area vs an urban area. He mentioned that the closer you get to agricultural industry areas, the more conservative the political views are. That political ideas, thoughts, or plans are less abstract. On a farm, you have to grow something. You have to produce more livestock. Therefore, gender matters in a more real way. You go into a city where you are removed from the vitality of a farm, abstract ideas ‘make more sense’ or have less ‘detrimental’ implications.
Obviously there is lots to debate here, but I think it’s really interesting to think about farmers’ perspectives on life and the world where the line between life and death is “tenuous.” Where abstract ideas are not usually helpful or practical. What do we lose when we live in the abstract, ‘free spirit’ of the urban arts and commerce? What would we lose if we never ventured into the abstract?
Politics do seem to work that way in general so it's interesting to think about factors that play into that. Just some thoughts.
Recommendation
To reiterate: This book had some interesting elements and gave me some spooky Nancy Drew vibes. I was mostly satisfied with the ending and appreciated the intertwining of supernatural with rational.
There were several unexpected or forgotten things and the somewhat unlikability of the main character that made this book not really for me.
It’s not badly written, so I know some will like it. There were just elements that didn’t work for me.
As I also mentioned, it seemed like the epilogue hinted at another book. If that were the case, I would not continue to read the series.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 1 s-word, main character is LGBTQ but no sexual content]
This kept in line with my ‘spooky’ reads for October thus far. It’s a gothic mystery set in the brooding moors of the Cornish countryside in the 1920s.
There were some unexpected things and then some forgotten things that made this book not my favorite, but I think a lot of people will probably still like it. Plus the ending was ‘mostly’ satisfying which is good.
If you’re looking for a completely supernatural type of book and a murder that is only explained through ghosts or curses, etc, then you won’t find it here. Armstrong wove together reality and supernatural elements throughout the story and some were explained away, but she did leave a bit of mystery and intrigue by the end. I liked the balance as I am not a fan of books where it’s completely about the haunting things.
(We’ll see how I like The Book of Cold Cases which I’m reading next as I know it has some supernatural elements!)
The basic premise is this:
Ruby Vaughn, an orphaned and exiled girl from America who lives with a likable, bookish old man in Exeter, is tasked with taking some ancient and “dangerous” books to a "folk healer” in the Cornish countryside.
A simple task brings her to death’s doorstep at Penryth Hall, the place of heirs and curses.
But Ruby, being a rational and logical thinker is convinced that the death cannot be explained away by a ‘curse.’
“There’s no such thing as magic, Mr. Kivell. No curses. No monsters in the night. None of it. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for what happened to Sir Edward and I intend to get to the bottom of it.”
But if she gets too close to the truth, she might be next!
So who is this Ruby Vaughn character and do we like her?
“Between leaving America, war, and the death of my parents, I’d become a different creature. An almost feral fatalistic thing, living from chance to chance, existing only because death didn’t want anything to do with me. At least not yet.”
I like that she is a strong and courageous and smart girl, though a bit reckless. She spent time during the Great War on the front lines carting injured soldiers to safety. She is no stranger to death or danger.
I also like her relationship to Owen, the father-figure she lives with. We find out Ruby’s parents and sister died on the sinking of the Lusitania ship during the war. (Side note: If that interests you, read The Glass Ocean by Beatriz Williams). Before that happened, though, Ruby was exiled from her high-society life in New York because of a scandal. She was young, only 16, but during a time when men had the upper-hand, her vulnerability to a man in power resulted in her forced departure.
Owen also lost his family— his wife before the war and his sons during. “Leaving him a father in need of a child, and I a child in need of a father.”
I think Owen is my favorite character of the book. I thought he was caring and funny and I appreciated that though they shared familial grief and brokenness, they could do life together and bear each other’s burdens, looking after one another and creating a new family. Owen also has a curious twinkle in his eye and I have a feeling if this book turns into a series as it was hinted at, he’s got a lot of adventure left in him!
