A Man Called Ove by Fredrik Backman Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“People said Ove saw the world in black and white. But she was color. All the color he had.”- A Man Called Ove, Fredrik Backman

A grumpy yet loveable man finds his solitary world turned on its head when a boisterous young family moves in next door.

Meet Ove. He's a curmudgeon, the kind of man who points at people he dislikes as if they were burglars caught outside his bedroom window. He has staunch principles, strict routines, and a short fuse. People call him the bitter neighbor from hell, but must Ove be bitter just because he doesn't walk around with a smile plastered to his face all the time?

Behind the cranky exterior there is a story and a sadness. So when one November morning a chatty young couple with two chatty young daughters move in next door and accidentally flatten Ove's mailbox, it is the lead-in to a comical and heartwarming tale of unkempt cats, unexpected friendship, and the ancient art of backing up a U-Haul. All of which will change one cranky old man and a local residents' association to their very foundations.

One of the things I'm looking forward to in life is being a stodgy old curmudgeonly kind of person. Someone who complains about the youths of today and goes on about how this new fangled technology is destroying our society and talks constantly about "back in my day". I'm already kind of like that. Which is why I think I related to Ove way more than a girl my age should relate to a 59 year old man who's very set in his ways. I think I'm in need of a manic pixie dream boy. Does John Green have a hotline or a bat signal or something?

The real star of this book was Ove himself. I know there are other characters, like the family that moved in and Rune and Anita, but they (well, with the exception of Rune and Anita) dimmed in comparison to Ove. I have a feeling that in a few months, I would forget their names completely but will still remember him to a T. He's such a great character, the kind of person whose bitter, but deep down inside loves so deeply. He's the kind of character that is rarely the center of a work of fiction, his place usually reserved as the grumpy-yet-endearing granddad of some teenage character. His relationship with his Sonja was also perfect. I loved the flashbacks of their life together, and the lack of her presence was felt acutely throughout the novel.

The first half of this book was far funnier than the last half. The last half was good, don't get me wrong, but it paled in comparison, in my opinion, which is one of the reasons why this book didn't get a full 9/10. Still, the ending was perfect, if a bit rushed feeling, and had me swallowing back tears. Even if it did end a bit too pat for me. My only other complaints are that the writing was a bit too bloggish at times, with all caps, multiple exclamation points, and of course the dreaded interrobang. But those are nitpicks.

So do I recommend it? Obviously. How can I not? It's sweet, funny, and utterly heartwarming. Don't let the presence of the translation scare you, either. This book is one of the best translated books I've ever read- you honestly can't tell that it was ever written in a different language. I kind of wish I read Swedish, just so I could compare the two. If you see it, you should definitely pick it up. I'm curious to check out more of Backman's work- if it's anything like this, I'm sure it will be fantastic.

8.5-9 out of 10

Genre Fiction Book Tag

I made this one myself (I know, I'll try not to hurt my shoulder patting myself on the back). I felt like there was a lack of book tags that were about a specific book genre, so I remedied that. I mean, you can't always expect someone else to do everything for you. 

So yeah. If you want to do this, great! You don't even have to link back to me (though I would love it if you do). Even though it says genre fiction, if lit fiction is your shit, then go right ahead, nothing's stopping ya, least of all me. The questions are at the end, so you don't have to mess around with copy and paste too much.

disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer; do I have to do these for every tag?

1. Favorite genre.
I have a few, but for this tag I'm answering with historical fiction.

2. Favorite kind of setting (for instance: if you like fantasy, do you like fantasy worlds inspired by any particular culture and if so what culture).
As horrible as this may sound, I'm very Eurocentric with my reading. I just find European culture and history so fascinating. I do want to branch out and read more books that take place in other places, but right now I'm really into European history. As much as I love WWII books, I admit that that particular sub genre is a bit played out. I just looked at some of the 2017 Historical Fiction releases on Goodreads and a good 75% are set during the 40s. Still, I like books set in cultures and time periods that are uncommon for most Historical Fiction books, and I love reading books set in Russia or the USSR above all. Any book set in Russia or the USSR I will at least give it a shot.

The kind of books I love. And of course, they all have one thing in common...

3. Favorite sub genre.
I'm not really crazy about a lot of history sub genres (as you'll see below), but I liked quite a few of the historical mysteries that I've read. Also, WWII fiction, since it honestly has become a sub genre of its own, and I do like most WWII fiction (even if I am getting a little sick of it).

In the interest of combining both, here's a really great book that I highly recommend.

