Scan barcode
shelfreflectionofficial's reviews
816 reviews
A Death at the Party by Amy Stuart
mysterious
slow-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“Somehow, it came to this: a dead body on my bathroom floor.”
Because of the swearing, the unlikable characters, and the loose ends, this book didn’t do much for me.
I am also not a huge fan of books (or movies) that start with the end and then rewind to tell us how we got there. It removes some of the mystery!
This book begins by telling us that Nadine, the main character, is in her bathroom with a dying man, choosing not to call the police and allowing him to die.
“You did this.” she says.
So who is this guy?
Stuart throws a lot of options at us throughout the book of men Nadine might have a motive to kill. I didn’t necessarily ‘figure out’ who the man was for awhile, but the problem with that is that we still have the issue of all these other guys that did these other things or were suspicious for something. Unfortunately, some of these things didn’t really get resolution in a satisfying way.
I admit that part of that is because this book takes place in one day: the day of the party which ends with the death of the mysterious man. We get a few flashbacks for context, but otherwise everything happens within one day— morning, afternoon, and evening— and all loose ends can’t easily be tied up in that time frame.
The party is a sixtieth birthday garden party Nadine wanted to throw for her famous writer mother, Marilyn.
But these ladies don’t have a great track record with parties.
This party occurs on the anniversary of her mom’s 30th birthday party which had ended in her mother’s 15 year-old sister’s mysterious death (whose body Nadine— just ten at the time— found). Plus just last New Year’s Eve they had a party where Nadine fell down the stairs and shattered her hip.
Besides party tragedy, we’ve got another trauma that happened just six weeks ago when Nadine’s daughter found her friend, River, overdosed and is now in a coma.
There’s something not right with this family.
Stuart gives us hints that Nadine is hiding something. Keeping some secrets. And that she will do anything to protect the ones she loves.
“My job is to protect Marilyn, even if that means keeping secrets from her. No one, not even her, knows the truth better than me.”
“Even a marriage that seems steady to an outside can be full of ups and downs. I’ve often thought that it’s the downs that ultimately bring you closer. The losses you endure. The secrets you keep. I hope that for all our downs, Paul and I will hang on forever. Because despite my wrongdoings, the risks I’ve taken with our life together, I don’t know what I’d do without him. I need to believe he’d forgive me for almost anything.”
What makes Nadine unlikable is a bit hard to pin down. She’s a bit of a control freak. Suspicious. She had an affair that, even though it’s over now, no one knows about. And her inner dialogue isn’t super pleasant to listen to.
I think the author writes her specifically like this. After all, we have to believe that she’s killed a man so something had to have driven her to feel the feelings required for that and it’s the day of, so no development can happen to progress to that point slowly.
Also she uses ‘Jesus’ and ‘God’ as a curse allllll the time. Which turned me off as well.
In some ways this book reminded me of The Guest List which is also a book that takes place in one day (actually it’s two)— a wedding instead of a birthday party— but both have a death of someone and you aren’t told who it is til the end. But I didn’t really like that one other. I think it’s an interesting concept for a book but I’m not sure I’ve read one done really well.
Maybe The Dilemma? That’s a book over a one day period with a party, but without a death. Just some secrets between a husband and a wife about their daughter and a bit of a twist at the end. But even then, there was just a disconnect between the reader and the daughter which felt important.
I think I just like to read books with more depth, context, and development. I think I’d prefer more of a locked room/Sherlock type of mystery in a situation like this rather than a domestic thriller type of suspicion.
I’m just not going to be super invested in the characters and it leaves me with too many questions.
In terms of A Death at a Party, I don’t want to share my unanswered questions because that would give away who is NOT dead and I don’t want to ruin it for anyone who is going to read the book.
I guess here’s a couple things I think I can get away with saying: Do we even really know WHY Nadine threw this party? What’s the deal with Marilyn? The two doors didn’t feel as momentous as I thought they were going to be. And I am just not sure what life will look like for Nadine after this because it feels like her problems are far from solved.
Some people like some open-endedness to books but that’s not my cup of tea.
Recommendation
I think there are some people who are going to like the book— especially if they like rewinded… rewound…? books or stories that happen all in one day. But those who like more of a developing plot and likeable characters may want to pass on this one.
As other reviewers have commented, the cover is really pretty, but it didn’t quite live up to what I was hoping for when I picked it up.
It just felt a little too unsatisfying when I finished.
[Content Advisory: 54ish f-words, 18ish s-words; lots of ‘Jesus’ and ‘God.’; Nadine had an affair and there are some references to the trysts]
**Received a copy from Simon & Schuster in exchange for an honest review**
Because of the swearing, the unlikable characters, and the loose ends, this book didn’t do much for me.
I am also not a huge fan of books (or movies) that start with the end and then rewind to tell us how we got there. It removes some of the mystery!
This book begins by telling us that Nadine, the main character, is in her bathroom with a dying man, choosing not to call the police and allowing him to die.
“You did this.” she says.
So who is this guy?
Stuart throws a lot of options at us throughout the book of men Nadine might have a motive to kill. I didn’t necessarily ‘figure out’ who the man was for awhile, but the problem with that is that we still have the issue of all these other guys that did these other things or were suspicious for something. Unfortunately, some of these things didn’t really get resolution in a satisfying way.
I admit that part of that is because this book takes place in one day: the day of the party which ends with the death of the mysterious man. We get a few flashbacks for context, but otherwise everything happens within one day— morning, afternoon, and evening— and all loose ends can’t easily be tied up in that time frame.
The party is a sixtieth birthday garden party Nadine wanted to throw for her famous writer mother, Marilyn.
But these ladies don’t have a great track record with parties.
This party occurs on the anniversary of her mom’s 30th birthday party which had ended in her mother’s 15 year-old sister’s mysterious death (whose body Nadine— just ten at the time— found). Plus just last New Year’s Eve they had a party where Nadine fell down the stairs and shattered her hip.
Besides party tragedy, we’ve got another trauma that happened just six weeks ago when Nadine’s daughter found her friend, River, overdosed and is now in a coma.
There’s something not right with this family.
Stuart gives us hints that Nadine is hiding something. Keeping some secrets. And that she will do anything to protect the ones she loves.
“My job is to protect Marilyn, even if that means keeping secrets from her. No one, not even her, knows the truth better than me.”
“Even a marriage that seems steady to an outside can be full of ups and downs. I’ve often thought that it’s the downs that ultimately bring you closer. The losses you endure. The secrets you keep. I hope that for all our downs, Paul and I will hang on forever. Because despite my wrongdoings, the risks I’ve taken with our life together, I don’t know what I’d do without him. I need to believe he’d forgive me for almost anything.”
What makes Nadine unlikable is a bit hard to pin down. She’s a bit of a control freak. Suspicious. She had an affair that, even though it’s over now, no one knows about. And her inner dialogue isn’t super pleasant to listen to.
I think the author writes her specifically like this. After all, we have to believe that she’s killed a man so something had to have driven her to feel the feelings required for that and it’s the day of, so no development can happen to progress to that point slowly.
Also she uses ‘Jesus’ and ‘God’ as a curse allllll the time. Which turned me off as well.
In some ways this book reminded me of The Guest List which is also a book that takes place in one day (actually it’s two)— a wedding instead of a birthday party— but both have a death of someone and you aren’t told who it is til the end. But I didn’t really like that one other. I think it’s an interesting concept for a book but I’m not sure I’ve read one done really well.
Maybe The Dilemma? That’s a book over a one day period with a party, but without a death. Just some secrets between a husband and a wife about their daughter and a bit of a twist at the end. But even then, there was just a disconnect between the reader and the daughter which felt important.
I think I just like to read books with more depth, context, and development. I think I’d prefer more of a locked room/Sherlock type of mystery in a situation like this rather than a domestic thriller type of suspicion.
I’m just not going to be super invested in the characters and it leaves me with too many questions.
In terms of A Death at a Party, I don’t want to share my unanswered questions because that would give away who is NOT dead and I don’t want to ruin it for anyone who is going to read the book.
I guess here’s a couple things I think I can get away with saying: Do we even really know WHY Nadine threw this party? What’s the deal with Marilyn? The two doors didn’t feel as momentous as I thought they were going to be. And I am just not sure what life will look like for Nadine after this because it feels like her problems are far from solved.
Some people like some open-endedness to books but that’s not my cup of tea.
Recommendation
I think there are some people who are going to like the book— especially if they like rewinded… rewound…? books or stories that happen all in one day. But those who like more of a developing plot and likeable characters may want to pass on this one.
As other reviewers have commented, the cover is really pretty, but it didn’t quite live up to what I was hoping for when I picked it up.
It just felt a little too unsatisfying when I finished.
[Content Advisory: 54ish f-words, 18ish s-words; lots of ‘Jesus’ and ‘God.’; Nadine had an affair and there are some references to the trysts]
**Received a copy from Simon & Schuster in exchange for an honest review**
Content Warnings
Graphic: Cursing
The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It's Destructive, and How to Respond by Alisa Childers, Tim Barnett
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
“Faithfulness to God comes at a cost. It’s easier to submit to societal opinions than to stand on scriptural truth.”
[Note: if you are less of a reader and prefer podcasts, HERE is a link to one of Childers’ podcasts where she talks about a lot of this information.]
With the same easy to follow arguments and illustrations of her book, Live Your Truth (and Other Lies), Alisa Childers and co-author Tim Barnett expose what’s really happening during deconstruction and remind us of the importance of truth and holding fast to God’s Word.
Childers and Barnett take a nuanced and confusing topic— deconstruction— and bring clarity and distinction. It is clear they were committed to researching this topic within the spheres it operates and heard from the most influential deconstructionists.
They look at the what, why, and who of the whole process with a desire to help us understand the deconstruction community, of which our loved ones may be part, and to know how to stay grounded in biblical conviction with compassion.
They recognize that there are many things out of the scope of this book. They aren’t attempting to address every theological issue deconstructionists put out. (If you are looking for some answers and evidence surrounding specific beliefs, I would direct you to the books listed at the end of the review.)
But what they do address is the pull of the deconstruction movement and their desire for relationships to be restored, both between family and friends, but also between people and the Lord.
I thought this book was very well-researched and written in a firm but loving tone. I highlighted so much!
One reviewer was turned off, saying there was no room for compromise here. I’m not sure exactly what they mean by compromise, but I think this book was written for that very reason. Following Christ requires conviction. If you believe something is true, you don’t compromise that belief for a lie.
Following Christ will put us on the outs from our culture. Romans 12 reminds us to stop conforming to the world— stop compromising. Deconstructors tend to look at culture and their inner moral compass to determine what is right. As Christians we look to God and his Word to form our beliefs, even if those beliefs are condemned by the culture.
Deconstruct or Reform?
They make the important distinction that deconstruction is not the same as reforming. Though there are many different definitions of deconstruction, a fundamental aspect of deconstruction is the rejection of authority, aka the Bible.
“The church isn’t always reforming to keep up with contemporary culture, or to get rid of old, dusty orthodoxy. Rather, it’s always being reformed according to Scripture.”
Asking questions of your faith and your beliefs is a good and healthy thing. We should know why we believe what we believe. Doubts and questions should not be suppressed but brought to light and engaged with. But as Christians we hold up each belief to our authority— the Bible— as we should. (A circular reasoning that is required for any ultimate source of truth and authority.)
“We all have uncritically accepted beliefs, and some of those were true beliefs and some were false beliefs. This is why we need to understand why we believe the things we do.”
But this type of questioning and doubting is not deconstruction. A better word would be reforming. Aligning our beliefs and the things taught to us with God’s Word as the Bereans did in Acts.
Deconstruction, at its core, seeks to undermine Scripture. Reforming, at its core, seeks to understand Scripture.
Simply put, deconstruction:
“is not about trying to make your views match reality. It’s about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it’s being called these days.”
‘The Deconstruction of Christianity’ is divided into three parts.
Part One: #Exvangelical
These chapters look at the trending hashtag #exvangelical and how Christians are interacting with the deconstruction process.
Christians have tried to “baptize” the word deconstruction to try to make it ‘fit’ with Christianity. But as Childers and Barnett helpfully point out— not only does that just add to the confusion and miscommunication and appear deceptive to a community that already distrusts Christians, it also ironically plays out the deconstructionist idea that meaning is subjective.
We should let deconstruction mean what it means and interact with it as it claims itself to be, not try to change the word to mean something it doesn’t.
They don’t address or try to defend the term ‘evangelical’ as that word in itself would take an entire book to deal with.
“There are, no doubt, aspects of evangelical culture that need to be reformed.”
But they do acknowledge that the term evangelical has a lot of baggage:
“for many in the #exvangelical community, evangelical is perceived to be synonymous with misogyny, racism, homophobia, and the political support of Donald Trump.”
What is important to note here is that the beliefs of self-identified evangelicals vary tremendously. Almost half don’t believe Jesus is God, 38% don’t believe in objective truth, and over half think God accepts worship from other religions. These all go against biblical beliefs. So what does evangelical really mean?
It’s a big thing to unpack, and one place to start would be the book Gospel People.
It is true that their target audience for this book is Christians rather than deconstructors.
“While the book is primarily written to Christians who are experiencing deconstruction from the outside, we hope to present the topic in a way that is reasonable, accurate, and filled with grace for those experiencing it from the inside.”
Because of the nature of ‘beliefs’ there will be some things that deconstructors won’t like to read. For example, the authors say, “The reality, however, is that in deconstruction, one trades being a servant of Christ for being a slave to sin. It can feel like freedom at first because we love our sin, but it’s a path that leads to destruction.” We believe this because of Romans 6. Someone who does not follow Christ is not easily going to accept or agree that they are a slave to their sin because they don’t believe the Bible.