Ruby is also a rebellious one. She would be the ‘flapper’ type of girl, throwing parties of debauchery and resisting the restraints of societal norms. Instead of a flapper dress though, you would find her in pants, holding a whiskey, arguing with men, and loving whomever she pleases.
That last trait was one aspect I was not expecting.
The murdered man— Sir Edward— was married to her lifelong best friend, Tamsyn (a female). Tamsyn and Ruby had apparently been lovers to some degree and Tamsyn had broken Ruby’s heart at some point during the war. We are not given a lot of details of this.
Throughout the book we see regularly that Ruby still has feelings for Tamsyn and is struggling between loving her and being mad at her.
“I’d expressly vowed to never set foot in the godforsaken county ever again.”
“‘You walk around looking as if she’s ripped out your heart and is carrying it around with her in her pocket, and you can’t decide whether to go fetch it back or leave it where it is. Anyone can see that.’”
As for sexual content, there is none, but we are privy to Ruby’s thoughts and feelings toward both Tamsyn and another character (Ruan) that tell us of her love.
While I like a courageous woman who is willing to push against certain societal norms, I’m not sure if I liked her character as a whole. I’m not into glorified debauchery and rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
“I’d been around the world, to war and back, and done things that would make the most wicked of men blush.”
I don’t know what she means here, but I know enough to know I’m not a fan of it.
Who knows what direction Armstrong could choose to take Ruby in any future books? For some that may be exciting, but for me, I don’t think I’ll continue to read it.
So we’ve got Ruby as our main character and from whose POV the book is told, but our other main character is the folk-healer— Ruan— also known as the Pellar.
“What is a Pellar, Mrs. Pemrose? The way you speak of him he sounds like a cross between a physician, a witch, and priest.”
Though it didn’t fully come to fruition (at least in this book) we have the makings of an enemies-to-lovers type of situation. They begin at odds because Ruby doesn’t believe in curses or magic. She’s trying to figure this guy out and see what his angle is.
“The man was harder to read than my own penmanship.”
But as the story progresses, Ruby witnesses things she can’t explain. Plus there is some sort of supernatural connection between her and Ruan that adds to the mystery and their special bond.
This is where some of the magic remains a mystery. I’m not sure if the author did this intentionally, but to me, it feels like a loose end that was forgotten.
Ruby says that magic can’t be real "Because if such a thing were real, it opened up a box of questions about my own past that I wasn’t ready to answer.”
We know that Ruby has dreams that become reality. We know that she used to sleepwalk as a child. We know that she was “born in the cowl” which is rare and may or may not have some sort of supernatural effect? We also know that her and Ruan share the same birthday.
These are elements that hint at this ‘box of questions’ about her past. But that’s as far as we get. It was kind of a let down not to know more about her dreams as they are a main feature in this book’s story.
Another odd thing that was confusing was some of the ‘terms of endearment’ Armstrong had her characters use. As we don’t find out about Ruby’s romantic love for Tamsyn right away— it seems like just a really deep friendship at first— it became weird when Ruby’s first interaction with Mrs. Pemrose in the bedroom hints at romantic love as well.
Mrs. Pemrose calls her ‘lover.’ Which I’ve only heard used in a romantic context. The interaction alluded to some sort of memory they shared when Ruby had visited for Tamysn’s wedding. Nothing is further said about it.
It is only until later when another person uses that term ‘lover’ to Ruby in a situation that did not hint at romance that we realize there was nothing further to divulge between Ruby and Mrs. Pemrose.
So I think it must just be a cultural term they used then, as they often call Ruby ‘maid’ as well. But it was weird and misleading, especially considering Armstrong had already introduced an LGBTQ relationship. How were readers supposed to navigate the potential relationships if someone was called ‘lover’ non-romantically?
I was a bit put off by Ruby’s distaste for the vicar. It’s probably because I automatically feel defensive when someone mocks or hates Christianity. I mean the vicar is an immoral guy who has no business leading a church and was probably preaching an unbiblical religion (we have no way of knowing and it’s not a tenet of the story) so I don’t fault her for being against the man. But by hearing all of her thoughts surrounding the church or God in general, I’m not convinced she would think fondly of any vicar.