4. Least favorite sub genre.
Hmm. I don't really like historical romance- but then again, books set in the Regency times don't interest me much anyway. I also don't really like historical fantasy mostly because I get too annoyed at historical inaccuracies and I swear that most historical fantasy writers think that because they are writing a historical fantasy they can just throw facts about the time period out the window (this is a very common transgression with books set during the Victorian times- looking at you, Erin Morgenstern). I also really don't like alternative histories, since again I get too annoyed by historical inaccuracies. I dnf'd both Front Lines by Michael Grant and And I Darken by Kiersten White (premise great, execution not too much- thought the heroine was too unrealistic and "modern", for lack of a better word. I do want to read more books that take place during the time period, though) and have no desire to read Wolf by Wolf by Ryan Graudin(?). Pass.

The aforementioned three books. From left to right: dnf'd at halfway through (about 200 pages in), dnf'd at 100 pages in, dnf'd at roughly 200-250 pages in. All of these have one (positive) thing in common and that is their gorgeous covers. Well, And I Darken's is debatable...

5. An under-hyped book.
My Family For the War by German author Anne C Voorhoeve is really good, but at the same time really under-hyped. It follows a German girl who is Jewish, but her family converted to Christianity two generations ago, although that didn't stop her family from being targeted by the Nazis. So she goes on the Kindertransport to England and it follows her relationship with her foster family or her "family for the war". I loved it.

The translation is pretty good, too. And I've read some bad translations of things, believe me.

6. An over-hyped book.
In my opinion, The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah was way over hyped. I did like this book, but I thought it would be a lot more amazing than it actually was due to how hyped up it was.

I mean, I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either. Firmly in the like category for me.

7. Favorite author. 
Hands down Ruta Sepetys for this one. She deserves to be crowned queen of the genre. I've read everything she's put out, and I need more. Not only is she an excellent writer, her books are also so well researched. And she has never committed one of the cardinal sins of historical fiction, which is the info-dump. You know what I'm talking about: when you're super engrossed in the plot and then all of a sudden the author just dumps in a bunch of raw facts the protagonist likely never would have known about until after the event happened. That never happened in her books. She needs to write faster, I need more of her!

Seriously, read all of these. Like now. You needed them on your shelves like yesterday. Pretty covers, too.

8. Trends that you are tired of seeing.
I'm starting to get sick of all the books popping up with gay characters just to show how gay people were around back even in the olden days, like no shit Sherlock, ever heard of Oscar Wilde or King James I? And they do nothing with those characters, they just stick them in to be like "hey look, you think you life's rough, look at this gay guy who lived before being homosexual was accepted". I think they give history too little credit when it comes to gay people. I'm also sick of all the Code Name Verity wannabes out now, like please stop it was a good book but I don't want to read the same story over and over again. 

Yes, this book is guilty of both these trends. There's a reason it made my Worst Books of 2016 list.

9. Biggest pet peeve.
I really really hate poorly researched historical fiction. Seriously, you have no excuse to put out a book about, I don't know, something like the Victorian times and have the characters constantly running around without hats or waistcoats or having the female characters (especially upper class females) running around without escorts or kissing in public. Or jumping in bed before marriage, another big no-no in that prudish era. Again, people who write books set during the Victorian era are the worst transgressors of this, as well as historical fantasy writers. I also hate it when characters have very 21st century ideas but the setting is, I don't know, the 1700s. Give your characters historically appropriate opinions; don't have your main character talking about how gay people (for example) should totally be accepted in society and then dismiss all her contemporaries as being bigoted idiots. People had different views on things back then, and if you can't accept them then maybe you shouldn't be writing historical fiction.

10. Something you wish was more prevalent.
More books set in Russia of course! Also, I want more books set in different time periods. I want a book about 1970s Northern Ireland. I want a book about Russia during the Petrine times. I want a book about the Netherlands during the Golden Age. I want a book about the Spanish Civil War. I want people to get inventive with the times and places they choose to set their books in and not just fall back on WWII France (or whatever). Have fun with history dammit.

Tired of the same old, same old with historical fiction? Read this! It's one of the most unique additions to the genre I've read.

11. Most anticipated release.
The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee. I broke my rule and preordered it because I read the synopsis and decided I needed to read it. I'm cautiously excited.

Apart from the babe, I'm not in love with the cover. But it still sounds so awesome I can live with it.

12. Book you'd recommend to newcomers.
I would put any book by Ruta Sepetys here, because her books are perfect examples of blending in research with plot almost seamlessly, but I'm trying not to be repetitive. So I'm going to say Elizabeth Wein, more specifically Code Name Verity and Rose Under Fire. She's not my favorite historical fiction author, but she's a good introductory author to the genre. She knows how to balance research and plot, even if she doesn't have the finesse of Sepetys, and her books are unputdownable. I would recommend them to upper middle grade readers (mature 12 year olds to 13 year olds) through adult readers.

These books are by no means perfect, but they are worth the read, especially for introductory historical fiction readers.

13. Favorite overall book.
Going with a classic and saying The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. I can't help myself; he's one of my favorite writers of all time for a reason.

One of the most beautiful books in my collection, both with the writing and now the tenth anniversary edition. I think I almost cried when I opened the box

As promised: The Questions!