But the authors reiterate that they are not writing to tear down and criticize people. We need to see each other as image-bearers, God’s creation, and because of that— worthy of dignity and love. They write to tear down arguments in an honest and thorough search for truth. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
They don’t say these things to point out the worst in people. They say these things because it’s the gospel message: we are sinners who need a Savior. If we don’t know our disease, we won’t care about a cure.
We all believe something. We all worship something. If God and his Word is not our authority, something else is. Most likely the self. So scrutinize yourself as you do Christianity.
“When it comes to faith, some questions seek answers, and some questions seek exits. There are questions that seek after truth, but other questions seek to avoid truth.”
Part Two: Deconstruction
These chapters talk about the reasons why people have been walking away from Christianity.
Some reviewers have critiqued this book for putting up straw-man arguments, but I would disagree.
The authors are not trying to pin down ‘every deconstructor’ in this book. Each individual’s journey will look different and may be triggered by varying things. People will have different questions, hurts, and frustrations.
Childers and Barnett articulate that what they are trying to engage with are the most common issues and primary grievances prevalent among the most popular or influential voices in the conversation. The voices that the individuals may be listening and relating to.
They cover a lot of ground and everything they bring up is something I have seen expressed by others in multiple places. Each issue or argument may not describe every deconstructor but I think it would be hard to argue that they are misrepresenting the arguments as they quote directly from articles, tweets, and videos with tons of views.
Here Childers and Barnett offer the illustration of a two-level house.
“In this house, facts go downstairs, and preferences go upstairs.”
Most people today relegate religious beliefs to the upstairs. You can’t make objective statements about them.
But the problem is that pretty much all religions make exclusive and objective claims about themselves. They are worldviews and a lens in which you view the big questions of life- where did we come from, why are we here, what is the meaning of life?
“We’re claiming that Christianity is true to reality— it fits the way the world really is. It’s objectively true.”
Jesus says in John 18:37 that he came into the world “to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Jesus was a real, historical man who made exclusive claims about himself and the truth. We have to engage with those in the realm of facts. Either they are true or not true. They can’t be mere preferences.
“Jesus was either raised from the dead, as a historical event in reality, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then Christianity is false. If he was, then Christianity is true for everyone, whether they believe it or not.”
I think that is truly what is at the heart of any conversation regarding deconstruction: What is Truth?
Because deconstruction is rooted in postmodern ideas of rejecting authority and the ability to know anything objective, ‘truth’ becomes individualized. Relative. This is where we get ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth.’ And the idea that no one can tell you what to do, what is right, and what is wrong.
Postmodern thought desires to dismantle authority structures and to group people as either oppressed or oppressors. This is the origin behind claims that Christianity— as a set of beliefs— is a toxic and manipulative power structure seeking to control people.
An honest look at the Bible shows a holy God who must deal with sin in a just way. It shows a God overflowing with mercy, love, grace, forgiveness, and a heart for the marginalized and vulnerable. The entire book tells the story of God redeeming a broken people to himself and offering hope and salvation in a world of sin and evil.
But this mantra of toxic and manipulative authority is fundamental to critical theory and pervasive in much secular thought toward Christianity today, whether people realize or acknowledge it.
[This is fleshed out more in the insightful book Cynical Theories.]
You can’t follow the logic of relativism through everything without lots of problems. There has to be some sort of level of morality and truth for a society to function. Where do those standards come from? Can we really allow popularity, cultural acceptance, and our feelings to dictate those standards?
But there is more going on in deconstruction than just identifying what is true or false. More and more, people are not asking whether or not Christianity is true, they are asking if it’s good.
If this describes you, I would recommend the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t because Gavin Ortlund seeks to answer that question throughout his book and does a really compelling job of showing the beauty and goodness of God and his Word.
So many of deconstructors’ stories involve abuse of some kind from a church body or church leadership. The hurts are real.
Childers and Barnett do not make excuses for the harm done by those claiming the name of Christ. And they advocate for abusers to be held accountable.
Those who hurt and manipulate people do so against the teachings of the Bible, not in accordance with it. People will misuse the Bible and misinterpret the Bible, but that doesn’t make Christianity inherently false. As Christians, our authority is not in the people who wield the Bible, but in God and the words he has given us in Scripture.
“It’s fallen people, not Christianity, who are abusive. Jesus came to set captives free.”
Part 3: #HOPE
These chapters talk about the ways the church can be a safer place for people to feel like they can ask questions. They also challenge churches to offer better answers— meaning admitting when they don’t know or offering thoughtful responses that don’t simply try to shut down questions.
They also offer a process to consider when talking with loved ones who are deconstructing. This process is less about ‘correcting’ their theology as we tend to want to do, but listening and seeking to understand what they are going through and what is concerning them. It involves setting boundaries and respecting their boundaries.
“Many in the deconstruction movement believe Christians are fearful, simpleminded, and reactionary. Be the opposite. Break the stereotype.”
There may be a time to talk about evidence, but it’s important to be able to stay in their life and show them love.
In Neil Shenvi’s book, Why Believe?, he reminds us that “God’s purpose is to change hearts, not merely to change minds.”
There are beliefs that make up Christianity, but at the heart of Christianity is a person— Jesus Christ.
If someone can be argued into faith, they can be argued out of faith. Faith requires a heart change and a realization of their need for a Savior.
Shenvi also said, “Speaking personally, Christianity is the only religion or worldview or philosophy that correctly identifies the disease I know I have and the cure I know I need.”
If a person hasn’t reached that conclusion, no argument in the world really matters.
Childers and Barnett conclude with this:
“Christianity isn’t tidy, and neither is the church. As long as there is a church, there will be church hurt. As long as there is a cursed creation, there will be suffering. As long as there is mystery, there will be unanswered questions. But as long as there is a risen Savior, there is hope. And that’s what I want to leave you.”
And that is the wonderful news of the Gospel! Deconstruction is not new. The Bible tells of many walking away from faith. But God’s plan for redeeming his people cannot be thwarted by a clever hashtag and some earnest tweeters. Jesus is real; his death and resurrection were real; and therefore, hope is real.
Thus, the authors point out the confusion around the word ‘faith.’
Deconstructionists view faith as a blind leap, a belief without evidence.
“Certainly, there are Christians who practice a type of blind faith, but that does not mean that Christianity advocates blind faith.”
The authors remind us that even John the Baptist doubted whether Jesus was the one they’d been waiting for. When confronted with this doubt, Jesus responded by sending the message that “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Matt 11:5)
This was evidence for John’s faith; it was not in vain.
“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and assurance entails solid reasons to believe something.”
“God has provided enough evidence for those who seek truth but has left enough concealed for those who don’t want to submit to truth… God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him.”
I highly recommend not only this book, but follow Alisa Childers’ podcast as she talks through all kinds of topics surrounding deconstruction and ‘problems’ with Christianity.
“If Christianity is true, the stakes are life and death. The destination of deconstruction matters.”
Ask to reform.
And pray for those who are deconstructing, that they would see the Lord.
For more quotes and a list of books for further reading, see ORIGINAL REVIEW.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley & Tyndale Publishing in exchange for an honest review**
[Note: if you are less of a reader and prefer podcasts, HERE is a link to one of Childers’ podcasts where she talks about a lot of this information.]
With the same easy to follow arguments and illustrations of her book, Live Your Truth (and Other Lies), Alisa Childers and co-author Tim Barnett expose what’s really happening during deconstruction and remind us of the importance of truth and holding fast to God’s Word.
Childers and Barnett take a nuanced and confusing topic— deconstruction— and bring clarity and distinction. It is clear they were committed to researching this topic within the spheres it operates and heard from the most influential deconstructionists.
They look at the what, why, and who of the whole process with a desire to help us understand the deconstruction community, of which our loved ones may be part, and to know how to stay grounded in biblical conviction with compassion.
They recognize that there are many things out of the scope of this book. They aren’t attempting to address every theological issue deconstructionists put out. (If you are looking for some answers and evidence surrounding specific beliefs, I would direct you to the books listed at the end of the review.)
But what they do address is the pull of the deconstruction movement and their desire for relationships to be restored, both between family and friends, but also between people and the Lord.
I thought this book was very well-researched and written in a firm but loving tone. I highlighted so much!
One reviewer was turned off, saying there was no room for compromise here. I’m not sure exactly what they mean by compromise, but I think this book was written for that very reason. Following Christ requires conviction. If you believe something is true, you don’t compromise that belief for a lie.
Following Christ will put us on the outs from our culture. Romans 12 reminds us to stop conforming to the world— stop compromising. Deconstructors tend to look at culture and their inner moral compass to determine what is right. As Christians we look to God and his Word to form our beliefs, even if those beliefs are condemned by the culture.
Deconstruct or Reform?
They make the important distinction that deconstruction is not the same as reforming. Though there are many different definitions of deconstruction, a fundamental aspect of deconstruction is the rejection of authority, aka the Bible.
“The church isn’t always reforming to keep up with contemporary culture, or to get rid of old, dusty orthodoxy. Rather, it’s always being reformed according to Scripture.”
Asking questions of your faith and your beliefs is a good and healthy thing. We should know why we believe what we believe. Doubts and questions should not be suppressed but brought to light and engaged with. But as Christians we hold up each belief to our authority— the Bible— as we should. (A circular reasoning that is required for any ultimate source of truth and authority.)
“We all have uncritically accepted beliefs, and some of those were true beliefs and some were false beliefs. This is why we need to understand why we believe the things we do.”
But this type of questioning and doubting is not deconstruction. A better word would be reforming. Aligning our beliefs and the things taught to us with God’s Word as the Bereans did in Acts.
Deconstruction, at its core, seeks to undermine Scripture. Reforming, at its core, seeks to understand Scripture.
Simply put, deconstruction:
“is not about trying to make your views match reality. It’s about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it’s being called these days.”
‘The Deconstruction of Christianity’ is divided into three parts.
Part One: #Exvangelical
These chapters look at the trending hashtag #exvangelical and how Christians are interacting with the deconstruction process.
Christians have tried to “baptize” the word deconstruction to try to make it ‘fit’ with Christianity. But as Childers and Barnett helpfully point out— not only does that just add to the confusion and miscommunication and appear deceptive to a community that already distrusts Christians, it also ironically plays out the deconstructionist idea that meaning is subjective.
We should let deconstruction mean what it means and interact with it as it claims itself to be, not try to change the word to mean something it doesn’t.
They don’t address or try to defend the term ‘evangelical’ as that word in itself would take an entire book to deal with.
“There are, no doubt, aspects of evangelical culture that need to be reformed.”
But they do acknowledge that the term evangelical has a lot of baggage:
“for many in the #exvangelical community, evangelical is perceived to be synonymous with misogyny, racism, homophobia, and the political support of Donald Trump.”
What is important to note here is that the beliefs of self-identified evangelicals vary tremendously. Almost half don’t believe Jesus is God, 38% don’t believe in objective truth, and over half think God accepts worship from other religions. These all go against biblical beliefs. So what does evangelical really mean?
It’s a big thing to unpack, and one place to start would be the book Gospel People.
It is true that their target audience for this book is Christians rather than deconstructors.
“While the book is primarily written to Christians who are experiencing deconstruction from the outside, we hope to present the topic in a way that is reasonable, accurate, and filled with grace for those experiencing it from the inside.”
Because of the nature of ‘beliefs’ there will be some things that deconstructors won’t like to read. For example, the authors say, “The reality, however, is that in deconstruction, one trades being a servant of Christ for being a slave to sin. It can feel like freedom at first because we love our sin, but it’s a path that leads to destruction.” We believe this because of Romans 6. Someone who does not follow Christ is not easily going to accept or agree that they are a slave to their sin because they don’t believe the Bible.
But the authors reiterate that they are not writing to tear down and criticize people. We need to see each other as image-bearers, God’s creation, and because of that— worthy of dignity and love. They write to tear down arguments in an honest and thorough search for truth. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
They don’t say these things to point out the worst in people. They say these things because it’s the gospel message: we are sinners who need a Savior. If we don’t know our disease, we won’t care about a cure.
We all believe something. We all worship something. If God and his Word is not our authority, something else is. Most likely the self. So scrutinize yourself as you do Christianity.
“When it comes to faith, some questions seek answers, and some questions seek exits. There are questions that seek after truth, but other questions seek to avoid truth.”
Part Two: Deconstruction
These chapters talk about the reasons why people have been walking away from Christianity.
Some reviewers have critiqued this book for putting up straw-man arguments, but I would disagree.
The authors are not trying to pin down ‘every deconstructor’ in this book. Each individual’s journey will look different and may be triggered by varying things. People will have different questions, hurts, and frustrations.
Childers and Barnett articulate that what they are trying to engage with are the most common issues and primary grievances prevalent among the most popular or influential voices in the conversation. The voices that the individuals may be listening and relating to.
They cover a lot of ground and everything they bring up is something I have seen expressed by others in multiple places. Each issue or argument may not describe every deconstructor but I think it would be hard to argue that they are misrepresenting the arguments as they quote directly from articles, tweets, and videos with tons of views.
Here Childers and Barnett offer the illustration of a two-level house.
“In this house, facts go downstairs, and preferences go upstairs.”
Most people today relegate religious beliefs to the upstairs. You can’t make objective statements about them.
But the problem is that pretty much all religions make exclusive and objective claims about themselves. They are worldviews and a lens in which you view the big questions of life- where did we come from, why are we here, what is the meaning of life?
“We’re claiming that Christianity is true to reality— it fits the way the world really is. It’s objectively true.”
Jesus says in John 18:37 that he came into the world “to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Jesus was a real, historical man who made exclusive claims about himself and the truth. We have to engage with those in the realm of facts. Either they are true or not true. They can’t be mere preferences.
“Jesus was either raised from the dead, as a historical event in reality, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then Christianity is false. If he was, then Christianity is true for everyone, whether they believe it or not.”
I think that is truly what is at the heart of any conversation regarding deconstruction: What is Truth?
Because deconstruction is rooted in postmodern ideas of rejecting authority and the ability to know anything objective, ‘truth’ becomes individualized. Relative. This is where we get ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth.’ And the idea that no one can tell you what to do, what is right, and what is wrong.
