Take a photo of a barcode or cover
unabashed_whoopherup's Reviews (42)
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
単純に書き方としては悪くなかったし、アイデアも面白かったけど全体的に出来が…
話の長さの割には特に何も起きないし、登場人物もつまらないし、一部一部の終わりに解説みたいなのがうっとうしかった。話読んでいればそんなまるで同じ内容を解説風に書かなくっていいし、作者は読者が話をちゃんと理解できると思っていないようで、本人にその意図がなくても軽く馬鹿にされている感じになる。
キリスト教的なホラーに半ば無理矢理に持っていったのも個人的に好みじゃなかった。
そして、最終的エンディングもべた中のべただった。
話の長さの割には特に何も起きないし、登場人物もつまらないし、一部一部の終わりに解説みたいなのがうっとうしかった。話読んでいればそんなまるで同じ内容を解説風に書かなくっていいし、作者は読者が話をちゃんと理解できると思っていないようで、本人にその意図がなくても軽く馬鹿にされている感じになる。
キリスト教的なホラーに半ば無理矢理に持っていったのも個人的に好みじゃなかった。
そして、最終的エンディングもべた中のべただった。
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
adventurous
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Lacklustre opening, and too much explicit information given right at the start. Within the first few chapters we're already given the answer as to what the protagonists will be facing, and what she's capable of, which basically sets up the rest of the novel to have absolutely no suspense.
The writing itself wasn't bad, but did this author eat a thesaurus or something? The book is full of descriptions of overly flowery metaphor and simile (there was at least one metaphor or simile on just about <i>every single page</i> of this book). The obsession with likening one thing to another can only go on for so long before it just becomes irritating. Sometimes, it really is just better to use the more common word, or not try and be all creative with your descriptions. I couldn't stop myself from rolling my eyes every single time "gore" was used as a substitute for simply "blood", or when instead of simply using "magic" to describe thewitch's powers used the word "glamour" over and over again. The book was also riddled with passive voice, which when a little isn't that bothersome, but when it's all over the place it really does stick out.
The pace of the story was also just so <i>slow</i>. Partly, I think this is because literally nothing happened half the time, and partly because the characters were so dumb and being strung along like paper cut-outs from scene to scene that there was just zero tension of investment in any of the things that did happen.
While I expect the main characters of a horror novel to be in denial for some part of the story, I also expect them to actually be affected by all the psychological and physical attacks they experience. However, their reactions can be summed up by "What was that? A disfigured, bloody creature stalking me through the house??? Oh silly me, it couldn't be". Every time either of them is assaulted by something, it always ends with "in the cold light of day she completely forgot about it". Sure, sure. I understand that sometimes characters won't make great choices, given that we want them to be slowly but surely forced into a corner in these sort of genres, but when all they do is make arbitrarily stupid decisions to do nothing more than forward the plot with no agency of their own, it just serves to frustrate.
None of the characters were particular interesting or fleshed out, and not one of the minor characters like the ex-sheriff or any of the locals were used for anything more than giving some off-hand comments (that didn't even lend anything to the suspense as we already know all that we need to regarding what's going on in that house. Even the ex-sheriff's little spiel when he finally showed up again added no new ah-ha moments or twists to the story at all, and he really could have been any character at all in that moment).
There were also just some weird inconsistencies/things the author obviously didn't care to bother about when writing, which on top of everything else was really frustrating. For example, when the protagonist is directed to be on a strictly liquid diet, not once does she actually eat anything even marginally soft? This wouldn't bother me so much if it actually had any sort of consequences, even just in passing, but it didn't. She's literally sitting there eating snacks and ordering lasagna with a hole in the tongue giving no complaints of even discomfort. It also at one point describes the witch as walking through the yard on her soles, even though her feet have been multiple times described as being burnt away to blackened stumps.
Another thing that bothered me was when the ex-sheriff is giving his little spiel, he's kind enough to off-handedly mention "it was a blue moon, exactly like we're having tomorrow night" (not a quote), but then once the siblings are home and it explicitly talks about however many hours having passed, it's going on about the blue moon <i>that night</i>. That's a pretty big oversight that would have been easily caught with a single read-through.
As for the ending, it wasn't particularly interesting, it didn't do anything new or different to other books of this sort, and it was just sort of "okay, and?". The siblings were both just so bland that no matter what happened to them I wouldn't have cared. The whole book lacked atmosphere, tension, and suspense.
And if I see one more brother character calling his sister "sis" in every. Single. Conversation, I'm going to throw my Kindle in the ocean.