1. Favorite genre.

2. Favorite kind of setting (for instance: if you like fantasy, do you like fantasy worlds inspired by any particular culture and if so what culture).

3. Favorite sub genre.

4. Least favorite sub genre.

5. An under-hyped book.

6. An over-hyped book.

7. Favorite author.

8. Trends that you are tired of seeing.

9. Biggest pet peeve.

10. Something you wish was more prevalent.

11. Most anticipated release.

12. Book you'd recommend to newcomers.

13. Favorite overall book.

Again, fine by me if you want to use this. I'm not going to tag you or anything since that part's kinda stupid. I just had fun making this and would be interested to see other people answer for different genres. Have fun.

What's your favorite genre? Do you agree with anything I wrote? Disagree? Maybe you love historical fantasy, I dunno. Let me know down below! And as always, book recommendations are always welcome.

Grief Is the Thing with Feathers by Max Porter Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“Moving on, as a concept, is for stupid people, because any sensible person knows grief is a long-term project.”- Grief Is the Thing with Feathers, Max Porter

In a London flat, two young boys face the unbearable sadness of their mother's sudden death. Their father, a Ted Hughes scholar and scruffy romantic, imagines a future of well-meaning visitors and emptiness.

In this moment of despair they are visited by Crow - antagonist, trickster, healer, babysitter. This self-described sentimental bird is attracted to the grieving family and threatens to stay until they no longer need him. As weeks turn to months and physical pain of loss gives way to memories, this little unit of three begin to heal.

In this extraordinary debut - part novella, part polyphonic fable, part essay on grief, Max Porter's compassion and bravura style combine to dazzling effect. Full of unexpected humour and profound emotional truth, Grief is the Thing with Feathers marks the arrival of a thrilling new talent.

This will probably be the shortest review in the history of reviews, because, as is often the case for books I love, it's hard to write about them. Books I hate can get lengthy reviews that involve copious nit-picking and snark, but books I love get shorter and more serious reviews. Normally, I would have started out with a story about Ted Hughes just to set the mood, so to speak, but that now seems far too light-hearted for this book's heavy, heavy subject matter.

There is little to say about this book. I get the sense that reading it is a deeply personal experience, which is why if you haven't, get it now. It's one of those books that screams future classic. I am tempted to buy a bunch and scatter them about, donating them to places like Goodwill or used book stores. Even the cover (the UK cover also) is very much the kind of cover books in the classic canon usually have, and so is the font. As a whole, this book was hugely impactful, in a way that is hard to describe.

I don't know if it will ever make my favorite books of all time or even my favorite books of 2017 list, but I'm still glad I read this. It was a quick read, because of the shortness of the book and the poem-y prose it was written in. This is obviously a 9 book, no doubt about it. It was written too skillfully to be anything but. I liked Crow, and his jet-black sense of humor greatly appealed to me. I am mostly unfamiliar with Hughes' work, and I am tempted to read more of Hughes now after reading this book. I've always liked poetry, and any book that gives me an excuse to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon reading poetry is a good book in my opinion. And I like crows, too. Most don't, but I've always had a soft spot for them. They are what they are, and I admire them for their honesty.

This book portrays grief in its rawest, most ugly state. I appreciate that. I didn't cry, but that's just me being me. I wanted too, though, after reading the last lines. When I was putting this book on my shelf after reading, I noticed that on my alphabetized shelf that this book (since the author's last name is Porter) would have to sit next to The Bell Jar. The Dad might not like that too much, but I do.

9 out of 10

All That Is Solid Melts into Air by Darragh McKeon Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“The past demands fidelity... I often think it’s the only thing that truly belongs to us.” - All That Is Solid Melts into Air, Darragh McKeon

All That Is Solid Melts into Air is a gripping end-of-empire novel, charting the collapse of the Soviet Union through the focal point of the Chernobyl disaster. Part historical epic, part love story, it recalls The English Patient in its mix of emotional intimacy and sweeping landscape.

In a run-down apartment block in Moscow, a nine-year-old piano prodigy practices silently for fear of disturbing the neighbors.

In a factory on the outskirts of the city, his aunt makes car parts, trying to hide her dissident past.

In the hospital, a leading surgeon buries himself deep in his work to avoid facing his failed marriage.

And in a rural village in the Ukraine, a teenage boy wakes up to a sky of the deepest crimson. In the fields, the ears of the cattle are dripping blood. Ten miles away, at the Chernobyl Power Plant, something unimaginable has happened.

Now their lives will change forever.

All That Is Solid Melts Into Air is an astonishing end-of-empire novel by a major new talent.

