Scan barcode
vpicard13's review against another edition
3.0
Going into this book, I knew what it was about, and I just kept waiting for it to get to the point. And then it did, and I was left thinking “no, not like that!”
It’s not giving House of the Dragon “yesss fuck your niece!!” ((which, that relationship should also be unpacked in its own right)) … but these kids? Idk… if we could just ~not~ comment on the changing body of a young girl and advance the incest in a predatory way, that’d be super cool.
I get why things happened and developed the way they did considering the very traumatic circumstances, but it feels kind of grown for a YA/children’s book.
Also, Cathy was an annoying narrator bc her character was … annoying. The villain/s were good, though, and the relationship dynamics among each of the characters was interesting to unpack.
It’s not giving House of the Dragon “yesss fuck your niece!!” ((which, that relationship should also be unpacked in its own right)) … but these kids? Idk… if we could just ~not~ comment on the changing body of a young girl and advance the incest in a predatory way, that’d be super cool.
I get why things happened and developed the way they did considering the very traumatic circumstances, but it feels kind of grown for a YA/children’s book.
Also, Cathy was an annoying narrator bc her character was … annoying. The villain/s were good, though, and the relationship dynamics among each of the characters was interesting to unpack.
mrudolph313's review against another edition
5.0
A classic from my childhood, an even better read as an adult. Seeing Cory die was so much more emotional now
juushika's review against another edition
2.0
The four Dollanganger children have perfect suburban lives—until their father is killed in a car accident and, unable to support her children alone, their mother returns to her abusive parents. Their grandmother orders the children kept secret, locked away in a single abandoned room with access to the attic. As their seclusion builds from day into years, the older children must become parents for their younger siblings even while they go through their own turbulent, unaided adolescence themselves. This contrived isolation also leads the older siblings into incest, and for both the isolation and incest Flowers in the Attic is something of a guilty pleasure: a fairy-tale world of children without parents, fending for themselves and falling innocently into society's sins. However, the writing style, concept, and plot are so painfully unskilled, predictable, and clichéd that they suck even the guiltiest pleasure out of the book and, instead, render it just plain bad. The concept is intriguing, but the book itself is a waste of time, and I don't recommend it.
So many of the concepts of this book are secretly intriguing: the sequestered isolation of the children, haunted by the presence of their forbidding grandmother, creates a fairy-tale world where children take the place of adults and build their own rule and structure; the slowly developing romance between the older siblings Chris and Cathy, who have no one else to turn to for support or for love, is forbidden and at the same time genuinely sympathetic. As such there is the barest bit of pleasure in the concepts of the book, and in reading to the next page, the next chapter, to see how the story unfolds and how the characters come together. For these reasons, a number of reviews call Flowers in the Attic a guilty pleasure.
I would take no issue with the book if it were a titillating novel with no redeemable value, just as long as the book were still fun to read. However, Flowers in the Attic is far from enjoyable to read—instead, Andrews's writing style and storytelling verge on painfully bad. Cathy, second child and oldest sister, is the narrator; although intended to be an adult reflecting back on her early adolescence, the narrative voice sounds like a child. She approaches her story with wide-eyed exclamation points and italics, repeated obvious facts, and exclamations like "golly gee!", and this immature narration becomes quite annoying—and strips the character of the premature aging that she is supposed to undergo. Preceded by blatant foreshadowing, most pieces of the plot are visible from a long way off. Rather than creating a tense journey to their revelation, the book's "dark secrets" become laughably predictable. Combined with simplistic clichés such as an entire family with great beauty, flaxen blond hair, and names beginning with C, the novel's construction and writing style strip it of any joy. Guilty pleasure or no, redeeming value or no, the book is horribly written. It's not impossible to read, but it is an unenjoyable waste of time.
Novels about incest intrigue me, sometimes for the thought and sympathy they provoke, sometimes for the sympathy and guilty pleasure. But even as an interested reader I still have standards—although not always high, I at least prefer a book whose writing does not make me grimace or inadvertently laugh. Flowers in the Attic has intriguing premise, and the plot twists are interesting if not skillful, but I can't get past the horrible writing. Some readers may not dislike Andrews's style quite as much as I did, but I still don't recommend this book. There are better novels out there—even frivolous ones—that don't bog down their potential by skilless writing.
So many of the concepts of this book are secretly intriguing: the sequestered isolation of the children, haunted by the presence of their forbidding grandmother, creates a fairy-tale world where children take the place of adults and build their own rule and structure; the slowly developing romance between the older siblings Chris and Cathy, who have no one else to turn to for support or for love, is forbidden and at the same time genuinely sympathetic. As such there is the barest bit of pleasure in the concepts of the book, and in reading to the next page, the next chapter, to see how the story unfolds and how the characters come together. For these reasons, a number of reviews call Flowers in the Attic a guilty pleasure.
I would take no issue with the book if it were a titillating novel with no redeemable value, just as long as the book were still fun to read. However, Flowers in the Attic is far from enjoyable to read—instead, Andrews's writing style and storytelling verge on painfully bad. Cathy, second child and oldest sister, is the narrator; although intended to be an adult reflecting back on her early adolescence, the narrative voice sounds like a child. She approaches her story with wide-eyed exclamation points and italics, repeated obvious facts, and exclamations like "golly gee!", and this immature narration becomes quite annoying—and strips the character of the premature aging that she is supposed to undergo. Preceded by blatant foreshadowing, most pieces of the plot are visible from a long way off. Rather than creating a tense journey to their revelation, the book's "dark secrets" become laughably predictable. Combined with simplistic clichés such as an entire family with great beauty, flaxen blond hair, and names beginning with C, the novel's construction and writing style strip it of any joy. Guilty pleasure or no, redeeming value or no, the book is horribly written. It's not impossible to read, but it is an unenjoyable waste of time.
Novels about incest intrigue me, sometimes for the thought and sympathy they provoke, sometimes for the sympathy and guilty pleasure. But even as an interested reader I still have standards—although not always high, I at least prefer a book whose writing does not make me grimace or inadvertently laugh. Flowers in the Attic has intriguing premise, and the plot twists are interesting if not skillful, but I can't get past the horrible writing. Some readers may not dislike Andrews's style quite as much as I did, but I still don't recommend this book. There are better novels out there—even frivolous ones—that don't bog down their potential by skilless writing.
alwayslivedinthecastle's review against another edition
4.0
read it again lol this book is so ridiculous
maria_rb's review against another edition
4.0
Four stars only because it was the first book I ever read like this and completely held my attention!
snoozemeister's review against another edition
3.0
This whole series is like the grandma of the dark/taboo romance genre. I'm old enough to have read this when it came out, and I devoured it. (Mom was too busy working her arse off to pay attention to the books my preteen nose was buried in). The movie versions are atrocious, but the books really aren't all that much better. I gave it 3 stars for just being the OG of the genre.
the_queen_katz's review against another edition
3.0
I remember reading this book sometime in high school (before I was 15) and when I saw it at the library I couldn't resist picking it up again.
It was everything I remembered it to be,and yet I could not set it aside.
It was everything I remembered it to be,and yet I could not set it aside.
cheyannets's review against another edition
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75