The writing itself wasn't bad, but did this author eat a thesaurus or something? The book is full of descriptions of overly flowery metaphor and simile (there was at least one metaphor or simile on just about <i>every single page</i> of this book). The obsession with likening one thing to another can only go on for so long before it just becomes irritating. Sometimes, it really is just better to use the more common word, or not try and be all creative with your descriptions. I couldn't stop myself from rolling my eyes every single time "gore" was used as a substitute for simply "blood", or when instead of simply using "magic" to describe the
The pace of the story was also just so <i>slow</i>. Partly, I think this is because literally nothing happened half the time, and partly because the characters were so dumb and being strung along like paper cut-outs from scene to scene that there was just zero tension of investment in any of the things that did happen.
While I expect the main characters of a horror novel to be in denial for some part of the story, I also expect them to actually be affected by all the psychological and physical attacks they experience. However, their reactions can be summed up by "What was that? A disfigured, bloody creature stalking me through the house??? Oh silly me, it couldn't be". Every time either of them is assaulted by something, it always ends with "in the cold light of day she completely forgot about it". Sure, sure. I understand that sometimes characters won't make great choices, given that we want them to be slowly but surely forced into a corner in these sort of genres, but when all they do is make arbitrarily stupid decisions to do nothing more than forward the plot with no agency of their own, it just serves to frustrate.
None of the characters were particular interesting or fleshed out, and not one of the minor characters like the ex-sheriff or any of the locals were used for anything more than giving some off-hand comments (that didn't even lend anything to the suspense as we already know all that we need to regarding what's going on in that house. Even the ex-sheriff's little spiel when he finally showed up again added no new ah-ha moments or twists to the story at all, and he really could have been any character at all in that moment).
There were also just some weird inconsistencies/things the author obviously didn't care to bother about when writing, which on top of everything else was really frustrating. For example, when the protagonist is directed to be on a strictly liquid diet, not once does she actually eat anything even marginally soft? This wouldn't bother me so much if it actually had any sort of consequences, even just in passing, but it didn't. She's literally sitting there eating snacks and ordering lasagna with a hole in the tongue giving no complaints of even discomfort.
Another thing that bothered me was when the ex-sheriff is giving his little spiel, he's kind enough to off-handedly mention "it was a blue moon, exactly like we're having tomorrow night" (not a quote), but then once the siblings are home and it explicitly talks about however many hours having passed, it's going on about the blue moon <i>that night</i>. That's a pretty big oversight that would have been easily caught with a single read-through.
As for the ending, it wasn't particularly interesting, it didn't do anything new or different to other books of this sort, and it was just sort of "okay, and?". The siblings were both just so bland that no matter what happened to them I wouldn't have cared. The whole book lacked atmosphere, tension, and suspense.
And if I see one more brother character calling his sister "sis" in every. Single. Conversation, I'm going to throw my Kindle in the ocean.
Overall forgettable, and while not overtly terrible it wasn't a particularly good introduction to this author's works.
In general, the characters were flat, boring, and not particularly interesting. The dialogue was a pain to read no matter who was talking (it was like the author was trying to make it seem "ye olde timey", but was just silly).
My biggest gripe, however, is the obviously complete lack of any sort of historical research. Of course, there is always some leeway when it comes to historical accuracy in fiction (sometimes it really is better to go for believable rather than "accurate"), but there's "foregoing historical accuracy for the sake of a good narrative" and then there's "didn't even take a glance at a Wikipedia page about the time period". This is the latter.
It's also not just the lack of general historical inaccuracies and time period specific issues, it's also just small details that while on their own won't really cause much bother, but built up over the course of an entire book really start to grate (does the author realise that you can google "how to use a scythe" and see instantly that you don't swing it like you're chopping trees? Does she know that people aren't just going to the kitchen to drink water whenever they feel like it in the 17th century? So many little but glaring details would be fixed by a single quick google search).
But then there's bigger issues. If she's going to set a story in a specific period of history and use something as narrowly defined as a monk and his monastery as the setting, then she should at least do the minimal amount of research to make it accurate/believable. The absolute lack of understanding as to how monks lived and the roles of monasteries and religious figures and facilities was eye-roll inducing (the worst issue of all is the sheer fact that there <i>were</i> no more monasteries in England after Henry VIII dissolved them in <i>1536</i>, over 150 years before the book is even set). It's like setting a book in America but they're written as all driving on the left side of the road.
If she insists on using a monastery as a setting though, then how hard is it to type "monastery layout" into a search bar? Does she not realise that a monk and a priest aren't the same thing? That a monk is called Brother, not Father? Why didn't she bother to find out that unless the protagonist is a postulant or novice monk (within his first 3 years of joining the monastery, which he obviously isn't given that the last time he saw his nephew he was 3 years old, and is now, what, 7 or 8?) then he can't actually just go and leave the monastery whenever he wishes? One cursory read of the Wikipedia page for "monk" would have remedied the vast majority of the issues this book had with setting that the author chose to ignore for the sake of a story which wasn't even very well written.