Postmodern thought desires to dismantle authority structures and to group people as either oppressed or oppressors. This is the origin behind claims that Christianity— as a set of beliefs— is a toxic and manipulative power structure seeking to control people.
An honest look at the Bible shows a holy God who must deal with sin in a just way. It shows a God overflowing with mercy, love, grace, forgiveness, and a heart for the marginalized and vulnerable. The entire book tells the story of God redeeming a broken people to himself and offering hope and salvation in a world of sin and evil.
But this mantra of toxic and manipulative authority is fundamental to critical theory and pervasive in much secular thought toward Christianity today, whether people realize or acknowledge it.
[This is fleshed out more in the insightful book Cynical Theories.]
You can’t follow the logic of relativism through everything without lots of problems. There has to be some sort of level of morality and truth for a society to function. Where do those standards come from? Can we really allow popularity, cultural acceptance, and our feelings to dictate those standards?
But there is more going on in deconstruction than just identifying what is true or false. More and more, people are not asking whether or not Christianity is true, they are asking if it’s good.
If this describes you, I would recommend the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t because Gavin Ortlund seeks to answer that question throughout his book and does a really compelling job of showing the beauty and goodness of God and his Word.
So many of deconstructors’ stories involve abuse of some kind from a church body or church leadership. The hurts are real.
Childers and Barnett do not make excuses for the harm done by those claiming the name of Christ. And they advocate for abusers to be held accountable.
Those who hurt and manipulate people do so against the teachings of the Bible, not in accordance with it. People will misuse the Bible and misinterpret the Bible, but that doesn’t make Christianity inherently false. As Christians, our authority is not in the people who wield the Bible, but in God and the words he has given us in Scripture.
“It’s fallen people, not Christianity, who are abusive. Jesus came to set captives free.”
Part 3: #HOPE
These chapters talk about the ways the church can be a safer place for people to feel like they can ask questions. They also challenge churches to offer better answers— meaning admitting when they don’t know or offering thoughtful responses that don’t simply try to shut down questions.
They also offer a process to consider when talking with loved ones who are deconstructing. This process is less about ‘correcting’ their theology as we tend to want to do, but listening and seeking to understand what they are going through and what is concerning them. It involves setting boundaries and respecting their boundaries.
“Many in the deconstruction movement believe Christians are fearful, simpleminded, and reactionary. Be the opposite. Break the stereotype.”
There may be a time to talk about evidence, but it’s important to be able to stay in their life and show them love.
In Neil Shenvi’s book, Why Believe?, he reminds us that “God’s purpose is to change hearts, not merely to change minds.”
There are beliefs that make up Christianity, but at the heart of Christianity is a person— Jesus Christ.
If someone can be argued into faith, they can be argued out of faith. Faith requires a heart change and a realization of their need for a Savior.
Shenvi also said, “Speaking personally, Christianity is the only religion or worldview or philosophy that correctly identifies the disease I know I have and the cure I know I need.”
If a person hasn’t reached that conclusion, no argument in the world really matters.
Childers and Barnett conclude with this:
“Christianity isn’t tidy, and neither is the church. As long as there is a church, there will be church hurt. As long as there is a cursed creation, there will be suffering. As long as there is mystery, there will be unanswered questions. But as long as there is a risen Savior, there is hope. And that’s what I want to leave you.”
And that is the wonderful news of the Gospel! Deconstruction is not new. The Bible tells of many walking away from faith. But God’s plan for redeeming his people cannot be thwarted by a clever hashtag and some earnest tweeters. Jesus is real; his death and resurrection were real; and therefore, hope is real.
Thus, the authors point out the confusion around the word ‘faith.’
Deconstructionists view faith as a blind leap, a belief without evidence.
“Certainly, there are Christians who practice a type of blind faith, but that does not mean that Christianity advocates blind faith.”
The authors remind us that even John the Baptist doubted whether Jesus was the one they’d been waiting for. When confronted with this doubt, Jesus responded by sending the message that “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Matt 11:5)
This was evidence for John’s faith; it was not in vain.
“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and assurance entails solid reasons to believe something.”
“God has provided enough evidence for those who seek truth but has left enough concealed for those who don’t want to submit to truth… God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him.”
I highly recommend not only this book, but follow Alisa Childers’ podcast as she talks through all kinds of topics surrounding deconstruction and ‘problems’ with Christianity.
“If Christianity is true, the stakes are life and death. The destination of deconstruction matters.”
Ask to reform.
And pray for those who are deconstructing, that they would see the Lord.
For more quotes and a list of books for further reading, see ORIGINAL REVIEW.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley & Tyndale Publishing in exchange for an honest review**
Unwrap My Heart: or It's Time For Mummies by Alex Falcone, Ezra Fox
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
“I could stare into the blank space where his eyes should be all day.”
My husband saw this book on TikTok and got it for me for Christmas. I had never heard of it before. (Perhaps if I had been privy to any TikTok hype my impression of it could have been different, but we’ll never know.)
But once I saw the blurb on the front calling the book ‘Unfortunate’ and saw that these two comedians and writers decided to give the people what they wanted: a love story about a girl who falls in love with a mummy, I was in!
It truly is the story no one asked for and they play the best parts up in the best way.
You don’t read this book because you want to read a love story. You read it because it’s absurd and the authors know it. It’s only 173 pages so they don’t even ask for a big time commitment.
(Plus the authors really did their research on tropes, because they even got the main character named Sofia which is one of my prompts for my Reading Challenge because every author has a book with a character named Sofia.)
I think my favorite part might be the fact that Sofia has no idea that Seth is a mummy. The eye voids, the dust, the body wrapping, the desert-y smell. He must be a hipster, she thinks. And I can totally see the correlation. Hipsters are their own breed for sure.
My second favorite thing was the African sacred ibis. If you know, you know. And I’ve played a lot of Wingspan, so I should have known, but I’m pretty sure the base game is only North American birds and my expansion is Asian birds so I think I’m off the hook on this one. But I should probably go check…
So yeah, the new kid in school is mysterious. They fall in love immediately. Her best friend is a boy who is also in love with her but has been friend-zoned. The boyfriend gets kidnapped and so her and her best friend obviously run head first into danger to save him. Throw in some Egyptian mythology and boom, you have yourself a one-of-a-kind love story.
But if you’re not a fan of magic, don’t worry… it’s ONLY in regards to mummies. So it’s fine.
The Rundown
Sofia’s main character trait can be summed up as such: ‘word vomit.’ As the reader we get to experience her running inner dialogue with herself, but she also just speaks her thoughts out loud with no filter or abbreviation so everyone in her life basically has the same information as us.
Her second main character trait is an overproduction of saliva which I can one hundred percent relate too. I personally sometimes refer to my mouth as a water trough, and that’s probably gross to share here, but in the service of transparency and sharing in Sofia’s fictional vulnerability, there ya go.
But she does love cats and hates mini golf, so though I can respect the author’s decision to make her a flawed character, they did make some sad choices in flaws and I’m working through it.
At the very least she has a realistic view of cats:
“Like most cats, he’s a narcoleptic sociopath…”
Her dad is a pretty awesome character. He’s a weatherman…
“My dad was tall with strong arms from pointing at maps that don’t exist.”
…with an affinity for Mace…
“‘Well just remember what I always say—’’Yeah I know: Spare the Mace, spoil the boyfriend.’”’Sometimes I think you want to solve all your problems with Mace.’’Show me a problem that can’t be Maced, and I’ll show you a mugger with goggles.’”
… who gives great advice…
“‘If you feel stupid, it usually means you’ve learned something and you’re less stupid now.’”
Duncan is her friend-zoned admirer who can’t comprehend why she would rather love a mummy then him, her best friend who knows her so well and has been with her basically her whole life and through all the trauma of her mom walking out on her and her dad.
“I kinda sorta didn’t talk to Duncan at all for a few weeks. I felt more than a little bad. ‘A lot bad’ wouldn’t be overstating it, but it would be bad grammar.”
“I’m a living human your own age. That’s a huge thing right there: I’m alive. Isn’t that something you look for in a boyfriend?”
And then we have Seth, the dreamy mummy from thousands of years ago.
“One thing I knew for sure was how he made me feel. Different. Like tingly and allergic, but in a good way. I considered whether or not to tell him he seemed like benevolent ragweed and thought better of it.”
“How could you not trust those deep dark eye-areas and all that fabric hiding the area around them? He had honest eyeholes.”
But their love affair is not without its challenges. He keeps disappearing with no explanation, leaving Sofia hurt and confused.
“The love of my life was opening up to me about genealogy, and then I said something racist, and he was gone.”
“If he’s embarrassed to be kissing a girl who doesn’t wear cool bandages and dusty perfumes and know about other countries, that’s his problem.”
If the people who claimed to love her had just given her a smidge bit more information, they could have avoided a whole big mess of danger and violence. Per usual, without all the facts people do stupid things. Information is power. Speculation is worse than facts. Who knew?
“‘I’m sorry I couldn’t tell you everything sooner. I hoped I could avoid this kind of violent showdown by keeping you in the dark. I see now that this was the inevitable result of any relationship that lacks communication. Just stay calm and after we escape this, I’ll be open about my feelings and my needs. Promise.’”
Recommendation
I thought this was a funny, fun short read. It’s not a literary masterpiece. It’s not a heartfelt love story. But it’s a parody on the mythical creature love stories in a way that highlights some of the absurdity in these tropes.
There’s not really anything I took an issue with because my expectations were very low.
I get a kick out of reading some of the bad reviews because they complain that the book is stupid or that there is no character development or that the main character is so dense and correct me if I’m wrong… but is that not the point?
I perceive this book as a joke project the authors concocted while eating Chipotle and thought it would be hilarious to publish. I feel like they probably wrote it more for their own entertainment then to actually create a cult following for the mummy love story trope.
Don’t overthink it. Just accept it for what it is and have a good laugh and then move on with your life. It’s what they would want for you.
Again, it’s a short read and if you’re looking for a little chuckle in between reads, I would definitely recommend it!
[Content Advisory: a few swear words and some awkward inner thought speculation on sex with a mummy but nothing graphic and is presented in more of a humorous rather than erotic way]
My husband saw this book on TikTok and got it for me for Christmas. I had never heard of it before. (Perhaps if I had been privy to any TikTok hype my impression of it could have been different, but we’ll never know.)
But once I saw the blurb on the front calling the book ‘Unfortunate’ and saw that these two comedians and writers decided to give the people what they wanted: a love story about a girl who falls in love with a mummy, I was in!
It truly is the story no one asked for and they play the best parts up in the best way.
You don’t read this book because you want to read a love story. You read it because it’s absurd and the authors know it. It’s only 173 pages so they don’t even ask for a big time commitment.
(Plus the authors really did their research on tropes, because they even got the main character named Sofia which is one of my prompts for my Reading Challenge because every author has a book with a character named Sofia.)
I think my favorite part might be the fact that Sofia has no idea that Seth is a mummy. The eye voids, the dust, the body wrapping, the desert-y smell. He must be a hipster, she thinks. And I can totally see the correlation. Hipsters are their own breed for sure.
My second favorite thing was the African sacred ibis. If you know, you know. And I’ve played a lot of Wingspan, so I should have known, but I’m pretty sure the base game is only North American birds and my expansion is Asian birds so I think I’m off the hook on this one. But I should probably go check…
So yeah, the new kid in school is mysterious. They fall in love immediately. Her best friend is a boy who is also in love with her but has been friend-zoned. The boyfriend gets kidnapped and so her and her best friend obviously run head first into danger to save him. Throw in some Egyptian mythology and boom, you have yourself a one-of-a-kind love story.
But if you’re not a fan of magic, don’t worry… it’s ONLY in regards to mummies. So it’s fine.
The Rundown
Sofia’s main character trait can be summed up as such: ‘word vomit.’ As the reader we get to experience her running inner dialogue with herself, but she also just speaks her thoughts out loud with no filter or abbreviation so everyone in her life basically has the same information as us.
Her second main character trait is an overproduction of saliva which I can one hundred percent relate too. I personally sometimes refer to my mouth as a water trough, and that’s probably gross to share here, but in the service of transparency and sharing in Sofia’s fictional vulnerability, there ya go.
But she does love cats and hates mini golf, so though I can respect the author’s decision to make her a flawed character, they did make some sad choices in flaws and I’m working through it.
At the very least she has a realistic view of cats:
“Like most cats, he’s a narcoleptic sociopath…”
Her dad is a pretty awesome character. He’s a weatherman…
“My dad was tall with strong arms from pointing at maps that don’t exist.”
…with an affinity for Mace…
“‘Well just remember what I always say—’’Yeah I know: Spare the Mace, spoil the boyfriend.’”’Sometimes I think you want to solve all your problems with Mace.’’Show me a problem that can’t be Maced, and I’ll show you a mugger with goggles.’”
… who gives great advice…
“‘If you feel stupid, it usually means you’ve learned something and you’re less stupid now.’”
Duncan is her friend-zoned admirer who can’t comprehend why she would rather love a mummy then him, her best friend who knows her so well and has been with her basically her whole life and through all the trauma of her mom walking out on her and her dad.
“I kinda sorta didn’t talk to Duncan at all for a few weeks. I felt more than a little bad. ‘A lot bad’ wouldn’t be overstating it, but it would be bad grammar.”
“I’m a living human your own age. That’s a huge thing right there: I’m alive. Isn’t that something you look for in a boyfriend?”
And then we have Seth, the dreamy mummy from thousands of years ago.
“One thing I knew for sure was how he made me feel. Different. Like tingly and allergic, but in a good way. I considered whether or not to tell him he seemed like benevolent ragweed and thought better of it.”
“How could you not trust those deep dark eye-areas and all that fabric hiding the area around them? He had honest eyeholes.”