What a beautiful book. How is it that the author doesn't have another novel out? His talent is absolutely insane, to the point where I was shocked it was a debut novel. The last time I felt that way towards a debut was Anthony Marra's A Constellation of Vital Phenomena (highly recommended, by the way). In some ways, this book is reminiscent of that, with a highly precocious child and a surgeon with a dark past- if the setting was moved from Chechnya to Belarus (despite what the summary says, the boy is from Belarus and Minsk is a prominent setting, which is also in Belarus). 

Despite its utter beauty, I still read this book like I was a bad car engine (Cassandra Clare call me), stopping and starting. Sometimes, I would just fly through the book, unable to put it down, and sometimes I would have to reread the same page five times. I found the parts of Chernobyl grotesque and tragic yet gripping and then the story would slow down dramatically as we would go back to Moscow with the piano prodigy. I think Grigory was  my favorite character, along with Artyom (who got jipped out of an ending, in my opinion). I wasn't crazy about Yevgeni, but I liked Maria enough that reading her parts interested me. 

Again, the shining star of this book is the parts about Chernobyl. It was amazing how the Soviets treated the accident, smothering it under propaganda whereas the people were dying of cancer caused by radiation. I didn't like the idea of nuclear power before this (ever since I read Close Your Eyes, Hold Hands)and now I definitely don't. I also did like the parts in Moscow that showed the people's growing resentment of the Soviet Union, evidenced by riots and vandalism, and the older generation who grew up during Stalin, Malenkov, and Khrushchev trying to make sense of this. The fall of empires has always fascinated me, and this book definitely delivers on that.

The ending wasn't my favorite, and it didn't really answer any questions I had about any of the characters. In my opinion, the book should have stopped before that final part, or McKeon should have found some other way to end the book, but it didn't lower my opinion of the book too much. The ending was mediocre, yes, but the book was still beautiful. I also thought that it was somewhat confusing, since there was little introduction to any of the flashbacks. The book really just dove headfirst into them with little warning. But those are really minor problems.

Overall, I agree with everything that people are saying about this book. Of course, because I'm me, I also need to point out the gorgeousness of the cover (seriously, the picture doesn't do this cover justice), and I love the title. It matches the book perfectly. Highly recommended for any bookworm as fascinated by Russia as I am.

8.5 out of 10

Snow in May by Kseniya Melnik Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“She wasn’t lucky—she was brave. Courage was needed if you wanted to live your life and not just hold forth about it at meetings and demonstrations.”- Snow in May, Kseniya Melnik

Kseniya Melnik's Snow in May introduces a cast of characters bound by their relationship to the port town of Magadan in Russia's Far East, a former gateway for prisoners assigned to Stalin’s forced-labor camps. Comprised of a surprising mix of newly minted professionals, ex-prisoners, intellectuals, musicians, and faithful Party workers, the community is vibrant and resilient and life in Magadan thrives even under the cover of near-perpetual snow. By blending history and fable, each of Melnik's stories transports us somewhere completely new: a married Magadan woman considers a proposition from an Italian footballer in '70s Moscow; an ailing young girl visits a witch doctor’s house where nothing is as it seems; a middle-aged dance teacher is entranced by a new student’s raw talent; a former Soviet boss tells his granddaughter the story of a thorny friendship; and a woman in 1958 jumps into a marriage with an army officer far too soon.

Weaving in and out of the last half of the twentieth century, Snow in May is an inventive, gorgeously rendered, and touching portrait of lives lived on the periphery where, despite their isolation—and perhaps because of it—the most seemingly insignificant moments can be beautiful, haunting, and effervescent.

I think my favorite part about this book is the cover. I did like the book too, but just look at that cover! This book was a borderline cover buy because of it. And, you know, the synopsis interested me, but mostly the cover.

This is a book of short stories that I was hoping would be in the same vein as The Tsar of Love and Techno by Anthony Marra, which as you know blew me away completely. There is a bit of Marra in her writing, especially in the story Summer Medicine, but overall she isn't on the same level yet. Melnik's writing is a bit debut-y, but I think that she will grow into a strong writer, so I'm not going to write her off yet. 

The stories were more disjointed in this piece than they were in The Tsar of Love and Techno as well. As a result, I think my some of my favorite stories were the ones that followed Sonya's family throughout the generations. I believe those were Closed Fracture, Strawberry Lipstick, Summer Medicine, and Our Upstairs Neighbor. It made me wish that the book was just stories told from different members of that particular family.

Besides those stories, I also really liked Rumba, about a dance teacher who becomes obsessed with his protege, and Kruchina, about an old woman who visits her mail-order bride daughter and granddaughter in America. The Witch was also a good story, and the style of the prose in that as well as the child narrator made it seem like a dream with dark undertones. While there was some disconnect I felt between the characters, their imperfections made them seem real people just trying to make the best out of their bleak situation.