As for the writing itself, it was bland, dry, and didn't have any sort of atmosphere or tension. The characters moved around like string puppets without any real agency. The protagonist was dull and idiotic in the extreme (horror protagonists generally do lean into denial, as is standard for the genre, but the fact that the protagonist was still telling himself it was all his imagination even after an entire town seems to have upped and disappeared?) I mean, he sees a dog described as looking like it came right out of Hell chewing on a corpse, and his reaction is to yell "shoo"?
Then the ending of the book, well, it read more like the author had written herself into a corner and just needed to reverse engineer something, anything to make it make sense. But it didn't. The twist was silly and felt more like it was forced in there in order to explain a particular hole in the story that the author simply forgot for most of the book.
In the end, I don't think it mattered how the story ended, because there was such a lack of emotional depth and development with any of the characters that I don't think I could have cared less about what happened to any one of them.
My last point doesn't actually have any influence over my star rating of the book, because I don't generally think it's fair to rate on how "scary" a horror novel is given how subjective that can be, but there's no avoiding the fact that this book really lacked any sort of build up or atmosphere, or anything in the vicinity of scares or chills.
In general, the characters were flat, boring, and not particularly interesting. The dialogue was a pain to read no matter who was talking (it was like the author was trying to make it seem "ye olde timey", but was just silly).
My biggest gripe, however, is the obviously complete lack of any sort of historical research. Of course, there is always some leeway when it comes to historical accuracy in fiction (sometimes it really is better to go for believable rather than "accurate"), but there's "foregoing historical accuracy for the sake of a good narrative" and then there's "didn't even take a glance at a Wikipedia page about the time period". This is the latter.
It's also not just the lack of general historical inaccuracies and time period specific issues, it's also just small details that while on their own won't really cause much bother, but built up over the course of an entire book really start to grate (does the author realise that you can google "how to use a scythe" and see instantly that you don't swing it like you're chopping trees? Does she know that people aren't just going to the kitchen to drink water whenever they feel like it in the 17th century? So many little but glaring details would be fixed by a single quick google search).
But then there's bigger issues. If she's going to set a story in a specific period of history and use something as narrowly defined as a monk and his monastery as the setting, then she should at least do the minimal amount of research to make it accurate/believable. The absolute lack of understanding as to how monks lived and the roles of monasteries and religious figures and facilities was eye-roll inducing (the worst issue of all is the sheer fact that there <i>were</i> no more monasteries in England after Henry VIII dissolved them in <i>1536</i>, over 150 years before the book is even set). It's like setting a book in America but they're written as all driving on the left side of the road.
If she insists on using a monastery as a setting though, then how hard is it to type "monastery layout" into a search bar? Does she not realise that a monk and a priest aren't the same thing? That a monk is called Brother, not Father? Why didn't she bother to find out that unless the protagonist is a postulant or novice monk (within his first 3 years of joining the monastery, which he obviously isn't given that the last time he saw his nephew he was 3 years old, and is now, what, 7 or 8?) then he can't actually just go and leave the monastery whenever he wishes? One cursory read of the Wikipedia page for "monk" would have remedied the vast majority of the issues this book had with setting that the author chose to ignore for the sake of a story which wasn't even very well written.
As for the writing itself, it was bland, dry, and didn't have any sort of atmosphere or tension. The characters moved around like string puppets without any real agency. The protagonist was dull and idiotic in the extreme (horror protagonists generally do lean into denial, as is standard for the genre, but the fact that the protagonist was still telling himself it was all his imagination even after an entire town seems to have upped and disappeared?) I mean, he sees a dog described as looking like it came right out of Hell chewing on a corpse, and his reaction is to yell "shoo"?
Then the ending of the book, well, it read more like the author had written herself into a corner and just needed to reverse engineer something, anything to make it make sense. But it didn't. The twist was silly and felt more like it was forced in there in order to explain a particular hole in the story that the author simply forgot for most of the book.
In the end, I don't think it mattered how the story ended, because there was such a lack of emotional depth and development with any of the characters that I don't think I could have cared less about what happened to any one of them.
My last point doesn't actually have any influence over my star rating of the book, because I don't generally think it's fair to rate on how "scary" a horror novel is given how subjective that can be, but there's no avoiding the fact that this book really lacked any sort of build up or atmosphere, or anything in the vicinity of scares or chills.
adventurous
dark
tense
fast-paced
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Loveable characters:
No