But their love affair is not without its challenges. He keeps disappearing with no explanation, leaving Sofia hurt and confused.
“The love of my life was opening up to me about genealogy, and then I said something racist, and he was gone.”
“If he’s embarrassed to be kissing a girl who doesn’t wear cool bandages and dusty perfumes and know about other countries, that’s his problem.”
If the people who claimed to love her had just given her a smidge bit more information, they could have avoided a whole big mess of danger and violence. Per usual, without all the facts people do stupid things. Information is power. Speculation is worse than facts. Who knew?
“‘I’m sorry I couldn’t tell you everything sooner. I hoped I could avoid this kind of violent showdown by keeping you in the dark. I see now that this was the inevitable result of any relationship that lacks communication. Just stay calm and after we escape this, I’ll be open about my feelings and my needs. Promise.’”
Recommendation
I thought this was a funny, fun short read. It’s not a literary masterpiece. It’s not a heartfelt love story. But it’s a parody on the mythical creature love stories in a way that highlights some of the absurdity in these tropes.
There’s not really anything I took an issue with because my expectations were very low.
I get a kick out of reading some of the bad reviews because they complain that the book is stupid or that there is no character development or that the main character is so dense and correct me if I’m wrong… but is that not the point?
I perceive this book as a joke project the authors concocted while eating Chipotle and thought it would be hilarious to publish. I feel like they probably wrote it more for their own entertainment then to actually create a cult following for the mummy love story trope.
Don’t overthink it. Just accept it for what it is and have a good laugh and then move on with your life. It’s what they would want for you.
Again, it’s a short read and if you’re looking for a little chuckle in between reads, I would definitely recommend it!
[Content Advisory: a few swear words and some awkward inner thought speculation on sex with a mummy but nothing graphic and is presented in more of a humorous rather than erotic way]
James: The Steadfast Life by Daily Grace Co
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
“The Christian life is not just about giving our hearts to Jesus, but about surrendering every word, thought, deed, attitude and moment to Him.”
I am a fan of The Daily Grace Co. studies and resources. I’ve reviewed several on my website.
James is a popular book of the Bible. It’s most known for the ‘taming of the tongue’ section, but I hadn’t realized how much of the book refers to Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount.
The Schmuckers have written a great study resource for the book of James that helps us see the intent of the author and always points to the gospel.
The author of James is James, the half-brother to Jesus.
The Schmuckers begin the book by cluing us into the themes James writes about so we can keep our eyes open for them in each section we read. This is a good practice for me and grows my ability to study the Bible on my own as I pick up more and more on themes, commands, and repeated phrases.
The themes of James they point out are the commands and calls to obedience, the references to the Sermon on the Mount, the upside-down kingdom, and the relationship between works and faith.
The indexes they supplied at the back of the book were helpful: an outline of the book, an author profile, cross-references to wisdom literature, and a list of Sermon on the Mount references.
As is typical of Daily Grace Co. devotionals, it divides the book into chunks of verses spread across several weeks (7) that include reflection questions. Each week has a memory verse and a separate reflection section that asks us to think about what we’ve read and what it tells us about mankind, God, the gospel, and how we can actively be applying it to our lives.
And also typical of these studies, it comes with a sleek design and pretty images. The version I got of this study is the ‘men’s’ edition so no flower pictures!
This study can easily be done individually or in a group (week to week).
I like that they titled this study ‘The Steadfast Life.’ Steadfast means resolute, unwavering. James exhorts us to be steadfast and patient in trials and suffering, but there is also this thread of steadfastness in conviction, in wisdom, and in obedience.
A major principle of the book of James is faith in action. Genuine faith results in works. A healthy tree bears fruit. A faith that is rooted in Christ can’t help but bear fruit— works and obedience. Resoluteness can’t help but show up in the self-control of our actions and our words, our commitment to obey, and a trust in the One in whom we have rooted our lives in.
There is so much to glean from the book of James. It’s not hard to see its relevance to our lives today.
Even though I’d read the book many times before, having this devotional as an aide was a great help in understanding, applying, and making connections to other parts of Scripture.
I definitely recommend this and other Daily Grace Study to enrich your Bible study and engage you with God’s Word.
I am a fan of The Daily Grace Co. studies and resources. I’ve reviewed several on my website.
James is a popular book of the Bible. It’s most known for the ‘taming of the tongue’ section, but I hadn’t realized how much of the book refers to Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount.
The Schmuckers have written a great study resource for the book of James that helps us see the intent of the author and always points to the gospel.
The author of James is James, the half-brother to Jesus.
The Schmuckers begin the book by cluing us into the themes James writes about so we can keep our eyes open for them in each section we read. This is a good practice for me and grows my ability to study the Bible on my own as I pick up more and more on themes, commands, and repeated phrases.
The themes of James they point out are the commands and calls to obedience, the references to the Sermon on the Mount, the upside-down kingdom, and the relationship between works and faith.
The indexes they supplied at the back of the book were helpful: an outline of the book, an author profile, cross-references to wisdom literature, and a list of Sermon on the Mount references.
As is typical of Daily Grace Co. devotionals, it divides the book into chunks of verses spread across several weeks (7) that include reflection questions. Each week has a memory verse and a separate reflection section that asks us to think about what we’ve read and what it tells us about mankind, God, the gospel, and how we can actively be applying it to our lives.
And also typical of these studies, it comes with a sleek design and pretty images. The version I got of this study is the ‘men’s’ edition so no flower pictures!
This study can easily be done individually or in a group (week to week).
I like that they titled this study ‘The Steadfast Life.’ Steadfast means resolute, unwavering. James exhorts us to be steadfast and patient in trials and suffering, but there is also this thread of steadfastness in conviction, in wisdom, and in obedience.
A major principle of the book of James is faith in action. Genuine faith results in works. A healthy tree bears fruit. A faith that is rooted in Christ can’t help but bear fruit— works and obedience. Resoluteness can’t help but show up in the self-control of our actions and our words, our commitment to obey, and a trust in the One in whom we have rooted our lives in.
There is so much to glean from the book of James. It’s not hard to see its relevance to our lives today.
Even though I’d read the book many times before, having this devotional as an aide was a great help in understanding, applying, and making connections to other parts of Scripture.
I definitely recommend this and other Daily Grace Study to enrich your Bible study and engage you with God’s Word.
The Murder Wheel by Tom Mead
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
4.0
“No matter how large or small an illusion, there is one thing to remember: your audience is in front of you. Keep them there.”
I enjoyed the first Joseph Spector Mystery— Death and the Conjuror— and this one was similar.
Like the first book, it’s a good locked room mystery with a couple other ‘impossible’ crimes/situations on the side. As it is a series, the setting is the same— London in the 1930s— and the main character is the same— Joseph Spector, magician/detective.
The Murder Wheel introduces us to a new prominent character: Edmund Ibbs. A magician/lawyer. (Let’s just say it was a good era for magic.)
Spector doesn’t enter the scene right away. Ibbs is the focus as he is defending the accused in an impossible murder:
A husband and wife are at the top of a Ferris wheel when her husband is shot and she finds herself holding the gun. She claims she had nothing to do with it and doesn’t know what happened. A mysterious bystander with a limp was sighted by multiple people and throws suspicion on the case.
The Daily Chronicle posts a story asking readers to help solve “The Ferris Wheel Murder.”
Ibbs, being a magic enthusiast, is trying desperately to solve the crime. In all his efforts, he finds himself in the middle of more than one crime.
The second murder occurs on the stage of a magic show he attends. A trick gone wrong exposes a corpse (the Ferris Wheel operator) to the audience.
Spector and Flint (the police officer from the first book) arrive at the theater to put their expertise to work and solve the mysteries.
And then, Ibbs gets himself in a pickle:
“I don’t know what to make of all this. But we found you locked in a room with a corpse, with a smoking revolver in your hand.”
One comment I made with the first book was that it didn’t feel like we really got to know Spector’s character very well. I thought his character would develop as the series went on, but that didn’t really happen.
Spector was actually even less part of this book than the previous one.
It seems like Mead is more interested in the ‘tricks’ part of the books than the characters. Which is fine. I enjoy a locked-room mystery and learning about magic tricks. You just have to know going in that it’s not a series to really connect you with the characters. It’s more about the plot.
Another comment I made in the first book was that the mystery was revealed in monologue format. This time Mead did things a little differently. There was a bit of monologue. It’s written in third person POV so dialogue is our main media for getting information. But it wasn’t quite like the Agatha Christie style: get everyone in a room and expose the murderer. It was more spread out and the last few things we find out in the epilogue.
I was glad for that because I didn’t find the original explanation satisfying or believable so I was happy to find out there was more to it!
I don’t remember this being in the first book, perhaps it was, but this one had some footnotes during the reveals that tells you which page to go back to to see the original clue in the story. I’m not sure if the reader could actually solve these puzzles on their own, but it’s a nice touch to send the reader on their own clue hunt if they want to see what they missed!
The writing style is reminiscent of an Agatha Christie novel. It did have some lines that made me chuckle:
“His eyebrows were notable in that he had three of them; two over the eyes and another on his upper lip.”
If you’re looking for a low-key mystery to give you a break from the high octane thrillers, this may be a good palate cleanser.
If you’re a fan of the Christie, you should definitely give Tom Mead’s books a try.
But if you’re looking for a thrill ride with a lot of action or a series with characters you get to know really well, then this may not be for you.
Also, if you are interested in murders in Fleet Street then definitely read Charles Finch’s book The Fleet Street Murders (which is currently on my TBR).
Learning Corner
If you follow my reviews, you know that I enjoy learning new words or information. Here is a list of words (mostly) related to magic or illusions:
acetabularri: history’s first recorded illusionists
copropraxia: Ibbs is thrust into his position as the defense because the primary lawyer on the case came down with copropraxia and was prescribed bed rest. It is the “complex motor tic involving obscene gestures. And I can imagine this would be a problem in the court room.
legerdemain: skillful use of hands in deception while performing tricks
prestidigitator: another name for a magician
perspicacity: perceptiveness
Chubb lock: the unpickable lock designed in 1818; had a security mechanism that when someone attempted to pick the lock it would ‘re-lock’ and jam and would alert the owner that the lock was tampered with.
insalubrious: unsavory
Black Maria: another name for the black police vehicles during this time period
pareidolia: the tendency to see or look for patterns in random images when there really is none
Wicked Bible: an edition of the Bible published in 1631 that had two errors, one was the omission of the word ‘not’ in the commandment ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Most copies were destroyed so the very few copies left are considered highly valuable.
Jenny Haniver: a common old hoax; the carcass of a ray that is manipulated and molded to look like freaky monster things and passed off as evidence of dragons and other fanciful creatures.
verisimilitude: the appearance of being true or real
[Content Advisory: no swearing or sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
I enjoyed the first Joseph Spector Mystery— Death and the Conjuror— and this one was similar.
Like the first book, it’s a good locked room mystery with a couple other ‘impossible’ crimes/situations on the side. As it is a series, the setting is the same— London in the 1930s— and the main character is the same— Joseph Spector, magician/detective.
The Murder Wheel introduces us to a new prominent character: Edmund Ibbs. A magician/lawyer. (Let’s just say it was a good era for magic.)
Spector doesn’t enter the scene right away. Ibbs is the focus as he is defending the accused in an impossible murder:
A husband and wife are at the top of a Ferris wheel when her husband is shot and she finds herself holding the gun. She claims she had nothing to do with it and doesn’t know what happened. A mysterious bystander with a limp was sighted by multiple people and throws suspicion on the case.
The Daily Chronicle posts a story asking readers to help solve “The Ferris Wheel Murder.”
Ibbs, being a magic enthusiast, is trying desperately to solve the crime. In all his efforts, he finds himself in the middle of more than one crime.
The second murder occurs on the stage of a magic show he attends. A trick gone wrong exposes a corpse (the Ferris Wheel operator) to the audience.
Spector and Flint (the police officer from the first book) arrive at the theater to put their expertise to work and solve the mysteries.
And then, Ibbs gets himself in a pickle:
“I don’t know what to make of all this. But we found you locked in a room with a corpse, with a smoking revolver in your hand.”
One comment I made with the first book was that it didn’t feel like we really got to know Spector’s character very well. I thought his character would develop as the series went on, but that didn’t really happen.
Spector was actually even less part of this book than the previous one.
It seems like Mead is more interested in the ‘tricks’ part of the books than the characters. Which is fine. I enjoy a locked-room mystery and learning about magic tricks. You just have to know going in that it’s not a series to really connect you with the characters. It’s more about the plot.
Another comment I made in the first book was that the mystery was revealed in monologue format. This time Mead did things a little differently. There was a bit of monologue. It’s written in third person POV so dialogue is our main media for getting information. But it wasn’t quite like the Agatha Christie style: get everyone in a room and expose the murderer. It was more spread out and the last few things we find out in the epilogue.
I was glad for that because I didn’t find the original explanation satisfying or believable so I was happy to find out there was more to it!
I don’t remember this being in the first book, perhaps it was, but this one had some footnotes during the reveals that tells you which page to go back to to see the original clue in the story. I’m not sure if the reader could actually solve these puzzles on their own, but it’s a nice touch to send the reader on their own clue hunt if they want to see what they missed!
The writing style is reminiscent of an Agatha Christie novel. It did have some lines that made me chuckle:
“His eyebrows were notable in that he had three of them; two over the eyes and another on his upper lip.”
If you’re looking for a low-key mystery to give you a break from the high octane thrillers, this may be a good palate cleanser.
If you’re a fan of the Christie, you should definitely give Tom Mead’s books a try.
But if you’re looking for a thrill ride with a lot of action or a series with characters you get to know really well, then this may not be for you.
Also, if you are interested in murders in Fleet Street then definitely read Charles Finch’s book The Fleet Street Murders (which is currently on my TBR).
