Review Detail3.6 38
That’s just the beginning of my grumbles with this book. I have a theory that good writing is like good acting. I don’t know if this is just me, but I’m much better at spotting really bad actors than I am at spotting really good actors. That’s because a good actor draws you into the story and the character, and the actor just completely vanishes. I mean, the hallmark of good acting is kind of that you forget someone’s acting. Bad acting, on the other hand, puts a barrier between you and the story, because you’re constantly reminding that someone is trying, and failing, to act. I think writing is the same way.
This book felt like writing. I could see the author trying to plot out each course of action, which normally was, “What is the dumbest thing Nora could do, even though I’ve told readers she’s a smart character?” Then there are also the lines like “his eyes looked like they didn’t play by the rules”. You kind of get what she’s getting at there, but it still feels clearly like writing. I think the worst example of this is the fact that there’s a rollercoaster ride named “The Archangel”. It’s not exactly symbolism if it hits you over the head, and I don’t know why an amusement park would call a ride something like that in the first place.
There are too many problems to list within the actual plot of the book, so I’ll give a quick rundown of some of the biggest issues without details: Nora and Vee call in a bomb threat and there’s not a huge search for the caller/we never hear about it again? Biology does not equal sex education, you’re thinking of health. Predatory stalking and what almost plays out as attempted rape does not equal romance. Police are not going to question a minor without a guardian present unless absolutely necessary, and if they do, said guardians will be informed immediately.