cs5332's review against another edition
1.0
I’m angry that I have contributed anything to Sixsworth’s profits. After doing some research and then reading Susan Kavanaugh’s (Michael’s good friend) one star review, it is evident that Sixsmith added much to this story that sullied Michael’s story.
rjmcewan's review against another edition
3.0
Not bad, but different from what I expected. And I don't think I much like the "narrative history" style; seems to speculative and full of the author's interpretation.
canadiyank's review against another edition
2.0
I read this book because I saw a positive review of the movie and I typically like to read books before I see the movie. The book started out strongly and with a very interesting premise, but I would not recommend it. I have since found out it was highly fictionalized (presented as a true story), there is very little in it about Philomena's search (a bit at the end to cover all 50 years), and the dialogue throughout was completely made up. Disappointing. I liked the movie much better, even if one of the main events (Philomena going to America to search for her son) was in and of itself fiction. It was frustrating to read something that was supposed to be an "expose" of the selling of Irish babies and the search of both Mike/Anthony and Philomena to find each other devolve into an extremely poor narrative that read like a tabloid paper.
mary412's review against another edition
1.0
This was a daily deal on Audible so the price was right but I began to lose respect for it when Sixsmith said that Antony's adoptive family lived in St. Louis, Illinois. Yes, I know East St. Louis is in Illinois but a journalist should have fact checkers. I don't know if this book is classified as non-fiction, but it should be historical fiction. When you quote conversations between two people who were alone at the time and are now dead, I say it's fiction. That said, I continue to listen so I have to give it at least one star.
The screenwriters [Steve Cogan & ?] are to be commended for finding the fascinating story depicted in the movie. Yes, I know the movie did not stick to the facts, but I understood that from the beginning.
The screenwriters [Steve Cogan & ?] are to be commended for finding the fascinating story depicted in the movie. Yes, I know the movie did not stick to the facts, but I understood that from the beginning.
kaloughl's review against another edition
3.0
The edition that I have of this book is very misleading. It was the movie tie in edition with Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan on the cover. Having seen the movie and been very intrigued by the horrendous history of Magdalene Laundries, I was excited to get this paperback half off at a bookstore. It took me a while to finally read but by the time I finally picked it up, I was so disappointed by how far off this book was from the movie, I almost had to stop. I persevered and definitely found some redeeming qualities but I wish I had gone into it with a different perspective.
Despite the new title (matching the movie of the same name, ,Philomena) and the majority of the blurb on the back of the book being about Philomena Lee, a young unwed mother who was forced to give birth in an Abbey and slave in a laundry until her sin was paid off, that particular bit of the story only lasts 84 pages, took a long break for 318 pages and then comes back for the final 18. The 318-page gap is about her estranged son she was forced to give up for adoption to an American family who came to Ireland seeking a daughter and left with a little girl and her best friend, young Anthony Lee.
Anthony Lee was rechristened Michael Hess by his adoptive family, a very loving mother, a not-so-loving father, and three brothers, one of which was a bully for most of Michael's childhood. I actually found Michael's story intriguing -- after a comfortable but not easy childhood where he continuously questioned his origins and lamented the circumstances of his birth/adoption, he went to college and came into his homosexuality. This being 1970s, he kept his sexual orientation under wraps. In his adulthood, he was a closeted gay man who worked as a lawyer for the Republic National Committee during the AIDs epidemic. If I had picked up a book that posited that as the content, I would have been interested in reading and learning about this man. He happily lived with his boyfriend and yet worked for a political party that hated people like him. He lived closeted while thousands of people died from AIDS and the Republican Party refused to use funds to find a cure. He ended up dying from the disease that his party ignored for so long, calling it the gay plague. I mean, this guy is fascinating! I'm glad I picked this book up while living in NYC in June 2019: World Pride! However, the fact that I was prepared for a "poignant true story of a mother and the son she had to give away" (literally the blurb from the cover) and discovered not even 100 pages in that this was ~not~ expected story of Philomena Lee, was disappointing and lead me to resent a lot of the book.
In this rare case, I would even argue the movie was better than the book. The producers took a tiny piece of this story and created a very good film that told an important story about the abuse of unwed mothers and their children in Ireland. Whoever made the decision to re-release this book with the title and visual from the movie and claim that this story, originally written in 2009, is the same as the 2013 movie was off their rocker. I'm sure it lowered the books ratings on every site just because readers and movie-watchers were disappointed by the disparity. Great, the movie is a good adaptation, re-release the book as the story that inspired it, DON'T try to trick people with a title change and Judi Dench on the cover!!!!!!!! Good marketing, bad morals.
Despite the new title (matching the movie of the same name, ,Philomena) and the majority of the blurb on the back of the book being about Philomena Lee, a young unwed mother who was forced to give birth in an Abbey and slave in a laundry until her sin was paid off, that particular bit of the story only lasts 84 pages, took a long break for 318 pages and then comes back for the final 18. The 318-page gap is about her estranged son she was forced to give up for adoption to an American family who came to Ireland seeking a daughter and left with a little girl and her best friend, young Anthony Lee.
Anthony Lee was rechristened Michael Hess by his adoptive family, a very loving mother, a not-so-loving father, and three brothers, one of which was a bully for most of Michael's childhood. I actually found Michael's story intriguing -- after a comfortable but not easy childhood where he continuously questioned his origins and lamented the circumstances of his birth/adoption, he went to college and came into his homosexuality. This being 1970s, he kept his sexual orientation under wraps. In his adulthood, he was a closeted gay man who worked as a lawyer for the Republic National Committee during the AIDs epidemic. If I had picked up a book that posited that as the content, I would have been interested in reading and learning about this man. He happily lived with his boyfriend and yet worked for a political party that hated people like him. He lived closeted while thousands of people died from AIDS and the Republican Party refused to use funds to find a cure. He ended up dying from the disease that his party ignored for so long, calling it the gay plague. I mean, this guy is fascinating! I'm glad I picked this book up while living in NYC in June 2019: World Pride! However, the fact that I was prepared for a "poignant true story of a mother and the son she had to give away" (literally the blurb from the cover) and discovered not even 100 pages in that this was ~not~ expected story of Philomena Lee, was disappointing and lead me to resent a lot of the book.
In this rare case, I would even argue the movie was better than the book. The producers took a tiny piece of this story and created a very good film that told an important story about the abuse of unwed mothers and their children in Ireland. Whoever made the decision to re-release this book with the title and visual from the movie and claim that this story, originally written in 2009, is the same as the 2013 movie was off their rocker. I'm sure it lowered the books ratings on every site just because readers and movie-watchers were disappointed by the disparity. Great, the movie is a good adaptation, re-release the book as the story that inspired it, DON'T try to trick people with a title change and Judi Dench on the cover!!!!!!!! Good marketing, bad morals.
booksaremysuperpower's review against another edition
2.0
Read the review by Susan Kavanaugh. She is featured in the book and was a longtime friend of Michael Hess, the "lost child of Philomena Lee". I cannot speak to what is true or not true in the novel, but she certainly has the authority to claim that much of this novel was completely fabricated.