Learning Corner
If you follow my reviews, you know that I enjoy learning new words or information. Here is a list of words (mostly) related to magic or illusions:
acetabularri: history’s first recorded illusionists
copropraxia: Ibbs is thrust into his position as the defense because the primary lawyer on the case came down with copropraxia and was prescribed bed rest. It is the “complex motor tic involving obscene gestures. And I can imagine this would be a problem in the court room.
legerdemain: skillful use of hands in deception while performing tricks
prestidigitator: another name for a magician
perspicacity: perceptiveness
Chubb lock: the unpickable lock designed in 1818; had a security mechanism that when someone attempted to pick the lock it would ‘re-lock’ and jam and would alert the owner that the lock was tampered with.
insalubrious: unsavory
Black Maria: another name for the black police vehicles during this time period
pareidolia: the tendency to see or look for patterns in random images when there really is none
Wicked Bible: an edition of the Bible published in 1631 that had two errors, one was the omission of the word ‘not’ in the commandment ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Most copies were destroyed so the very few copies left are considered highly valuable.
Jenny Haniver: a common old hoax; the carcass of a ray that is manipulated and molded to look like freaky monster things and passed off as evidence of dragons and other fanciful creatures.
verisimilitude: the appearance of being true or real
[Content Advisory: no swearing or sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
The Guest by B.A. Paris
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
This is my fifth B.A. Paris book now, so I’ve kinda got her style of books figured out now. They are slow burn domestic-type thrillers.
With the exception of The Prisoner (which is probably my favorite and has more action than the others), most of her books make you start to wonder if the book is worth finishing.
There is usually some mundane daily routine stuff where it feels like nothing is really happening. You don’t really connect all that much to the characters because you’re kinda in this limbo where you’re not really sure what you’re trying to figure out or where the story is even going to go.
But then Paris usually throws in some twists/revelations at the end that draw all the threads together and turn all the mundane into meaningful details. Turns out most of it matters.
The Guest followed this pattern to a T. But unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure if the ending was worth it like it was for The Therapist or The Breakdown.
The main premise is that a long-time friend from Paris (Laure) shows up at Gabriel and Iris’s house in the London area citing marital problems and asking if she can stay there for a bit…. the guest.
She overstays her welcome— like so hard… even I wanted to punch her in the face— and Pierre (her husband and also their friend) isn’t communicating with them. They have no idea what is going on other than Pierre has admitted to having a child with someone else and now wanting to be in that child’s life. Laure has given him an ultimatum- me or the kid.
Things only get weirder when Laure seems to have developed some sort of crush or relationship with the (young) landscaper friend who has been working for Gabriel and their neighbor.
Then a body is found. And another one.
This one is quite the tangled up domestic mess.
When the ‘bomb’ was dropped in the epilogue (not the other bomb), I was like ‘Oh that’s pretty crazy, but also, that actually is crazy.’
I didn’t see it coming but at the same time it felt quite out of left field. While there is pointing back to ‘clues’ we had read about, I wouldn’t really say it’s one that the reader can really figure out. You may guess the right person, but there’s no way to know exactly what happened until it’s all laid out.
The upside is that the book is a really quick read as hers tend to be. So if you’re on the fence about reading it, it is at least a low time commitment book. I wouldn’t call it a must read, but if you tend to like B.A. Paris’s books normally, you’ll probably feel at home with this one.
I’m not sure if I will read her future books or not. Maybe if I’m in the mood for a slow-burn with a twist reveal, but I may have had my fill. Although, I might go back and read Behind Closed Doors because I’ve heard that one is really good.
If you have never read Paris before, maybe start with The Prisoner or The Therapist.
She is not an author I can universally recommend because her books are hit and miss for me, but at least they’re pretty clean!
Now for a few MAJOR SPOILER COMMENTS so keep scrolling if you don't want to know!!
....
......
.........
.............
Okay, so what the ‘big reveal’ tells us is that Iris is the person Pierre had a child with. Beth is Pierre’s, not Gabriel’s. And what makes it so messed up is that Pierre was on his honeymoon and Iris was on their first anniversary trip when they had sex! And they had already met as friends!
Who decides to go for a naked swim?! By themselves?! On their honeymoon/anniversary?! Nobody. That’s who. And even if they did, who would see someone else and then immediately have a sexual desire for them and act on it?!
Furthermore, how could it have zero impact on their friendship as a couple? It makes no sense. Unless both of them are sociopaths.
And beyond that… there’s no way she would have any idea that she was actually pregnant that night. She didn’t even have a pregnancy test. She just ‘knew’ she was pregnant and told Gabriel she took a test before they left. And then they told Pierre and Laure that they were a month pregnant. Without actually knowing FOR SURE that she was! There is no way to know you are pregnant at conception. That’s crazy pants.
And ALSO how could she really keep Beth away from them for 20 years? They were such good friends they had keys to each other’s houses, but Pierre never sees pictures or videos of Beth? Ever? He never wondered before now?
And all of this is just the ‘source’ of the conflict. It’s like two paragraphs in the whole book. But all the killing Iris does as a result of such a crazy/stupid encounter is just… out there.
To be honest, I’ve never really been a fan of the unreliable narrator trope. Sure, it makes for a big surprise, but I don’t like the bait and switch of how you perceive and relate to the main character being turned on its head. The first one of these I read was Gone Girl and when that was revealed, I was like sick to my stomach.
I guess I just don’t like being lied to, especially by someone I’m supposed to be empathetic towards.
Besides, when I’m reading a whodunnit, it feels like cheating to just be like- oh and I’ve been misleading you this whole time so you were never going to figure out the clues because you trusted that when I said I took a bath and when I said I went to lunch with my friend Jade, you would have no reason to question it. Gotcha!
That’s not the kind of twist I get excited about. Especially for the reason that it was in this book.
I didn’t like it in Gone Girl, and I didn’t like it here.
And ANOTHER thing. Gabriel’s secret. How could he keep that even from Iris? It’s not even about her OR him. It’s about other people’s lives. I would immediately tell my spouse and have them help me figure out what to do. It’s clearly causing major issues in their marriage.
I think it’s stupid that he didn’t just tell her. There was nothing to be afraid of. There were worse things that could (and did) happen by keeping it in. Speculation is usually worse than the truth. If you can’t tell your spouse every thing, there is a problem.
And ANOTHER thing. When Gabriel and Iris get home and Beth asks them what happened, clearly distressed by the sound of the explosion, Gabriel says- “It’s Joseph. He blew himself up.”
Just like that. I get Gabriel is in shock… but it felt very random to just say that someone blew themselves up. ‘Sorry Beth, I know you became really close friends with him and all, but he’s like totally blown up right now, so your friendship is over. Want some dinner?’
So. Yeah. I had a few issues with this one. I don’t like mysteries as much when it all just boils down to domestic dysfunction. For some reason a serial killer is more appealing to read about than a fornicator.
..........
........
.......
.....
SPOILERS OVER!
[Content Advisory: 0 f-words and 2 s-words]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
With the exception of The Prisoner (which is probably my favorite and has more action than the others), most of her books make you start to wonder if the book is worth finishing.
There is usually some mundane daily routine stuff where it feels like nothing is really happening. You don’t really connect all that much to the characters because you’re kinda in this limbo where you’re not really sure what you’re trying to figure out or where the story is even going to go.
But then Paris usually throws in some twists/revelations at the end that draw all the threads together and turn all the mundane into meaningful details. Turns out most of it matters.
The Guest followed this pattern to a T. But unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure if the ending was worth it like it was for The Therapist or The Breakdown.
The main premise is that a long-time friend from Paris (Laure) shows up at Gabriel and Iris’s house in the London area citing marital problems and asking if she can stay there for a bit…. the guest.
She overstays her welcome— like so hard… even I wanted to punch her in the face— and Pierre (her husband and also their friend) isn’t communicating with them. They have no idea what is going on other than Pierre has admitted to having a child with someone else and now wanting to be in that child’s life. Laure has given him an ultimatum- me or the kid.
Things only get weirder when Laure seems to have developed some sort of crush or relationship with the (young) landscaper friend who has been working for Gabriel and their neighbor.
Then a body is found. And another one.
This one is quite the tangled up domestic mess.
When the ‘bomb’ was dropped in the epilogue (not the other bomb), I was like ‘Oh that’s pretty crazy, but also, that actually is crazy.’
I didn’t see it coming but at the same time it felt quite out of left field. While there is pointing back to ‘clues’ we had read about, I wouldn’t really say it’s one that the reader can really figure out. You may guess the right person, but there’s no way to know exactly what happened until it’s all laid out.
The upside is that the book is a really quick read as hers tend to be. So if you’re on the fence about reading it, it is at least a low time commitment book. I wouldn’t call it a must read, but if you tend to like B.A. Paris’s books normally, you’ll probably feel at home with this one.
I’m not sure if I will read her future books or not. Maybe if I’m in the mood for a slow-burn with a twist reveal, but I may have had my fill. Although, I might go back and read Behind Closed Doors because I’ve heard that one is really good.
If you have never read Paris before, maybe start with The Prisoner or The Therapist.
She is not an author I can universally recommend because her books are hit and miss for me, but at least they’re pretty clean!
Now for a few MAJOR SPOILER COMMENTS so keep scrolling if you don't want to know!!
....
......
.........
.............
Okay, so what the ‘big reveal’ tells us is that Iris is the person Pierre had a child with. Beth is Pierre’s, not Gabriel’s. And what makes it so messed up is that Pierre was on his honeymoon and Iris was on their first anniversary trip when they had sex! And they had already met as friends!
Who decides to go for a naked swim?! By themselves?! On their honeymoon/anniversary?! Nobody. That’s who. And even if they did, who would see someone else and then immediately have a sexual desire for them and act on it?!
Furthermore, how could it have zero impact on their friendship as a couple? It makes no sense. Unless both of them are sociopaths.
And beyond that… there’s no way she would have any idea that she was actually pregnant that night. She didn’t even have a pregnancy test. She just ‘knew’ she was pregnant and told Gabriel she took a test before they left. And then they told Pierre and Laure that they were a month pregnant. Without actually knowing FOR SURE that she was! There is no way to know you are pregnant at conception. That’s crazy pants.
And ALSO how could she really keep Beth away from them for 20 years? They were such good friends they had keys to each other’s houses, but Pierre never sees pictures or videos of Beth? Ever? He never wondered before now?
And all of this is just the ‘source’ of the conflict. It’s like two paragraphs in the whole book. But all the killing Iris does as a result of such a crazy/stupid encounter is just… out there.
To be honest, I’ve never really been a fan of the unreliable narrator trope. Sure, it makes for a big surprise, but I don’t like the bait and switch of how you perceive and relate to the main character being turned on its head. The first one of these I read was Gone Girl and when that was revealed, I was like sick to my stomach.
I guess I just don’t like being lied to, especially by someone I’m supposed to be empathetic towards.
Besides, when I’m reading a whodunnit, it feels like cheating to just be like- oh and I’ve been misleading you this whole time so you were never going to figure out the clues because you trusted that when I said I took a bath and when I said I went to lunch with my friend Jade, you would have no reason to question it. Gotcha!
That’s not the kind of twist I get excited about. Especially for the reason that it was in this book.
I didn’t like it in Gone Girl, and I didn’t like it here.
And ANOTHER thing. Gabriel’s secret. How could he keep that even from Iris? It’s not even about her OR him. It’s about other people’s lives. I would immediately tell my spouse and have them help me figure out what to do. It’s clearly causing major issues in their marriage.
I think it’s stupid that he didn’t just tell her. There was nothing to be afraid of. There were worse things that could (and did) happen by keeping it in. Speculation is usually worse than the truth. If you can’t tell your spouse every thing, there is a problem.
And ANOTHER thing. When Gabriel and Iris get home and Beth asks them what happened, clearly distressed by the sound of the explosion, Gabriel says- “It’s Joseph. He blew himself up.”
Just like that. I get Gabriel is in shock… but it felt very random to just say that someone blew themselves up. ‘Sorry Beth, I know you became really close friends with him and all, but he’s like totally blown up right now, so your friendship is over. Want some dinner?’
So. Yeah. I had a few issues with this one. I don’t like mysteries as much when it all just boils down to domestic dysfunction. For some reason a serial killer is more appealing to read about than a fornicator.
..........
........
.......
.....
SPOILERS OVER!
[Content Advisory: 0 f-words and 2 s-words]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
MonoThreeism: An Absurdly Arrogant Attempt to Answer All the Problems of the Last 2000 Years in One Night at a Pub by JD Lyonhart
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
I think a blurb on the back of the book sums the tone of this book up well:
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming: the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being: something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both: (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming: the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being: something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both: (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**
A Forgotten Kill by Isabella Maldonado
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
“Warriors brought the battle to the enemy to keep others safe, and she was warrior. If that involved sacrificing herself, so be it.”
I loved Maldonado’s Nina Guerrera series and this one is no different. This book had a very different feel than book one- A Killer’s Game- but still had the same protagonist and suspense.
While this is second in the series, it could be read as a stand-alone. In the beginning it talks about Vega having to do polygraphs and such as follow-up from her previous mission because her actions required review, but they don’t go into any details.
There would be no spoilers other than that Vega survived the underground bunker maze of Hunger-Games-style fatal puzzles which isn’t really a surprise since she is the face of the series.
The premise of A Forgotten Kill is two-fold: a serial killer that has been operating in the New York boroughs undetected for years, and the violent death of Vega’s father in their home a decade ago.
We find out in the first book that Dani came home one day to find her mother over her father’s stabbed body. All the evidence pointed to her mother, who was mentally unstable, killing her father, who was physically unstable. Dani’s statement helped convict her mother who rather than going to trial was committed to a psyche ward.
But her mother has a moment of lucidity in present day and tells Vega that she didn’t do it. Now that Vega is older with more criminology experience, she decides to look into the case and see if there is any truth to what her mother is telling her.