There are two more stories, Love, Italian Style, or in Line for Bananas, (which is one story), and The Uncatchable Avengers. Of those two, The Uncatchable Avengers showcased Melnik's biggest strength as a writer- her ability to step into a child's perspective- and while Love, Italian Style was my least favorite story, I could see why an older woman in the same Gift of the Magi-esque place as Tanya would love it. Personally, it just didn't fit in with the rest of the stories, to me at least. I suppose the Pavlik in Rumba is supposed to be her son, but I couldn't draw the perfect line I wanted to when trying to figure out how all the stories connected. Again, a stark contrast to The Tsar of Love and Techno, since all the stories obviously connected there. I wish there had been a more obvious framing device tying them all together and not just them living in the same city.

But overall, I don't regret reading this book, if just because of my discovery of Melnik's work. And also, I did add a gorgeous book cover to my collection, so to me it was worth picking up.

7.5 out of 10

Unpopular Bookish Opinions

I feel like this book tag/survey/whatever needs to happen so we can get to know each other through what we hate. Also tags are super popular right now, so I'm just hopping on that bandwagon. Maybe I'll do a different tag each Tuesday. That might be fun, right? This tag was originally created by TheBookArcher, so here's a link to that 
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYfgq8HgDc0

Okay, enough preamble. Here are my unpopular bookish opinions!

*Disclaimer: My opinions are not necessarily your opinions. Your mileage may vary. Batteries not included.*

1. A popular book or series that you didn't like.
People are going to hate me for this but the Harry Potter series! I read the first book and didn't really like it that much, so I never felt the need to read the whole series. So no, I don't know what Hogwarts House I'm in, and no, I don't really care either.

House Snufflypuff! House Shittywinkle! House Smorgasbord!

2. A popular book or series that everyone else seems to hate but you love. 
Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. While I wouldn't say I loved it, it's a book most people never gave the chance it deserved due to the media attention it got. My only real reservation for reading this book was that I was a bit concerned about potential elder abuse that might have resulted in this book being published, which I really hope wasn't the case. I'm still glad I read it nonetheless.

No snark because this is actually a pretty good book

3. A love triangle where the main character ended up with the person you did NOT want them to end up with (warn ppl for spoilers) OR an OTP that you don't like. 
I mean, I would heed that spoiler warning, but if you haven't read The Hunger Games yet what are you doing? Christ's sake, even I've read it!
I think I'm going to say Katniss and Peeta from The Hunger Games (obviously) for this one, because I liked Gale more than Peeta. Actually, anyone would have been better than Peeta.

I mean you both kinda suck

4. A popular book genre that you hardly reach for. 
Oh God so many. I think for this one I'm going to say paranormal, more specifically paranormal romance. Especially paranormal romance. Just doesn't really appeal to me. Also, I don't like romance/chick lit very much because it bores me. LGBT contemporary isn't really my thing either (though if someone can recommend me a great book about drag queens that'd be awesome k thx).

With covers like that how can I resist right? Angel boy take me now!

5. A popular or beloved character that you do not like.
Both Hazel and Augustus from The Fault in Our Stars. Neither of them seem like pleasant people to be around. 
And because I'm an unapologetic Unwind fangirl and want to include a more fandom related character, I also despise Cam. There, I said it. Even after UnDivided.

You're both awful people

6. A popular author that you can't seem to get into. 
Hands down Matthew Quick. I see a lot of people putting John Green for this one, and although I hated The Fault in Our Stars, I haven't really read anything else by him. But yes, Matthew Quick. I know a ton of people love him, but his YA books are so The Catcher in the Rye-sy I can't deal with him. He obviously wants to be a voice of this generation like Salinger was after he published The Catcher in the Rye, and as a result his protagonists are insufferable. No, he's not for me.

Just. Stop.

7. A popular book trope that you're tired of seeing. (examples "lost princess", corrupt ruler, love triangles, etc.)
I can think of two that really piss me off. The first one is overdone villains. When a lot of authors, especially fantasy writers or historical fiction writers, want to write villains, they feel the need to add traits like them being sexist or racist, as if to prove that they are indeed the villains. I feel like this is a tactic to avoid people from cheering on the villain (doesn't really work on me, when the main character pisses me off enough I start rooting for the villain mostly because it's more fun that way and also the enemy of my enemy is my friend). This especially pisses me off in historical fiction works, when everyone thought things that we don't consider to be PC, but that was the way society thought back then and if you can't handle it, stop writing historical fiction.

I also hate it when authors make strong female characters that are overly bitchy- but it's okay, because they're only bitchy to assholes, which is basically every character who doesn't like them in the book. It's obvious that the author just made them like that is because they want to write a tough-talking, no-nonsense female character but they don't actually want to give them unpopular opinions or make them a full out bitch. Also, so that everyone who doesn't like them as a character is just as horrible a person as the characters that don't like them in the book. Just bad character building in my opinion.

