Scan barcode
A review by jacki_f
The Wicked Sister by Karen Dionne
2.0
Let me start by saying that I like Karen Dionne's writing. I was a fan of [b:The Marsh King's Daughter|32889533|The Marsh King's Daughter|Karen Dionne|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1479249640l/32889533._SY75_.jpg|53504581] and this is every bit as immersive. I read this book in a few hours, so it's not the complete mess that my two star rating suggests but hand on heart, I can't recommend that anyone should read it.
The story is told in dual narratives. We begin with Rachel who has been (voluntarily) in a mental hospital for 15 years. Although her parents' death was ruled a murder/suicide, Rachel can remember standing over her mother's body and believes that she killed her at the age of 11. She is wracked with guilt and wants to prove to herself and the world that she was responsible. Then someone shows her the police report which says that she can't have fired the gun in question and just like that she immediately starts to question what she has believed for 15 years.
The alternate narrative is Rachel's mother telling us her story starting 30 years earlier when she and her husband move to the remote Upper Michigan location where they will live for the rest of their lives. They have only one child at this point, Diana. In case you're wondering how the story pans out from here, the title helpfully gives away the gist of it. And there's the problem: it's clear from the get go what must have really happened and it's pretty easy to figure out how the story will pan out.
Then you throw in the fact that Rachel is so in tune with nature that she receives tip offs from talking spiders, birds and even dead bears. Add two parents who choose to not talk about or turn a blind eye to things in a way that surely no halfway responsible parent would do. Plus there's a character (Charlotte) who behaves in ways that make no sense other than to drive the plot forward. It all ends up being both frustrating and predictable.
The story is told in dual narratives. We begin with Rachel who has been (voluntarily) in a mental hospital for 15 years. Although her parents' death was ruled a murder/suicide, Rachel can remember standing over her mother's body and believes that she killed her at the age of 11. She is wracked with guilt and wants to prove to herself and the world that she was responsible. Then someone shows her the police report which says that she can't have fired the gun in question and just like that she immediately starts to question what she has believed for 15 years.
The alternate narrative is Rachel's mother telling us her story starting 30 years earlier when she and her husband move to the remote Upper Michigan location where they will live for the rest of their lives. They have only one child at this point, Diana. In case you're wondering how the story pans out from here, the title helpfully gives away the gist of it. And there's the problem: it's clear from the get go what must have really happened and it's pretty easy to figure out how the story will pan out.
Then you throw in the fact that Rachel is so in tune with nature that she receives tip offs from talking spiders, birds and even dead bears. Add two parents who choose to not talk about or turn a blind eye to things in a way that surely no halfway responsible parent would do. Plus there's a character (Charlotte) who behaves in ways that make no sense other than to drive the plot forward. It all ends up being both frustrating and predictable.