In order to have access to the case files she agrees to help with a possible serial killer case. Her knowledge of cryptanalysis and puzzles helps her crack it open and takes her and her team on a fast-paced investigation to capture him before he kills again.
I liked the second half better than the first half of the book. At 50% it seemed like things were wrapping up and I was wondering how the last half was going to go to keep me engaged. But the action picked up and the snags in the process extend the chase wrapping up the book quite nicely!
I also like that Maldonado is able to write thrillers where the main character doesn’t have to have a side love story. That’s fine and all, but sometimes it’s nice just to focus on the action and not worry about the romantic side of things. It’s possible something could develop here, there is some groundwork laid that could support that direction, but her character feels full even without that because of her closeness to her family.
Maldonado’s expertise in the criminology field really shines through in her books. Sometimes I found myself questioning- Well why didn’t they just do this? Or wouldn’t this have worked better? and she ends up qualifying those decisions later and setting me straight! She covers her bases, does her research, and creates a realistic investigation and chase that is compelling and engaging!
After reading the first book, I had thought maybe Dani’s siblings would start to play a bigger role in the stories, but they were pretty absent from this book. As the series continues, I’m still hoping for a Vega Sibling Dream Team moment.
I did learn some new things in this book:
- Dogs not only can sniff out drugs, but now they can sniff out electronics! They can detect the chemical compounds used in electronics. So that’s pretty cool!
- I already knew about 3D printing, but I’m discovering more and more uses for it. For example, they needed a person’s fingerprints to open something and they had the fingerprint in the AFIS database so they 3D printed the fingerprint so they could use it. Pretty crazy! And also, a little bit uncomfortable knowing that anyone can have a 3D printer and can gain access to people’s fingerprints…
- You can extract DNA even from clothing years later that has been washed.
- Julian dates- this was the trick that Vega figured out in one of the puzzles and for some reason it took me awhile to understand. I didn’t realize this was still used anywhere. It’s a five digit date beginning with the last two digits of the year followed by the day of the year out of 365 (changes on leap years). The military uses this for ease in subtracting or adding dates together without access to a calendar or spreadsheet.
- I think I heard about the Vigenere square tool when I read the book The Rose Code, but it was used here again and I just think encryption like that is so cool. Here is a website that walks you through it if you want to create your own code!
Recommendation
Maldonado is basically an automatic read for me. She writes great thrillers without all the language and sexual content often found in other books. Her background in criminology is a vast resource for creating her characters and plots.
If you are looking for a book that has a (female) detective and FBI stuff, this is a great option! If you are looking for a book with a serial killer, this is a great option!
The only reason I would not recommend this book would be if the type of serial killer he is a trigger for you or would be too hard to read. Any discussion around the rape/murders is pretty much all third-party and clinical so it’s not too graphic or drawn out, but we do hear some of the killer’s thoughts regarding the women and what triggered him to begin doing what he’s doing.
Overall, this is a great series to start or to go back and read some of Maldonado’s other books!
[Content Advisory: 8 f-words and 19 s-words, the serial killer in this one is a voyeur and rapes his victims on camera before killing them and so there are different descriptions of this as the police are tracking down evidence.]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
I loved Maldonado’s Nina Guerrera series and this one is no different. This book had a very different feel than book one- A Killer’s Game- but still had the same protagonist and suspense.
While this is second in the series, it could be read as a stand-alone. In the beginning it talks about Vega having to do polygraphs and such as follow-up from her previous mission because her actions required review, but they don’t go into any details.
There would be no spoilers other than that Vega survived the underground bunker maze of Hunger-Games-style fatal puzzles which isn’t really a surprise since she is the face of the series.
The premise of A Forgotten Kill is two-fold: a serial killer that has been operating in the New York boroughs undetected for years, and the violent death of Vega’s father in their home a decade ago.
We find out in the first book that Dani came home one day to find her mother over her father’s stabbed body. All the evidence pointed to her mother, who was mentally unstable, killing her father, who was physically unstable. Dani’s statement helped convict her mother who rather than going to trial was committed to a psyche ward.
But her mother has a moment of lucidity in present day and tells Vega that she didn’t do it. Now that Vega is older with more criminology experience, she decides to look into the case and see if there is any truth to what her mother is telling her.
In order to have access to the case files she agrees to help with a possible serial killer case. Her knowledge of cryptanalysis and puzzles helps her crack it open and takes her and her team on a fast-paced investigation to capture him before he kills again.
I liked the second half better than the first half of the book. At 50% it seemed like things were wrapping up and I was wondering how the last half was going to go to keep me engaged. But the action picked up and the snags in the process extend the chase wrapping up the book quite nicely!
I also like that Maldonado is able to write thrillers where the main character doesn’t have to have a side love story. That’s fine and all, but sometimes it’s nice just to focus on the action and not worry about the romantic side of things. It’s possible something could develop here, there is some groundwork laid that could support that direction, but her character feels full even without that because of her closeness to her family.
Maldonado’s expertise in the criminology field really shines through in her books. Sometimes I found myself questioning- Well why didn’t they just do this? Or wouldn’t this have worked better? and she ends up qualifying those decisions later and setting me straight! She covers her bases, does her research, and creates a realistic investigation and chase that is compelling and engaging!
After reading the first book, I had thought maybe Dani’s siblings would start to play a bigger role in the stories, but they were pretty absent from this book. As the series continues, I’m still hoping for a Vega Sibling Dream Team moment.
I did learn some new things in this book:
- Dogs not only can sniff out drugs, but now they can sniff out electronics! They can detect the chemical compounds used in electronics. So that’s pretty cool!
- I already knew about 3D printing, but I’m discovering more and more uses for it. For example, they needed a person’s fingerprints to open something and they had the fingerprint in the AFIS database so they 3D printed the fingerprint so they could use it. Pretty crazy! And also, a little bit uncomfortable knowing that anyone can have a 3D printer and can gain access to people’s fingerprints…
- You can extract DNA even from clothing years later that has been washed.
- Julian dates- this was the trick that Vega figured out in one of the puzzles and for some reason it took me awhile to understand. I didn’t realize this was still used anywhere. It’s a five digit date beginning with the last two digits of the year followed by the day of the year out of 365 (changes on leap years). The military uses this for ease in subtracting or adding dates together without access to a calendar or spreadsheet.
- I think I heard about the Vigenere square tool when I read the book The Rose Code, but it was used here again and I just think encryption like that is so cool. Here is a website that walks you through it if you want to create your own code!
Recommendation
Maldonado is basically an automatic read for me. She writes great thrillers without all the language and sexual content often found in other books. Her background in criminology is a vast resource for creating her characters and plots.
If you are looking for a book that has a (female) detective and FBI stuff, this is a great option! If you are looking for a book with a serial killer, this is a great option!
The only reason I would not recommend this book would be if the type of serial killer he is a trigger for you or would be too hard to read. Any discussion around the rape/murders is pretty much all third-party and clinical so it’s not too graphic or drawn out, but we do hear some of the killer’s thoughts regarding the women and what triggered him to begin doing what he’s doing.
Overall, this is a great series to start or to go back and read some of Maldonado’s other books!
[Content Advisory: 8 f-words and 19 s-words, the serial killer in this one is a voyeur and rapes his victims on camera before killing them and so there are different descriptions of this as the police are tracking down evidence.]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection by Charles Duhigg
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
5.0
“whether we call it love, or friendship, or simply having a great conversation, achieving connection—authentic, meaningful connection—is the most important thing in life.”
This is a really insightful book on how we can better communicate with others. Duhigg uses lots of research studies and real life examples from places like Netflix, a jury room, The Big Bang Theory, NASA, and the CIA to show the principles in action.
By looking at typically controversial conversations on topics like gun control, vaccines, and race, we can see how employing these principles really changes the dialogue and allows people who normally disagree to understand each other and bring meaningful connection where we desperately need it.
With the increase of internet use we see a decrease in civil discourse. Everywhere you look you see hatred, people talking past each other, and a complete disregard for people’s humanity, values, and experiences. It’s all about winning, shaming, or forcing belief assimilation by threatening social reputation calamity if you don’t.
I think every human should read this book. We may not be able to change the world, but it will do a lot to make our relationships better and stronger and will help us be people who desire and can put into practice peace and consideration in our conversations in a highly polarized environment.
(Plus it’s just really interesting!)
That’s why Duhigg ultimately wrote this book.
“Why was it that, at times, I had so much trouble hearing what someone was trying to tell me? Why was I so quick to get defensive, or to glide past the emotions people were clearly trying to share? Why, sometimes, did I talk so much and listen so little? Why hadn’t I understood when a friend needed comfort rather than advice? How could I put my kids aside when they so clearly wanted to be with me? Why did I struggle to explain what was inside my own head? These struck me as meaningful questions, worthy of exploration, and I wanted answers.”
Research that studied people over decades of time (that has been replicated in other studies) shows that one of the main factors correlated to a long and happy life is deep connections with family and friends.
How do deep connections happen but in meaningful conversations and communications.
The biggest takeaway from this book is to use these principles to make deeper connections and to see the humanity and hear the experiences of those we disagree with.
“Over the past two decades, a body of research has emerged that sheds light on why some of our conversations go so well, while others are so miserable. These insights can help us hear more clearly and speak more persuasively.”
The principles he talks about in this book are not just for familial relationship or just for the workplace. They can be universally applied. Some of them were new to me and others I’ve read in other books or heard from my own therapist and I can attest that they do make a difference when I use them.
The principles can be broken down into three major areas:
- What’s This Really About? (practical, decision-making conversations)
- How Do We Feel? (emotional conversations)
- Who Are We? (social conversations that involve our identities)
Conversations are fluid so these may overlap in a conversation as you get deeper. But if we aren’t ‘in’ the same conversation as the person we’re talking to, we’re not going to make a connection and we’re not going to get very far before things start to devolve.
It’s no surprise that to communicate well requires listening, asking questions, and talking about our feelings.
“to become a supercommunicator, all we need to do is listen closely to what’s said and unsaid, ask the right questions, recognize and match others’ moods, and make our own feelings easy for others to perceive.”
In this book Duhigg gives some guidelines on what kinds of questions are helpful and what kinds aren’t. For example:
“Questions about facts (“Where do you live?” “What college did you attend?”) are conversational dead-ends. They don’t draw out values or experiences. They don’t invite vulnerability. However, those same inquiries, recast slightly (“What do you like about where you live?” “What was your favorite part of college?”), invite others to share their preferences, beliefs, and values.”
We may hear ‘share our feelings’ and bristle about what that means or looks like, but when you read the examples in the book it’s not so bad and it turns conversations of small-talk (which no one really likes) into conversations that actually move someplace.
I also liked that after each chapter he included a section called ‘A Guide to Using These Ideas’ that reiterated the points he had made earlier and what it would look like in real conversation. There were often graphs to illustrate as well.
The flow of the book was easy to follow and I thought he used a lot of really interesting research studies and case-studies to exemplify each point which keeps those engaged who don’t typically enjoy psycholgoical concepts.
There are aspects of this topic that feel borderline manipulative, especially when we think of negotiations or persuading someone. One example he uses is about vaccinations (which may put some people off). He talks about a doctor who had patients that were anti-vaxxers and he struggled with communicating to them the reasons and data as to why they should vaccinate their children.
He realized it wasn’t necessarily about the facts, but about their mistrust of doctors or their resistance to government control. He found that when he made personal connections and they were able to see him as a father too, not just a doctor, and when he set aside his tendency to think or talk in a way that says ‘I’m smarter than you’, they were more willing to hear his advice.
I get that, but I also feel like knowing someone is figuring out the best way to persuade you also makes you feel distrustful about their motivations. Which is why, though I’m not anti-vax, I opted not to do the Covid vaccine.
They claimed data, but it was still new and long-term data was not available. Not only was the ‘choice’ framed in a way that made it seem like taking the vaccine was the only choice and the absolute right choice, but that anyone who chose not to didn’t care about humanity.
While I’m willing to consider that the vaccine may have helped, I’m not convinced. And the sheer force and condescension that went along with it does not help someone trust but feels rather like manipulation.
I admit that distrust is often hard to overcome and not all persuasion is manipulation or immoral, but I just think that some of these conversations might start to feel that way. Playing to emotions to convince someone to trust you.
So an essential component to all of this is genuine care and concern and desire to know someone, not creating a good communication as a means to an end.
This labeling of groups of people (as above) is another major component of communication. And I think that comes into play most prominently in political discourse.
I think this tactic has been employed by both right and left-wing groups and only keeps people polarized.
“Over the last decade, the number of Americans who say they are “deeply angry” at the other political party has increased sharply, to almost 70 percent of the electorate. Roughly half the nation believes those with differing political beliefs are “immoral,” “lazy,” “dishonest,” and “unintelligent.””
It goes like this: you think that one thing? Then you are this kind of person and all these other things are true about you.
For example: I saw on a book review Facebook group a person shared the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and commented that they thought it was a thought-provoking and alarming book. I read the book and think the same thing, but I knew the comments section would have some dissenters. I was shocked by the things people were saying about the person who shared it. They called the person hateful, demanded they be blocked, that this person was what was wrong with the world and more of the same vitriol. They placed this person in a group called ‘Hateful, evil bigot’ simply because they shared their opinion of a book that happens to contain beliefs they don’t share. They didn’t know anything about this person’s values, emotions, or experiences.
And to offer an example from ‘the other side’: Someone shares that they believe abortion should be a legal right. You will see people commenting that that person is a murderer and that they hate Jesus and don’t believe in the sanctity of human life. That also puts them in a group without any knowledge of that person’s values, emotions, or experiences.
Good communication is not really about proving yourself right, but about seeing the people you’re talking to as human beings with their own values, emotions, and life experiences that we should seek to understand. It diffuses a controversial conversation and helps you see them as the complex and nuanced person they are, not a one-dimensional caricature or stereotype.