It’s an easy trope to use an immoral and preying religious man as a villain in a story. I know why it’s done, but I don’t have to like it.
Part of what adds to the ‘gothic’ and moody feel of the book is the Cornish setting.
“The old Cornish folkways predate even the Romans. There are things that occur there no one can explain, no one dares question. After all, Tintagel is the birthplace of Arthur, they say. The seat of kings.”
Many stories of giants, pixies, mermaids, and beasts have their origins in Cornwall. While they talked of pixies (piskies) in the book, I think there could have been more ‘story-telling’ around these myths or curses. The Curse of Penryth Hall is not of the fantasy genre so I’m not sure how much incorporation could still be done in the time period chosen for the story, but I wish there had been more lore intertwined with the curse.
Along those same lines, I think there were ‘secrets’ of the house that were hinted at but not really elaborated on that I think would have also added to the spooky vibes. It was more of an afterthought when they could have been played up more.
Randos
I learned a few interesting things that prove Jess Armstrong did her research. At the beginning it is mentioned that Ruby has constructed an in-ground pool at their house and that she thought it would become popular soon. The first hotel swimming pool in America was at the Biltmore in the 1930s so the timing of this was probably right and also weird to think about!
Also, sunglasses were mentioned. And I realized I had never thought about when those were invented. Sunglasses started to become more popular in the 1920s, so again, timely insertion. Look at Wikipedia's page for sunglasses and you'll find some interesting sunglasses Inuits created to block the sun's exposure.
Lastly, ‘Old Nick’ is another term for the devil. I hadn’t heard that before. It’s odd to be so similar to Old St. Nick (Father Christmas). I did a little research and it appears there is no certain explanation for where Old Nick was derived from.
“‘She was murdered… here?’ I repeated, staring at the rug. ‘It was thirty years ago, maid. I doubt there’s a great house in this country without a death or twelve within its walls.’ she said.”
This quote stuck out to me because I just read B.A. Paris’s book The Therapist in which a woman finds out her boyfriend bought a house where someone was just murdered and didn’t tell her about it and she refused to live there. So it was interesting to see this take and realize older houses have seen a lot of things. So, does the age of the house matter when considering whether or not to live somewhere someone was murdered? I’ve been curious to ponder what factors would influence a person’s choice.
“I was struck by the tenuous line between life and death on a farm. Everything was more real. More vital here than back in the ballrooms and theaters of New York.”
This quote also struck me as I recently heard someone talking about the political climate of a rural area vs an urban area. He mentioned that the closer you get to agricultural industry areas, the more conservative the political views are. That political ideas, thoughts, or plans are less abstract. On a farm, you have to grow something. You have to produce more livestock. Therefore, gender matters in a more real way. You go into a city where you are removed from the vitality of a farm, abstract ideas ‘make more sense’ or have less ‘detrimental’ implications.
Obviously there is lots to debate here, but I think it’s really interesting to think about farmers’ perspectives on life and the world where the line between life and death is “tenuous.” Where abstract ideas are not usually helpful or practical. What do we lose when we live in the abstract, ‘free spirit’ of the urban arts and commerce? What would we lose if we never ventured into the abstract?
Politics do seem to work that way in general so it's interesting to think about factors that play into that. Just some thoughts.
Recommendation
To reiterate: This book had some interesting elements and gave me some spooky Nancy Drew vibes. I was mostly satisfied with the ending and appreciated the intertwining of supernatural with rational.
There were several unexpected or forgotten things and the somewhat unlikability of the main character that made this book not really for me.
It’s not badly written, so I know some will like it. There were just elements that didn’t work for me.
As I also mentioned, it seemed like the epilogue hinted at another book. If that were the case, I would not continue to read the series.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 1 s-word, main character is LGBTQ but no sexual content]