8. A popular series that you have no interest in reading.
I would say the rest of the Harry Potter series, but I read the first book and I already used it for the first question, so I'm going to say all of Cassandra Clare's million and one Shadowhunter series. I have no interest in the Mortal Instruments series. I have no interest in the Infernal Devices series. I have no interest in the Dark Artifices series (the fuck does that even mean anyway? An artifice is a device used to trick someone; it makes no sense in that context- but then again, none of the series names do anyway, they just sound Gothic and pretentious). I mean, talk about being a one trick pony- even Rowling is attempting to write crime books. The only reason why I might even consider reading these books is because the bad reviews are pretty funny on Goodreads. Also, I don't believe in plagiarism or publishing fanfiction.

Seriously, and these aren't even all of her books. I would say she's beating a dead horse, but it's more like beating a cash cow since all of her books do stupidly well.

9. The saying goes "The book is always better than the movie", but what movie or T.V. show adaptation do you prefer more than the book?
I think the movie version of The Princess Bride is better than the book. I just preferred the framing device for the movie more than the book, and the way the story was told was also better in the movie. I also heard that Harold and Maude (one of my favorite movies of all time) was based off a book, but the book apparently went out of print years ago so I can't compare the two.

*sigh* I adore this movie

What unpopular opinions do you have? Let me know down below and together, we can commiserate. Safe space, you guys, safe space.

It Takes One by Kate Kessler Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

No quotes because frankly, this book isn't worth quoting

They say there are no secrets in a small town...

Criminal psychologist Audrey Harte is returning home after seven years. She'll have to face the whispers and the rumors that have haunted her family since she left. Because when Audrey was thirteen, she and her best friend Maggie killed Maggie's abusive father. 

Her first night back in town ends in a fight with a drunken Maggie, with her old crush Jake to witness it all. Audrey can't believe it can get worse. 

Then Maggie turns up dead.

Now, Audrey has to find out who the murderer is - before everyone decides that she is to blame. And before the murderer can set their sights on her.

The second mystery I read this year and already, I'm disappointed. I'm also angry, which is not necessarily an unusual reaction for me to have when I hate a book, but in this case, I'm angry not because I wasted my time, but because of what happens in this book. Maybe I should go to whatever anger management therapy Audrey doesn't go to. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I guess the first sign that I wasn't going to totally love this book was the writing. It's rough, to say the least. You can tell Kessler is trying to write a hardboiled crime novel, which is cool with me, but she doesn't have enough talent for it. Or at least, not yet. The writing actually reminds me a lot of the way I used to write back in 8th grade. The characters tell us how we are supposed to feel other characters, making it seem obvious who we are supposed to hate and who we are supposed to love. Personally, that kind of writing grates on me (probably because it's something that I used to do), but it typically goes away with practice. It's repetitive, too, with the phrase "God knew..." as in "God knew she was used to that" used a lot, as well as bastard as in "useless bastard" or "bastard of a father". But still, I persevered on, hoping that maybe the characters and plot might save it.

I also realized, by the time I was 100 pages in, that I hated Audrey. Hated her. She is a bitch, but not an enjoyable one. It's clear that Kessler was way too taken with her. I mean, I get loving one of your characters, but it shouldn't be as obvious as this was goddamnit. She's a textbook Mary Sue, (look at me, using fancy terms like textbook, someone give me a psychology doctorate) with some anger issues and a tragic past thrown in so that the author can deny that she is one. Every single character that hates her is portrayed as being a small-minded bigot whereas every character that loves her is clearly better than the characters that hate her. Even the characters that hate her are just jealous because she's a pretty and successful forensic psychologist. And in case you didn't know that she was a forensic psychologist, she reminds you of that, oh, about 1000 times. It seems like she got her doctorate just to throw it in people's faces, not because of any real love for psychology. I also felt like she would be a horrible psychologist, because she can't separate her emotions from anything. She acts more like a goddamn teenager than any YA protagonist I've ever read.

Nothing in this book felt real to me. The characters and the setting were just hollow and negative stereotypes of a small town. You know, close minded, bigoted, etc. With the exception of Gideon, Kessler must have serious daddy issues, because all the fathers suck. And I swear to God, most of the mystery in this book was finding the mystery. Tons of backstory that I didn't care about, tons of Audrey and Jake action that I didn't care about, stuff like that that just bogged down the book and made it seem more like a contemporary book than an "unputdownable" thriller. Clearly, Kessler was inspired by Tana French and her slow-burning police procedurals, but she seemed to forget that French, while she does dip into the backstories of her detectives, never loses sight of the plot. The central mystery is still the central mystery. Also, her characters feel real people, unlike Kessler's characters. For a book that was billed as a crime novel, there is very little actual police investigation or forensic work or even criminal psychology, to the point where I couldn't believe Audrey is an actual criminal psychologist. That was disappointing enough, but then I got to the reveal of the killer. And I got angry.

