Scan barcode
corriejn's review against another edition
3.75
A whodunnit mystery within a whodunnit mystery-- the first half of the book is a murder mystery story set in small town England in the 1950s, and is presented as a manuscript an editor is reading. The second half reverts back to modern times and the editor-- with a new set of characters and storylines to get to know, which I found a bit jarring. I didn't enjoy the second half as well as the first, and found it dragged a bit.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty, Animal death, Child death, Death, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Terminal illness, Violence, Blood, Death of parent, Murder, Fire/Fire injury, and Injury/Injury detail
justineboots's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-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
5.0
This was a really good two-in-one whodunnit!
Normally when people say a book has put a twist on the whodunnit, it turns out poorly - but this was quite well-executed.
Both mysteries were very engaging and the way that the two were intertwined by the author was very interesting. Neither of their resolutions were quite as satisfying as I would have hoped, however. In one case, it was a bit undercooked - a little gooey and runny, so to speak. In the other, I had guessed the culprit though not the motive.
Still I was eager to get to the end and while I felt a bit let down by the endings, it wasn’t quite enough to ruin the entire book for me.
There are potentially triggering topics in this book, however, I will say that I found them to be handled quite well and not used purely for shock value.
Normally when people say a book has put a twist on the whodunnit, it turns out poorly - but this was quite well-executed.
Both mysteries were very engaging and the way that the two were intertwined by the author was very interesting. Neither of their resolutions were quite as satisfying as I would have hoped, however. In one case, it was a bit undercooked - a little gooey and runny, so to speak. In the other, I had guessed the culprit though not the motive.
Still I was eager to get to the end and while I felt a bit let down by the endings, it wasn’t quite enough to ruin the entire book for me.
There are potentially triggering topics in this book, however, I will say that I found them to be handled quite well and not used purely for shock value.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, and Suicide attempt
amandas_bookshelf's review
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Cancer, Child death, Death, Terminal illness, Blood, Death of parent, Murder, Abandonment, and Classism
Moderate: Sexism, Suicidal thoughts, and Suicide
Minor: Bullying and Homophobia
breezer's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
For a book with such an interesting premise it was SO BORING
Content Warnings
Graphic: Fire/Fire injury
Moderate: Child death and Suicidal thoughts
navayiota's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
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
4.5
I loved the way this was written, a book within a book, two mysteries, and two clever solutions. Always happy to read a murder mystery.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Cancer, Child abuse, Child death, Death, Drug abuse, Drug use, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Terminal illness, Violence, Blood, Grief, Death of parent, Murder, and Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Pedophilia, Dementia, Abandonment, and Alcohol
lucigrimm's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
The way this story is told immediately draws you in. Told, initially, from the point of an editor who works with an infuriating author is enough to pique anyone’s interest. Having the story then flash into the book being read over is an excellent touch.
You see many themes and characters that feel familiar and grin to yourself, all the whole wondering if you can figure it out what is happening before it is revealed.
This is truly a book that even if when you put it down will dance in the back of your head making you wonder if your murder mystery skills are up to snuff.
You see many themes and characters that feel familiar and grin to yourself, all the whole wondering if you can figure it out what is happening before it is revealed.
This is truly a book that even if when you put it down will dance in the back of your head making you wonder if your murder mystery skills are up to snuff.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cancer, Suicidal thoughts, 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
frillyflutee's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death and Death
Moderate: Animal death, Cancer, Suicide, and Violence
Minor: Suicidal thoughts and Terminal illness
caitlin_bookchats's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Suicide, and Terminal illness
Minor: Suicidal thoughts
More...