Scan barcode
A review by toofondofbooks_
Book Lovers by Emily Henry
emotional
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
fast-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? It's complicated
5.0
This book has had mixed reviews among my friends for months, and so I've been *worried* to pick this up and really excited to pick it up at the same time. The complaints that I kept hearing were that this wasn't really a romance even though it was marketed as such, that it was more about the sisters. People came to this book for a romance and got familial trauma and a complicated sibling dynamic.
I get why they didn't like it, I don't think that this book is for everyone, but I think because I knew going in that this was more about sisterhood than romance, I wasn't disappointed. Like its predecessor, "Beach Read," Book Lovers is heavy on the family dynamics and familial trauma, and is often flat out sad. There is still a romance IN it and its prevalent, but this is very much a story about the growth in the relationship of Nora and Libby (whether or not I liked Libby as a character is a completely different post altogether). While a lot of people hated this aspect, I think it made the book more memorable for me. It reminded me of a Hallmark movie but with more depth.
It was refreshing to see a female character from Emily Henry who is so starkly different from her other heroines, Poppy Wright (my beloved) and January Andrews (my other beloved). It was even refreshing to me for there to be a character in an Emily Henry book that I didn't like. I didn't know that was even possible, and instead of it making me rate the book down a star, it just made me more entertained.
People We Meet On Vacation is still my favorite Emily Henry book but, like Beach Read, this also captured me. Interesting characters and a great atmosphere from my newest auto-buy author.
This is the section where I'm going to share a critique - I know, wild that I'm adding a very specific critique to a 5 star book, but I feel like I'd be doing people who genuinely trust my opinions a disservice if I pretended this book was perfect.
Anyway, there is a line in the book that gave me pause. My best friend and I both raised our eyebrows at this line from Nora:
"Straight men have it too easy. A heterosexual woman can see a very normal looking, nonsexual appendage, and biology's like, Step aside, last four thousand years of evolution, it's time to contribute to the continuation of the human race."
My issue here isn't that Nora is straight and experiencing attraction, but the use of the word heterosexual specifically feels not only unnecessary, but unintentionally exclusionary. It seems to me that while writing this part, Henry - in order to not seem like she was lumping all women together (after all, not all women or afab people experience attraction to men and some don't experience sexual attraction at all, and furthermore, sexuality is obviously a spectrum and many women are attracted to men, women, and those who do not conform to the gender binary), she overcorrected and got too specific, which felt kind of alienating to read as a member of the lgbt+ community. It isn't a *big* thing, but it's still a thing that's been on my mind. I don't think that EH was trying to be exclusionary or homophobic here, but I think that line could've been taken out or edited a certain way so as to not come off strangely.
I get why they didn't like it, I don't think that this book is for everyone, but I think because I knew going in that this was more about sisterhood than romance, I wasn't disappointed. Like its predecessor, "Beach Read," Book Lovers is heavy on the family dynamics and familial trauma, and is often flat out sad. There is still a romance IN it and its prevalent, but this is very much a story about the growth in the relationship of Nora and Libby (whether or not I liked Libby as a character is a completely different post altogether). While a lot of people hated this aspect, I think it made the book more memorable for me. It reminded me of a Hallmark movie but with more depth.
It was refreshing to see a female character from Emily Henry who is so starkly different from her other heroines, Poppy Wright (my beloved) and January Andrews (my other beloved). It was even refreshing to me for there to be a character in an Emily Henry book that I didn't like. I didn't know that was even possible, and instead of it making me rate the book down a star, it just made me more entertained.
People We Meet On Vacation is still my favorite Emily Henry book but, like Beach Read, this also captured me. Interesting characters and a great atmosphere from my newest auto-buy author.
This is the section where I'm going to share a critique - I know, wild that I'm adding a very specific critique to a 5 star book, but I feel like I'd be doing people who genuinely trust my opinions a disservice if I pretended this book was perfect.
Anyway, there is a line in the book that gave me pause. My best friend and I both raised our eyebrows at this line from Nora:
"Straight men have it too easy. A heterosexual woman can see a very normal looking, nonsexual appendage, and biology's like, Step aside, last four thousand years of evolution, it's time to contribute to the continuation of the human race."
My issue here isn't that Nora is straight and experiencing attraction, but the use of the word heterosexual specifically feels not only unnecessary, but unintentionally exclusionary. It seems to me that while writing this part, Henry - in order to not seem like she was lumping all women together (after all, not all women or afab people experience attraction to men and some don't experience sexual attraction at all, and furthermore, sexuality is obviously a spectrum and many women are attracted to men, women, and those who do not conform to the gender binary), she overcorrected and got too specific, which felt kind of alienating to read as a member of the lgbt+ community. It isn't a *big* thing, but it's still a thing that's been on my mind. I don't think that EH was trying to be exclusionary or homophobic here, but I think that line could've been taken out or edited a certain way so as to not come off strangely.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Mental illness, Misogyny, Sexual content, Suicidal thoughts, Grief, Death of parent, and Pregnancy
Moderate: Medical content and Alcohol
Minor: Violence, Abortion, Sexual harassment, and Injury/Injury detail