Scan barcode
leannanecdote's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Animal death, Body horror, Bullying, Cancer, Child abuse, Child death, Chronic illness, Death, Fatphobia, Homophobia, Infidelity, Physical abuse, Suicide, Terminal illness, Toxic relationship, Violence, Xenophobia, Blood, Medical content, Grief, Death of parent, Murder, Abandonment, Injury/Injury detail, and Classism
renyoi's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
Really clever take on meta mystery, which is becoming more and more of a popular genre these days. It’s relatively rare to find an author in favor of the “death of the author” philosophy in any real sense, but Horowitz definitely advocates for that position in this book, which is refreshing. Very cozy read. Not as subversive as I would have assumed based on the conceit, but I didn’t mind that much by the end.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body shaming, Chronic illness, Death, Fatphobia, Suicide, Terminal illness, Toxic relationship, Xenophobia, and Fire/Fire injury
Moderate: Animal death
Minor: Ableism, Homophobia, and Misogyny
erebus53's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.25
Full disclosure, I am not normally a fan of murder mystery, and I picked this one up as a book club read. I tend to like a bit of Midsomer Murders and have often quipped that most episodes of the show have an Autistic character somewhere in there, but this is the first time I have ever heard a little-Britain story that explicitly says that the weird loner is Autistic.
This story is meta as füc# .. the main character is an Editor who is reading the last work of a murder mystery writer. The author of the work she wishes to publish, dies with unfinished business but appears to have ended his own life.. or has he? Or is a murder mystery fan just taking off on flights of fancy and imagining herself a sleuth.
As a book reviewer.. this book is really strange to read. Every point that I recognise in story construction is explained by the main character as she tries to assess the work she is reading; it feels really weird to look at a story and think "ah it could be this person, but that wouldn't be a satisfying conclusion, and this person is an OBvious choice and so therefore will HAVE to be a red herring.. " only to then have those ideas explicitly expounded upon by the narrator of the story. How can your review a book that it reviewing itself?!
Events in the unpublished fiction, tend to echo events that are unfolding in the story of the Editor, and it starts to get blurry in places and you wonder how much of what is going on is conspiracy, how much is causal, and how much is coincidental.
Amongst this stuff, conversations in the "real world" (of the book) feel like self-criticisms of the genre as a whole, and of the book itself. I can't help but feel THIS book is just trying to be clever, but it leaves me holding a handful of messy hints that the author of THIS book, feels like writing murder mysteries is a practice of making a product that sells well, rather than being good literature.
I did like the Disability narratives in the book. There is a person who is considered despicable for thinking of Down Syndrome as a disease, a person who has to deal with vision loss (and Audiobooks), and several characters with terminal illnesses.
It was kind of fun, but I was listening at 125% speed, which probably says a lot about the drawn out pace of the book and my desire to get it finished rather than actually enjoying the content. For that, I did have a couple of YUSS! moments where I had predicted things accurately or big reveals that felt fairly rewarding. Maybe if you like these sorts of books more you would get more out of it. It does feel quite like a Midsomer Murders story, with word puzzles in it.
This story is meta as füc# .. the main character is an Editor who is reading the last work of a murder mystery writer. The author of the work she wishes to publish, dies with unfinished business but appears to have ended his own life.. or has he? Or is a murder mystery fan just taking off on flights of fancy and imagining herself a sleuth.
As a book reviewer.. this book is really strange to read. Every point that I recognise in story construction is explained by the main character as she tries to assess the work she is reading; it feels really weird to look at a story and think "ah it could be this person, but that wouldn't be a satisfying conclusion, and this person is an OBvious choice and so therefore will HAVE to be a red herring.. " only to then have those ideas explicitly expounded upon by the narrator of the story. How can your review a book that it reviewing itself?!
Events in the unpublished fiction, tend to echo events that are unfolding in the story of the Editor, and it starts to get blurry in places and you wonder how much of what is going on is conspiracy, how much is causal, and how much is coincidental.
Amongst this stuff, conversations in the "real world" (of the book) feel like self-criticisms of the genre as a whole, and of the book itself. I can't help but feel THIS book is just trying to be clever, but it leaves me holding a handful of messy hints that the author of THIS book, feels like writing murder mysteries is a practice of making a product that sells well, rather than being good literature.
I did like the Disability narratives in the book. There is a person who is considered despicable for thinking of Down Syndrome as a disease, a person who has to deal with vision loss (and Audiobooks), and several characters with terminal illnesses.
It was kind of fun, but I was listening at 125% speed, which probably says a lot about the drawn out pace of the book and my desire to get it finished rather than actually enjoying the content. For that, I did have a couple of YUSS! moments where I had predicted things accurately or big reveals that felt fairly rewarding. Maybe if you like these sorts of books more you would get more out of it. It does feel quite like a Midsomer Murders story, with word puzzles in it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Bullying, Cancer, Child death, Chronic illness, Death, Emotional abuse, Gore, Homophobia, Mental illness, Physical abuse, Suicide, Terminal illness, Violence, Blood, Medical content, Dementia, Grief, Religious bigotry, Stalking, Death of parent, Murder, Alcohol, Injury/Injury detail, and Classism
Minor: Cursing and Pedophilia
epeolatri's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Death of parent, and Murder
Moderate: Cancer, Child death, Chronic illness, Terminal illness, Violence, and Blood
Minor: Ableism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Infidelity, and Suicide
rieviolet's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Murder
Moderate: Child abuse, Domestic abuse, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Violence, and Blood
Minor: Ableism, Animal death, Cancer, Child death, Fatphobia, Homophobia, Mental illness, Pedophilia, Dementia, and Fire/Fire injury
annalisaely's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.0
I read this for a bookclub, and I have to admit this is one of the reason I don't do book clubs. Finding a book that is to everyone's tastes is hard. 1: I like likable characters. There were none in this book. Joy wasn't horrible, but she could hardly carry the book considering the size of her part. 2: I don't like who-dun-its unless the investigator is interesting and likable enough to carry my interest and enjoyment, and I felt meh about Atticus and openly hated the editor (the in story editor, the actual editor is probably a lovely person). Why did I openly hate said editor? Well, I'm autistic. So the first time a body-discoverer was described by a doctor character as "possibly a little autistic" my metaphorical ears perked up and I felt a little stabbing pain in my chest as I internally pleaded to the author, "Please don't be ableist, please don't be horrible to this character."
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism and Terminal illness
Moderate: Animal death, Child death, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, and Death of parent
More...