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

Okay, so it turns out that Bailey, Maggie's stepdaughter, is Maggie's murderer, and that Maggie was molesting her. I saw her being the murderer coming a mile away, but it's the way that the fucking criminal psychologist Audrey took this whole situation. She blamed Maggie's father, Clint, for driving her to molest Bailey, since Clint is the one who screwed up Maggie by raping her repeatedly. Basically, what she did wasn't her fault at all. No, fuck you, it is her fault. Yes, she was sexually abused, but she didn't have to turn on someone else. I firmly believe rapists or child molesters may be driven to it by something that happened to them, but they still need to have a bit of that "monster" for lack of a better term inside them. It is still their goddamn fault. Maggie does not deserve her forgiveness, and it's completely hypocritical to suggest that Maggie doesn't deserve to be killed whereas her father does when they both did the same exact thing. And what if Maggie's father was sexually abused by, say, his mother when he was a kid? Does that mean he also has an excuse? If Maggie was a guy, Audrey would have crucified him. A few years ago, I read the book Living Dead Girl by Elizabeth Scott, and in that book, the man who kidnapped Alice had been sexually abused by his mother. So, Audrey, is it his fault that he feels compelled to kidnap and rape young girls because of what happened to him? Or is he faultless and deserves forgiveness? Honestly surprised no one has brought this up yet when I read reviews of this book.

MAJOR SPOILER SECTION OVER

Oh come on, I'm being too harsh, aren't I? Focus on the positives! Well, I like the cover, since it reminds me of the album cover art for Glitterbug by The Wombats (one of my favorite bands). Glitterbug is cooler, but I don't hate the way it looks. There is also potential in the writing, but the author still needs a lot of work when it comes to setting and character development, though. The journals were a nice touch, too. I also like how all the titles and covers in the series match, that's fun right? And that's about it for the positives.

Up until the ending, I thought about continuing on with the series, since hopefully the writing may be better (though since the first two books came out in rapid succession of each other I doubt it) and the plot seemed a bit more of a crime novel plot than this one, I thought it might be better. And then I read the ending. Now, I really have to think hard about whether or not I want to continue on to Two Can Play. I might just stick with the Dublin Murder Squad for right now. You know what, maybe I just read this at the wrong time- too soon after Tana French's In the Woods (which was absolutely fantastic and well worthy of its Edgar Award, by the way) and tried to hold this book to that same standard. Who knows, maybe when the third book comes out in June I might forget that I hated this book and marathon both the second and third together. And maybe the moon will catch on fire. Who knows?

3 out of 10

Gilt by Katherine Longshore Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“Because it is human nature to believe the first story heard, and not its rebuttal.”- Gilt, Katherine Longshore

In the court of King Henry VIII, nothing is free--
and love comes at the highest price of all. 

When Kitty Tylney's best friend, Catherine Howard, worms her way into King Henry VIII's heart and brings Kitty to court, she's thrust into a world filled with fabulous gowns, sparkling jewels, and elegant parties. No longer stuck in Cat's shadow, Kitty's now caught between two men--the object of her affection and the object of her desire. But court is also full of secrets, lies, and sordid affairs, and as Kitty witnesses Cat's meteoric rise and fall as queen, she must figure out how to keep being a good friend when the price of telling the truth could literally be her head.

My AP Euro teacher kicked off our unit on the English Reformation with a story about Henry VIII. At the time, pants came in two pieces, and in the middle, holding it all together, would be a codpiece. Apparently, Henry VIII ordered that no courtier was allowed to have a bigger codpiece than his own. That story says a lot about Henry VIII, who is likely the most famous king England ever had.

Apart from a phase in 7th grade where I idolized Elizabeth I, I can't say the Tudors have ever really captured my attention. Nowadays, my interest lies in the Edwardian times, the Roaring Twenties, and Russia (anywhere/anytime Russia), but I still have a small nostalgia-bred affection for the Tudors, so I was interested in picking this book up. It is part of a loose threesome of companion novels, all taking place during the reign of Henry VIII, and this is the least elusive of the three. When I picked it up, I was in the right place to read something like this- Rumors had exceeded my expectations, and that always puts me in a good mood to start a new novel from an author I am unfamiliar with, especially a YA author, since they usually aren't critically acclaimed like adult authors usually are (no hate, just the truth). Right away, though, my main problem appeared. Kitty. I didn't like her as a narrator very much. Normally, I like it when a side character is the narrator, and that tactic is typically used for character studies, which I love. But Longshore gave Kitty an actual storyline and too much personality to make her a good character study-esque narrator. I mean, Truman Capote didn't insert 100 pages of himself doing other things that had nothing to do with Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Because Holly Golightly is the main character, regardless of who the narrator is, just like Catherine Howard should be the main character, not Kitty. I found myself skipping most of her interactions with William and even Edmund just to get to the story I was really interested in, the story of Catherine Howard. There was a lot of background stuff that made the first 150-200 pages a super quick read. 