“Identity threats typically emerge because we generalize: We lump people into groups (“Lawyers are all dishonest”) or assign them traits they loathe (“Everyone who voted for that guy is a racist”). These generalizations take us—our unique perspectives and complicated identities—out of the conversation. They make us one-dimensional.”
Tribal mentality and in-group, out-group psychology is proven stuff and hard at work in our cultural climate. We can’t help but group and label people, trusting and thinking highly of those who share our beliefs or look like us and mistrusting and looking down on those who do not.
Duhigg shares an experiment people conducted to see if people on both sides of the gun control debate could be in a room and have civil conversation. Long story short- they could! When they shared about vulnerable parts of their lives and heard and saw each other as human beings, even though they didn’t change their minds, they changed HOW they communicated with one another. The other side was no longer ‘evil’ but were good people just like us that wanted good things too. There was just disagreements on how those good things would come to be.
“They think listening means debating, and if you let someone else make a good point, you’re doing something wrong. But listening means letting someone else tell their story and then, even if you don’t agree with them, trying to understand why they feel that way.”
I do think there are some limitations here. In a lot of conversations decisions have to be made and laws need to be written. At some point we have to come to an agreement. We have to determine what is true or right.
If we’re just making connections with people to gain understanding and learn about them, there are no stakes or decisions. But we still have to make decisions about who can own guns or who can get married and not all viewpoints are equal.
This is where I start to have questions. As I read this book I pondered-
What is ‘understanding’?
I would argue that understanding doesn’t require agreement but I think perhaps we operate out of a different definition of understanding than we think. I think a lot of people don’t feel understood unless someone ends up agreeing with them- ‘They must have misunderstood me or I must have said it wrong if they still don’t agree with me, because if they really understood, they would see why I’m right or why this is true.’
What does it look like to come to an understanding when the topics being discussed are identity conversations and the disagreeing parties are approaching the topic with very different worldviews and standards of morality?
How do we move forward in good conversation if we listen to people’s feelings but their feelings are based on lies?
And I think I’m reaching outside the scope of this book, especially since I am trying to look at this information through a biblical lens which is not what the author was attempting to do. But definitely gives you some things to think about.
A couple things that stood out to me because I’ve used them in my own marriage are looping and narratives.
A woman enrolled at Harvard Law school shared that she realized that the purpose of talking about conflict wasn’t about winning but determining “why this fight has emerged and what is fueling it, as well as the stories they are all telling themselves about why this conflict persists.”
‘The stories they are telling themselves’ is such a big but subtle thing. An example from my personal life- My husband looks at the dinner I made and says ‘is this what it usually looks like?’
The story I tell myself, which is rooted in my own insecurities about being a good wife, is that my husband is criticizing the meal I worked hard to make and doesn’t appreciate what I’ve done and thinks it’s a bad meal. That’s the narrative I tell myself and then respond from. Is that going to go well? No.
I have to realize that I’ve created that narrative and need to evaluate if it’s true or reasonable. Turns out, he was not feeling any type of way about me making a good or bad supper but was genuinely wondering what was different about it. The conversation looks a lot different, right?
Paired with this is the importance of looping which is listening and then proving we have listened by repeating back to them what they just told us but in our own words.
This brings clarity and understanding and gets everyone having the same conversation. It also builds trust because the person won’t feel like the ‘listener’ was just trying to come up with their own rebuttal but was genuinely processing what they were hearing so that they are all dealing with the right information and feelings.
If I had used this method with the above example (which I didn’t), it could have looked like this: “What I’m hearing you say is that you don’t like what I made and you’re frustrated that I don’t make you better meals.” Then he can say, “No, I really appreciate that you’ve made supper and it looks good, I just thought it looked different and wondered if there was a different ingredient in it.”
Hopefully looping looks more accurate then this, but even though I wasn’t hearing what he was really saying, by telling him what I heard, he can correct my understanding. Plus I’ve shared my feelings which alerts him that we’ve moved from a practical conversation to one that deals with both feelings and identities and we need to adapt and address those things because the meal isn’t really what the conversation is about.
A Couple Other Takeaways
He offers four things to keep in mind when communicating online and these should pop up every time someone opens up a comment box:
- Overemphasize politeness.
- Underemphasize sarcasm.
- Express more gratitude, deference, greetings, apologies, and hedges.
- Avoid criticism in public forums.
We could also get into a conversation about freedom of speech and tolerance. I can’t help but plug the book “The Coddling of the American Mind” which talks about that very subject on university campuses where people were not allowed to come speak on campus because students thought their beliefs were hateful.
If communication requires being heard then we have to allow for freedom of speech. Diversity in thought is a good thing to have healthy and intelligent debate. If we were all homogeneous in our beliefs it would probably mean we were under Communist rule and not allowed to believe anything different.
Understanding does not require agreement in belief. It requires the ability to be heard; it requires a sense of humility; and it requires a tolerance for another’s differing beliefs.
When conversations start to devolve it is often as a result of one person trying to control it too much by making spoken or unspoken rules about what the other person is allowed to say, feel, do. They tried to control their language and their behavior- ‘don’t use that tone, don’t roll your eyes, don’t walk away, etc.’
“If we focus on controlling the right things in an argument—if we focus on controlling ourselves, our environment, and the conflict itself—fights morph into conversations.”
Self-control and self-awareness are key to good communications.
And lastly, though it’s been said, it bears repeating- ask questions. Good questions. Questions that tap into someone’s values, emotions, or experiences.
Recommendation
I recommend this book for all people.
It will help you have more meaningful conversations and avoid small-talk. It will help you ‘argue’ with your spouse or siblings better. It will help you diffuse controversial conversations. And it will help you start to see people as complex human beings who desire to be heard and considered rather than ignored and talked over or denied entrance altogether.
It’s not going to solve all the disagreements, convince people to change their minds, or establish world peace, but it will hopefully change your perspective of conversations and your part in them.
[I would also recommend this book to authors who write about negotiators because I think it would help flesh out a character study and dialogue options for conversations in the book.]
It’s pretty short so it’s a quick read as well!
This is a really insightful book on how we can better communicate with others. Duhigg uses lots of research studies and real life examples from places like Netflix, a jury room, The Big Bang Theory, NASA, and the CIA to show the principles in action.
By looking at typically controversial conversations on topics like gun control, vaccines, and race, we can see how employing these principles really changes the dialogue and allows people who normally disagree to understand each other and bring meaningful connection where we desperately need it.
With the increase of internet use we see a decrease in civil discourse. Everywhere you look you see hatred, people talking past each other, and a complete disregard for people’s humanity, values, and experiences. It’s all about winning, shaming, or forcing belief assimilation by threatening social reputation calamity if you don’t.
I think every human should read this book. We may not be able to change the world, but it will do a lot to make our relationships better and stronger and will help us be people who desire and can put into practice peace and consideration in our conversations in a highly polarized environment.
(Plus it’s just really interesting!)
That’s why Duhigg ultimately wrote this book.
“Why was it that, at times, I had so much trouble hearing what someone was trying to tell me? Why was I so quick to get defensive, or to glide past the emotions people were clearly trying to share? Why, sometimes, did I talk so much and listen so little? Why hadn’t I understood when a friend needed comfort rather than advice? How could I put my kids aside when they so clearly wanted to be with me? Why did I struggle to explain what was inside my own head? These struck me as meaningful questions, worthy of exploration, and I wanted answers.”
Research that studied people over decades of time (that has been replicated in other studies) shows that one of the main factors correlated to a long and happy life is deep connections with family and friends.
How do deep connections happen but in meaningful conversations and communications.
The biggest takeaway from this book is to use these principles to make deeper connections and to see the humanity and hear the experiences of those we disagree with.
“Over the past two decades, a body of research has emerged that sheds light on why some of our conversations go so well, while others are so miserable. These insights can help us hear more clearly and speak more persuasively.”
The principles he talks about in this book are not just for familial relationship or just for the workplace. They can be universally applied. Some of them were new to me and others I’ve read in other books or heard from my own therapist and I can attest that they do make a difference when I use them.
The principles can be broken down into three major areas:
- What’s This Really About? (practical, decision-making conversations)
- How Do We Feel? (emotional conversations)
- Who Are We? (social conversations that involve our identities)
Conversations are fluid so these may overlap in a conversation as you get deeper. But if we aren’t ‘in’ the same conversation as the person we’re talking to, we’re not going to make a connection and we’re not going to get very far before things start to devolve.
It’s no surprise that to communicate well requires listening, asking questions, and talking about our feelings.
“to become a supercommunicator, all we need to do is listen closely to what’s said and unsaid, ask the right questions, recognize and match others’ moods, and make our own feelings easy for others to perceive.”
In this book Duhigg gives some guidelines on what kinds of questions are helpful and what kinds aren’t. For example:
“Questions about facts (“Where do you live?” “What college did you attend?”) are conversational dead-ends. They don’t draw out values or experiences. They don’t invite vulnerability. However, those same inquiries, recast slightly (“What do you like about where you live?” “What was your favorite part of college?”), invite others to share their preferences, beliefs, and values.”
We may hear ‘share our feelings’ and bristle about what that means or looks like, but when you read the examples in the book it’s not so bad and it turns conversations of small-talk (which no one really likes) into conversations that actually move someplace.
I also liked that after each chapter he included a section called ‘A Guide to Using These Ideas’ that reiterated the points he had made earlier and what it would look like in real conversation. There were often graphs to illustrate as well.
The flow of the book was easy to follow and I thought he used a lot of really interesting research studies and case-studies to exemplify each point which keeps those engaged who don’t typically enjoy psycholgoical concepts.
There are aspects of this topic that feel borderline manipulative, especially when we think of negotiations or persuading someone. One example he uses is about vaccinations (which may put some people off). He talks about a doctor who had patients that were anti-vaxxers and he struggled with communicating to them the reasons and data as to why they should vaccinate their children.
He realized it wasn’t necessarily about the facts, but about their mistrust of doctors or their resistance to government control. He found that when he made personal connections and they were able to see him as a father too, not just a doctor, and when he set aside his tendency to think or talk in a way that says ‘I’m smarter than you’, they were more willing to hear his advice.
I get that, but I also feel like knowing someone is figuring out the best way to persuade you also makes you feel distrustful about their motivations. Which is why, though I’m not anti-vax, I opted not to do the Covid vaccine.
They claimed data, but it was still new and long-term data was not available. Not only was the ‘choice’ framed in a way that made it seem like taking the vaccine was the only choice and the absolute right choice, but that anyone who chose not to didn’t care about humanity.
While I’m willing to consider that the vaccine may have helped, I’m not convinced. And the sheer force and condescension that went along with it does not help someone trust but feels rather like manipulation.
I admit that distrust is often hard to overcome and not all persuasion is manipulation or immoral, but I just think that some of these conversations might start to feel that way. Playing to emotions to convince someone to trust you.
So an essential component to all of this is genuine care and concern and desire to know someone, not creating a good communication as a means to an end.
This labeling of groups of people (as above) is another major component of communication. And I think that comes into play most prominently in political discourse.
I think this tactic has been employed by both right and left-wing groups and only keeps people polarized.
“Over the last decade, the number of Americans who say they are “deeply angry” at the other political party has increased sharply, to almost 70 percent of the electorate. Roughly half the nation believes those with differing political beliefs are “immoral,” “lazy,” “dishonest,” and “unintelligent.””
It goes like this: you think that one thing? Then you are this kind of person and all these other things are true about you.
For example: I saw on a book review Facebook group a person shared the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and commented that they thought it was a thought-provoking and alarming book. I read the book and think the same thing, but I knew the comments section would have some dissenters. I was shocked by the things people were saying about the person who shared it. They called the person hateful, demanded they be blocked, that this person was what was wrong with the world and more of the same vitriol. They placed this person in a group called ‘Hateful, evil bigot’ simply because they shared their opinion of a book that happens to contain beliefs they don’t share. They didn’t know anything about this person’s values, emotions, or experiences.
And to offer an example from ‘the other side’: Someone shares that they believe abortion should be a legal right. You will see people commenting that that person is a murderer and that they hate Jesus and don’t believe in the sanctity of human life. That also puts them in a group without any knowledge of that person’s values, emotions, or experiences.
Good communication is not really about proving yourself right, but about seeing the people you’re talking to as human beings with their own values, emotions, and life experiences that we should seek to understand. It diffuses a controversial conversation and helps you see them as the complex and nuanced person they are, not a one-dimensional caricature or stereotype.
“Identity threats typically emerge because we generalize: We lump people into groups (“Lawyers are all dishonest”) or assign them traits they loathe (“Everyone who voted for that guy is a racist”). These generalizations take us—our unique perspectives and complicated identities—out of the conversation. They make us one-dimensional.”
Tribal mentality and in-group, out-group psychology is proven stuff and hard at work in our cultural climate. We can’t help but group and label people, trusting and thinking highly of those who share our beliefs or look like us and mistrusting and looking down on those who do not.
Duhigg shares an experiment people conducted to see if people on both sides of the gun control debate could be in a room and have civil conversation. Long story short- they could! When they shared about vulnerable parts of their lives and heard and saw each other as human beings, even though they didn’t change their minds, they changed HOW they communicated with one another. The other side was no longer ‘evil’ but were good people just like us that wanted good things too. There was just disagreements on how those good things would come to be.
“They think listening means debating, and if you let someone else make a good point, you’re doing something wrong. But listening means letting someone else tell their story and then, even if you don’t agree with them, trying to understand why they feel that way.”
I do think there are some limitations here. In a lot of conversations decisions have to be made and laws need to be written. At some point we have to come to an agreement. We have to determine what is true or right.
If we’re just making connections with people to gain understanding and learn about them, there are no stakes or decisions. But we still have to make decisions about who can own guns or who can get married and not all viewpoints are equal.
This is where I start to have questions. As I read this book I pondered-
What is ‘understanding’?
