56%
24.05.26The pacing is poor, there's too much exposition, the fact checking is still dodgy (has the author ever actually listened to a podcast?), the characters are underdeveloped but still I keep reading this series so there must be something about it that engages me. Maybe I just hope that this time it will be better.
68%
21.06.26This was marvellous in all senses, with the added bonus of featuring my local city Norwich and its Theatre Royal. It's a strange, hypnotic, poetic fever dream that's certainly a fresh take on, well, everything. But it's let down by wandering too far into the grotesque, and the author's ugly drawings don't do it any favours either.
60%
17.06.26Who doesn't love a psychopathic narrator with no redemption arc? Well, lots of readers if you go by the reviews. But a bad person does not make a bad novel - in fact, it's cleverly paced and the emphasis here is definitely on the fun. (Apart from when she killed a cat. Oh, yeah, and a couple of people too, but there's no excuse for killing a cat.)
56%
15.06.26It's not a bad book (it's in fact well written, well characterised, quite well plotted) but it's so unrelentingly depressing that I simply didn't want to read it. But, after many attempts, I forced my way to the end, but that was somehow even more depressing (spoiler! But this is Liz Nugent, after all: evidence #1; evidence #2).
14.06.26
This was as messy and illogical as Harriet's performance on Traitors.
08.06.26
This wasn't as tragic as some of Joyce's other books but it was still pretty dark. But it was frustrating, too. Beautifully written, of course, but it didn't finish where it should have done and I was hoping that karma would get the utterly unlikable and entitled adult siblings, too dependent on their manipulative father, and it sort of did, but then... it didn't. Because having siblings is apparently always preferable to not, even if they're horrible.
02.06.26
I wasn't sure what to make of this character-led slice of life. Time was treated interestingly - the narrator looks back and forth on a surprisingly modern 1950s - and the scenes, especially of publishing, clearly had some basis in an amusing and awkward reality. But the plot, such as it was, seemed bolted on, and the odd and slightly unreliable narrator never seemed to get to the point. I doubt I'll remember it in a couple of months.
43%
26.05.26This was... exuberant, with strong sense of place (Manchester) and time (the 1980s), although the pop culture references were rather shoehorned in. And that was the problem - a better edit would have sorted the awkwardness, poor pacing and repetition. In particular, characters rolled their eyes on almost every page, which must be as tiring for them as it is for the reader.
23.05.26
My verdict on Grisham's novels is either great or guilty of being poor - the best thing about this one is the marketing strapline on the cover. The interesting idea was badly paced and even more badly written, with cardboard characters and details that have horribly (and fascinatingly) dated over the thirty years since it was written.
21.05.26
Like the designs in the story, great idea, poorly executed.
12.05.26
I liked the refreshingly fun, irreverent tone and vivid worldbuilding. I didn't like the inevitable power-imbalanced, male-possessive romance, the narrative inconsistencies or the main couple being the only characters with character, and not particularly likable ones at that. But a refreshingly fun, irreverent tone and vivid worldbuilding counts for a lot.
06.05.26
This was a fun read but so confusing, with its unnecessarily complicated 'explanation' for 'what really happened' and its interchangeable female characters. I wouldn't even say it was twisty - more that its unreliably unreliable narrator revealed unpredictable information as the story progressed.
61%
01.05.26This Tyler is so early that the distinctive small-town 1960s setting was contemporary. It's stranger and sadder than her later work - and it's not set in Baltimore! - but it's as intriguing and beautifully captured as ever.
63%
26.04.26This was well researched and compelling with a great two-word hook - Jesus's wife! - but I wondered at the choice of exiling her while he was doing all the messiah stuff. Then I realised that it was really about the first-century female experience and the biblical Easter eggs (ha!) were just for decoration.
22.04.26
I've finally managed to finish a Joanne Harris book, but it was still underwhelming. She's a poetic writer, in many genres, but, like the works of Neil Gaiman, this fantasy, though vivid, was emotionally unengaging. And the main character was such an idiot that when he seemed to die near the end I really hoped that was it.
18.04.26
Many people say this is the best Heyer novel but it was pretty indistinguishable from the others - spirited heroine, noble hero, comedy supporting characters, unlikely coincidences. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
15.04.26
I didn't hate this but it didn't work for me. The podcast-transcript format can work well but here it seemed like a gimmick instead of the standard third-person narrative it should have been. Factual errors spoilt the immersion (when it is 9am in the UK, it is not, and never has been, 5pm in LA). The '90s setting was not convincing. The romance was hard to take seriously. The 'twist' was obvious from early on but was still never properly explained. All these things, as I say too often, could have been solved with a proper edit.
11.04.26
Promoting this as a fairytale retelling does it a disservice. There are no fairies or romance - it's in fact a dark tale of a flawed woman fighting for survival. But it's well written (if very American in tone and language) and unpredictable enough to keep one reading until midnight.