Quite a lot of the parts with Kitty were super contrived, especially when she encounters Thomas Culpeper raping a peasant woman. It was extremely unlikely she would have encountered this in the first place, and now many historians believe that the rapist was actually Culpeper's older brother, who was also named Thomas (please tell me I'm not the only one who finds that funny). I felt as if Kitty was also really inconsistent as a character, since she goes from being really angry at Cat and hating her to getting mad when others insinuated that Cat's downfall was her fault. There were a few other unnecessary bits with Kitty that also distracted from the story, and in my opinion she should have been scrapped all together. 

I came close to giving this book a solid 5/10 a few times, because I liked the court intrigue and the pretty dresses and especially the parts that dealt with Catherine Howard's downfall, but the thing that mostly held me back was Kitty. As soon as something interesting would happen, a few scenes later we were back in Kitty's dull, dull world. I did like some things, like the more sympathetic view of Henry VIII, something that usually isn't seen in Tudor-era literature, and that Catherine Howard was shown as someone who deserved what she got. Longshore definitely did her homework, also evidenced by her author's note in the back, and most of the problems I saw with her writing were common debut errors that are usually smoothed out by the sophomore novel. The only serious error I saw was, again, the inconsistency of Kitty's voice and her character as a whole. I will still read Tarnish, when I can track down a paper copy of it at least, and probably Brazen after that. Hopefully I will like both more than Gilt.

4.5-5 out of 10

Rumors by Anna Godbersen Review

WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW

“The value of secrets is ever fluctuating although ladies who have been in society for a long time learn that a secret kept can be worth more than a secret told.”- Rumors, Anna Godbersen

After bidding good-bye to New York's brightest star, Elizabeth Holland, rumors continue to fly about her untimely demise.

All eyes are on those closest to the dearly departed: her mischievous sister, Diana, now the family's only hope for redemption; New York's most notorious cad, Henry Schoonmaker, the flame Elizabeth never extinguished; the seductive Penelope Hayes, poised to claim all that her best friend left behind including Henry; even Elizabeth's scheming former maid, Lina Broud, who discovers that while money matters and breeding counts, gossip is the new currency.

As old friends become rivals, Manhattan's most dazzling socialites find their futures threatened by whispers from the past. In this delicious sequel to The Luxe, nothing is more dangerous than a scandal . . . or more precious than a secret.

This is the second book of The Luxe series, a series I never intended to be more than a guilty pleasure series, much in the same way The A Circuit was, though hopefully of higher quality. Regardless, I was unimpressed with the first book, The Luxe. I read it back in December and gave it a 6/10, because I admired Godbersen's ability to sufficiently imitate the writing style of the Turn of the Century, but didn't like any of the characters or really get sucked into the plot. I felt nothing for neither Will and Elizabeth nor Henry and Diana (in truth though, I had a hard time actually liking any of the characters), and it took me a surprisingly long time to get through. Because of that, I admit to putting off reading this book, and while I was thrilled to get to the second book in the Bright Young Things series (which I'm loving so far- sad that there's only one more book left), I wasn't too keen to pick this one up. But I'm glad I didn't completely write this series off, because this book is different than The Luxe. Perhaps simply because I read it at a different time, or maybe it's because I felt that we were finally getting to the actual story. The first book felt very much like a set-up for the rest of the series, but it was much easier for me to get into this book.

While I still care little for both Will and Elizabeth, and I confess to skim reading many of their parts, I did enjoy Lina's and Penelope's and even Diana's storylines. The drama and social intrigue worked better in this book than it did in The Luxe, and I liked the additions of characters such as the Gamesome Gallant. I think my two favorite points of view were Lina's, because I enjoyed watching her climb to the top(and will probably enjoy her inevitable tumble down even more), and Penelope's, because I do love reading from the point of view of scheming bitches. Diana's point of view did work better for me in this book, probably because she (mostly) lost that inane "oh, being poor is so romantic" mindset. Elizabeth was still bland as a blank piece of paper in this book, but again, skim reading. And I could skim read without guilt while reading her parts, because nothing important happened at all. Honestly though, both of the Holland sisters are so selfish. I feel bad for Louisa, because neither of them actually care that their finances have fallen apart and that they could help her, but they don't.

I can't say I was as crushed by the ending as a lot of people are, since again I really didn't like either of the pairings, so that didn't impact my enjoyment of the book. In fact, I admire Godbersen for what she did. Something like that took guts most authors (Anne Blankman) don't have, especially when it comes to romantic pairings. I'm still not as in love with this series as I am with Bright Young Things, and these books are no works of literary art, but when it comes to fluff books I happen to like lengthy descriptions of beautiful and especially historical clothing, Gossip Girl-esque storylines, and everything that has to do with the Gilded Age and the many rules of etiquette and society during that time. Even if there are some historical inaccuracies... But that's for another post.

7-7.5 out of 10