I would argue that understanding doesn’t require agreement but I think perhaps we operate out of a different definition of understanding than we think. I think a lot of people don’t feel understood unless someone ends up agreeing with them- ‘They must have misunderstood me or I must have said it wrong if they still don’t agree with me, because if they really understood, they would see why I’m right or why this is true.’
What does it look like to come to an understanding when the topics being discussed are identity conversations and the disagreeing parties are approaching the topic with very different worldviews and standards of morality?
How do we move forward in good conversation if we listen to people’s feelings but their feelings are based on lies?
And I think I’m reaching outside the scope of this book, especially since I am trying to look at this information through a biblical lens which is not what the author was attempting to do. But definitely gives you some things to think about.
A couple things that stood out to me because I’ve used them in my own marriage are looping and narratives.
A woman enrolled at Harvard Law school shared that she realized that the purpose of talking about conflict wasn’t about winning but determining “why this fight has emerged and what is fueling it, as well as the stories they are all telling themselves about why this conflict persists.”
‘The stories they are telling themselves’ is such a big but subtle thing. An example from my personal life- My husband looks at the dinner I made and says ‘is this what it usually looks like?’
The story I tell myself, which is rooted in my own insecurities about being a good wife, is that my husband is criticizing the meal I worked hard to make and doesn’t appreciate what I’ve done and thinks it’s a bad meal. That’s the narrative I tell myself and then respond from. Is that going to go well? No.
I have to realize that I’ve created that narrative and need to evaluate if it’s true or reasonable. Turns out, he was not feeling any type of way about me making a good or bad supper but was genuinely wondering what was different about it. The conversation looks a lot different, right?
Paired with this is the importance of looping which is listening and then proving we have listened by repeating back to them what they just told us but in our own words.
This brings clarity and understanding and gets everyone having the same conversation. It also builds trust because the person won’t feel like the ‘listener’ was just trying to come up with their own rebuttal but was genuinely processing what they were hearing so that they are all dealing with the right information and feelings.
If I had used this method with the above example (which I didn’t), it could have looked like this: “What I’m hearing you say is that you don’t like what I made and you’re frustrated that I don’t make you better meals.” Then he can say, “No, I really appreciate that you’ve made supper and it looks good, I just thought it looked different and wondered if there was a different ingredient in it.”
Hopefully looping looks more accurate then this, but even though I wasn’t hearing what he was really saying, by telling him what I heard, he can correct my understanding. Plus I’ve shared my feelings which alerts him that we’ve moved from a practical conversation to one that deals with both feelings and identities and we need to adapt and address those things because the meal isn’t really what the conversation is about.
A Couple Other Takeaways
He offers four things to keep in mind when communicating online and these should pop up every time someone opens up a comment box:
- Overemphasize politeness.
- Underemphasize sarcasm.
- Express more gratitude, deference, greetings, apologies, and hedges.
- Avoid criticism in public forums.
We could also get into a conversation about freedom of speech and tolerance. I can’t help but plug the book “The Coddling of the American Mind” which talks about that very subject on university campuses where people were not allowed to come speak on campus because students thought their beliefs were hateful.
If communication requires being heard then we have to allow for freedom of speech. Diversity in thought is a good thing to have healthy and intelligent debate. If we were all homogeneous in our beliefs it would probably mean we were under Communist rule and not allowed to believe anything different.
Understanding does not require agreement in belief. It requires the ability to be heard; it requires a sense of humility; and it requires a tolerance for another’s differing beliefs.
When conversations start to devolve it is often as a result of one person trying to control it too much by making spoken or unspoken rules about what the other person is allowed to say, feel, do. They tried to control their language and their behavior- ‘don’t use that tone, don’t roll your eyes, don’t walk away, etc.’
“If we focus on controlling the right things in an argument—if we focus on controlling ourselves, our environment, and the conflict itself—fights morph into conversations.”
Self-control and self-awareness are key to good communications.
And lastly, though it’s been said, it bears repeating- ask questions. Good questions. Questions that tap into someone’s values, emotions, or experiences.
Recommendation
I recommend this book for all people.
It will help you have more meaningful conversations and avoid small-talk. It will help you ‘argue’ with your spouse or siblings better. It will help you diffuse controversial conversations. And it will help you start to see people as complex human beings who desire to be heard and considered rather than ignored and talked over or denied entrance altogether.
It’s not going to solve all the disagreements, convince people to change their minds, or establish world peace, but it will hopefully change your perspective of conversations and your part in them.
[I would also recommend this book to authors who write about negotiators because I think it would help flesh out a character study and dialogue options for conversations in the book.]
It’s pretty short so it’s a quick read as well!
Only If You're Lucky by Stacy Willingham
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“I crave it more than I’ve ever craved anything: the kind of friendship that I once knew so well, not comfortable and contained but something messy and maniacal and real.”
This was my first Stacy Willingham book and it didn’t do much for me. However it seems like this book might deviate from her normal writing so I still plan to at least read A Flicker in the Dark.
The setting of this book was Rutledge College in South Carolina. But it reads like a series of college party scenes rather than anything remotely nostalgic or relatable to me. The characters and setting and events are everything that was absent of my college experience and it was not enjoyable for me to read.
I could maybe still enjoy the book if the suspense at least was there, but it was a slow-burn read told in ‘before’ and ‘after’ chapters giving small teases that manage to keep you interested. But I grew tired of reading about everything that happened when they were drunk or high or hungover.
I will say that the ending twists did save it a bit (I liked the accident, mistake, necessity aspect) but unless this is a scene you find interesting or engaging, I don’t think the twists are worth all that comes before.
Basic Premise
The book begins with the knowledge that we have a dead body— a frat boy pledge named Levi Butler— and a missing girl— a bold, brash, and unpredictable college girl named Lucy.
And that’s how the chapters divide- before and after.
“Levi is dead, Lucy is gone, and someone has to pay.”
Margot’s college experience doesn’t start the way she had planned it. Her best friend, Eliza, dies three weeks before they were supposed to attend Rutledge together.
Freshman year is a blur of grief and depression, but one girl— Lucy— sticks out, elusive and magnetic, the object of a lot of rumors, and a reminder of Eliza. At the end of the year when Lucy invites Margot to live with her and her friends Sloane and Nicole, Lucy jumps at the chance.
“being loved by Eliza was like a sudden hit of adrenaline— a gateway drug, something addicting and freeing that left you craving your next hit the second she stepped away. And if Eliza was adrenaline, that makes Lucy something even more. Something more addicting, more dangerous. Something that I probably shouldn’t be dabbling in— but at the same time, something impossible to refuse.”
But we find out that Lucy might have picked her for a reason. And Sloane and Nicole for that matter.
“nice Nicole and studious Sloane and malleable Margot.”
And so this book asks the question: How far would someone go for friendship and belonging? What happens in a house full of potentially toxic friendships?
“Sloane is trying to tell me that, if I’m not careful, Lucy will… turn me into something I’m not. She’ll twist me and mold me until I’m unrecognizable, transforming in her hands like soft, wet clay. She’ll shape me into whatever she wants me to be. Something useful to best fit her needs, a deliberate instrument of her own design. But here’s the thing Sloane doesn’t know: I want to be changed. That’s all I’ve ever wanted, really: for someone to scoop me up and tell me what I’m supposed to be.”
So where is Lucy and what really happened to Levi?
Comments
I didn’t really find any of the characters likeable. It’s just kinda unimaginable to me that someone could be so malleable and easily manipulated to do whatever someone tells them to do. Or even in this case, willingly being pulled in to something clearly not right.
I don’t find that kind of personality relatable or endearing; I find it annoying. Have your own mind.
I just find it not only hard to believe, but hard to read when someone is so taken in by someone who is clearly a toxic type of person; obsessive friendships are alien to me. And when it’s drawn out for so long and detailed as the primary aspect of the book, it’s exhausting.
I know the college party scene is probably part of a lot of people’s college experiences, but it had nothing to do with mine and reading about it was a bit repulsive. At least if there was something redeeming about it then its place in the book would have purpose and development. But it was just the perfect storm of dysfunction to facilitate more problems, manipulation, and stupidity.
There just wasn’t anything appealing to reading it. As I started it I was wondering if I was going to like it, and as I continued, my engagement level never really went up.
The title of the book comes from this line:
“You’re only young once, and only if you’re lucky.”
I liked the title, but I’m not sure if this is the strongest line. Does it mean you’re only young if you’re lucky? Haha. I think it means that hopefully you don’t die. But I just think it’s a bit clunky of phrasing and they should have picked a different title or tied it in stronger than this.
I did think it was interesting that the house the girls live in that’s right next to the frat house is based on Willingham’s own college experience and housing. The shed and the crawl space were the same, but the rest of the story, people, and relationships were fictional.
Recommendation
Most of my dislikes of this book had to do with the characters and setting. I didn’t have issue with the writing style and I did like the twists. I also appreciated that there weren’t a million f-bombs.
So I am definitely willing to read another one of her books. From what I can tell they deal with adults which is a better story line for my interests. I think I’m picky about college-related books. (Though I’m not sure I can read All the Dangerous Things because I have a hard time with child abduction/death type of stories)
‘Only If You’re Lucky’ was not for me, but could easily be a hit for others if they don’t have as strong of feelings as I do about the morally ambiguous character types and setting.
[Content Advisory: 18 f-words and 28 s-words, a lot of drinking, smoking, drugs, and the college party scene; moderate sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
This was my first Stacy Willingham book and it didn’t do much for me. However it seems like this book might deviate from her normal writing so I still plan to at least read A Flicker in the Dark.
The setting of this book was Rutledge College in South Carolina. But it reads like a series of college party scenes rather than anything remotely nostalgic or relatable to me. The characters and setting and events are everything that was absent of my college experience and it was not enjoyable for me to read.
I could maybe still enjoy the book if the suspense at least was there, but it was a slow-burn read told in ‘before’ and ‘after’ chapters giving small teases that manage to keep you interested. But I grew tired of reading about everything that happened when they were drunk or high or hungover.
I will say that the ending twists did save it a bit (I liked the accident, mistake, necessity aspect) but unless this is a scene you find interesting or engaging, I don’t think the twists are worth all that comes before.
Basic Premise
The book begins with the knowledge that we have a dead body— a frat boy pledge named Levi Butler— and a missing girl— a bold, brash, and unpredictable college girl named Lucy.
And that’s how the chapters divide- before and after.
“Levi is dead, Lucy is gone, and someone has to pay.”
Margot’s college experience doesn’t start the way she had planned it. Her best friend, Eliza, dies three weeks before they were supposed to attend Rutledge together.
Freshman year is a blur of grief and depression, but one girl— Lucy— sticks out, elusive and magnetic, the object of a lot of rumors, and a reminder of Eliza. At the end of the year when Lucy invites Margot to live with her and her friends Sloane and Nicole, Lucy jumps at the chance.
“being loved by Eliza was like a sudden hit of adrenaline— a gateway drug, something addicting and freeing that left you craving your next hit the second she stepped away. And if Eliza was adrenaline, that makes Lucy something even more. Something more addicting, more dangerous. Something that I probably shouldn’t be dabbling in— but at the same time, something impossible to refuse.”
But we find out that Lucy might have picked her for a reason. And Sloane and Nicole for that matter.
“nice Nicole and studious Sloane and malleable Margot.”
And so this book asks the question: How far would someone go for friendship and belonging? What happens in a house full of potentially toxic friendships?
“Sloane is trying to tell me that, if I’m not careful, Lucy will… turn me into something I’m not. She’ll twist me and mold me until I’m unrecognizable, transforming in her hands like soft, wet clay. She’ll shape me into whatever she wants me to be. Something useful to best fit her needs, a deliberate instrument of her own design. But here’s the thing Sloane doesn’t know: I want to be changed. That’s all I’ve ever wanted, really: for someone to scoop me up and tell me what I’m supposed to be.”
So where is Lucy and what really happened to Levi?
Comments
I didn’t really find any of the characters likeable. It’s just kinda unimaginable to me that someone could be so malleable and easily manipulated to do whatever someone tells them to do. Or even in this case, willingly being pulled in to something clearly not right.
I don’t find that kind of personality relatable or endearing; I find it annoying. Have your own mind.
I just find it not only hard to believe, but hard to read when someone is so taken in by someone who is clearly a toxic type of person; obsessive friendships are alien to me. And when it’s drawn out for so long and detailed as the primary aspect of the book, it’s exhausting.
I know the college party scene is probably part of a lot of people’s college experiences, but it had nothing to do with mine and reading about it was a bit repulsive. At least if there was something redeeming about it then its place in the book would have purpose and development. But it was just the perfect storm of dysfunction to facilitate more problems, manipulation, and stupidity.
There just wasn’t anything appealing to reading it. As I started it I was wondering if I was going to like it, and as I continued, my engagement level never really went up.
The title of the book comes from this line:
“You’re only young once, and only if you’re lucky.”
I liked the title, but I’m not sure if this is the strongest line. Does it mean you’re only young if you’re lucky? Haha. I think it means that hopefully you don’t die. But I just think it’s a bit clunky of phrasing and they should have picked a different title or tied it in stronger than this.
I did think it was interesting that the house the girls live in that’s right next to the frat house is based on Willingham’s own college experience and housing. The shed and the crawl space were the same, but the rest of the story, people, and relationships were fictional.
Recommendation
Most of my dislikes of this book had to do with the characters and setting. I didn’t have issue with the writing style and I did like the twists. I also appreciated that there weren’t a million f-bombs.
So I am definitely willing to read another one of her books. From what I can tell they deal with adults which is a better story line for my interests. I think I’m picky about college-related books. (Though I’m not sure I can read All the Dangerous Things because I have a hard time with child abduction/death type of stories)
‘Only If You’re Lucky’ was not for me, but could easily be a hit for others if they don’t have as strong of feelings as I do about the morally ambiguous character types and setting.
[Content Advisory: 18 f-words and 28 s-words, a lot of drinking, smoking, drugs, and the college party scene; moderate sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cursing, Drug use, and Alcohol