andrewhatesham's reviews
358 reviews

Carrie is intriguing from the start, it doesn't take long to get pulled into the plot. We have this teenage girl who's relentlessly bullied, seemingly for no reason, and you want to know: what's her deal, and why does everyone hate her? You know kind of early on, how the story ends. So rather than a mystery, it's more of a "how did we get from point A to point Z" type of read.

The way the plot is structured is pretty cool, it's kind of like an epistolary novel, but instead of just letters, it has fictional news clippings and excerpts from books within the Carrie universe.

You get to experience things through the characters' perspectives, as well as retrospectively, through the fictional news clippings, book excerpts, and interviews of some of the characters. There's also Carrie's inner monologue, which was creatively woven throughout the story, that was my favorite element to the whole book! 

The build up to the final act is great. But then you get to the final act, and all that tension just fizzles out. It drags on and on. That is where the book fails me, I actually prefer the ending in the movie (1976 version), while I prefer everything else in the book, leading up to the end. There's more character development and background context, though it's still a quite short and fast paced book which I appreciate.

This sort of reads more like a crime thriller, with a sci-fi twist. I did know going into it that this was King's first novel and one of his less scary ones, so I'm not bothered by that.

Male-gaze-ickiness aside, this is mostly an enjoyable read, I would recommend it to those of you who like fictional crime stories and elements of sci-fi, or anyone who wants to pick up a King book but doesn't want to go for one of the scarier or lengthier ones. This is more sad than scary.

I will probably continue to read books by SK but I'm not in a rush to move on to the next.

Sometimes I find it hard to review classics and other old books because I'm not sure how to go about it — should I think of it solely through a modern lens, or should I put myself in the shoes of those who made the book a classic? That change in perspective can significantly affect my thoughts. Is this vaguely homophobic and forgettable, or is it riveting and bold? 

I found roughly the first half of this book to be fast paced and gripping. I was drawn in by the mysterious main character, Mr. Tom Ripley, and the height of the plot was excitingly creepy, but that's where the problem lies. The interesting part happens less than halfway through the book! From then on, it's a trifling drag. Way too many details about every little decision the MC makes and how it may or may not affect him and his plans. I wish there was a bit more character development, or at least a little more focus on action rather than logistics.

In terms of purely personal taste, I disliked the European vacation settling. Too much coming and going from one place to another; it was hard for me to picture what each scene looked like and to really feel immersed.

This might have been a banger read back in the day, but I didn't find it to be anything special and I'm honestly not sure what modern readers like so much about it. I don't plan on picking up the next book in the series.

This one took a long time to really get started. I read the first 100 pages over the course of a month. Then I finished the rest of the book in one sitting. I'm not really sure why the beginning is so slow paced, I wish it didn't take so long to get to the action! Notable developments to the characters happened mostly through the last half as well.

My mood changed. I'll come back to this another time!

This is the book I'd recommend to anyone who read "How to Do Nothing" by Jenny Odell and thought it was an esoteric dumpster fire.

I'll admit, I was skeptical going into this. I thought it would be another throw-away self help book that would take over 300 pages to convey a blog post's worth of recycled information. Well, I was wrong. This isn't even a self help book, which I appreciate, because the concept of regaining your ability to focus isn't as simple as putting timers on your social media apps and learning how to meditate. Hari acknowledges and explores the fact that our waning abilities to focus, isn't an individualistic problem, it's systemic.

Be warned, you have to take some of this with a grain of salt (don't believe everything you read in a book!) because Hari is clearly biased and doesn't seem to present everything 100% objectively, and maybe also referenced unreliable studies. Another thing I will say, is that there were some eye-roll worthy moments where, for example, Hari made statements about being unaware of certain things that are obvious to most. He probably tweaked the truth for dramatic effect.

All that aside, I found this to be very engaging, thought-provoking, and written in an accessible way. It's also nice to be reassured that having issues with focusing isn't some kind of personal moral failing. While this isn't a self help book telling you what you should or shouldn't do, it leaves you with useful ideas to keep in mind and potentially research for yourself. I think the greatest piece of information I got out of this was the importance of mind wandering, and allowing yourself time to UNFOCUS. Maybe it isn't groundbreaking information, but it's something that has stuck with me, so far.

I'd recommend this as long as you're aware that you probably shouldn't take it all at face value. It's better as a jumping off point to do your own thinking and researching because it lays out many good questions to pursue.

Also, the conclusion falls flat. You could skip it and probably not miss anything important.

Read this while on vacation, it's a good book if you, as an adult, are looking for something funny and mostly lighthearted. I'm sure this would have been much more compelling and impactful if I had read it as a 9 year old! If you have a kid in your life, this might be something to recommend to them.

Soft DNF. I swear I'll come back to this, because I see potential, I just don't have the patience for it right now. Nothing against the book at all, it's just me, I'm in the mood for something more fast paced!

This book pleasantly surprised me.

I originally added Maurice to my TBR because of the interesting background story, that's what got my attention. Forster wrote this in 1914 but it wasn't released until 1971, the year after he died. This book is so explicitly gay that it couldn't safely be published in its time. 

Maurice is about a gay man in the early 1910s, struggling to come to terms with his sexuality, and dealing with queer romance. The novel also explores themes of religion and class.

I won't spoil anything, but the specific detail that is apparently the main reason why it couldn't be published – it's just sad. And ironic.

it has a happy ending, or at least can be interpreted as happy. Apparently this would have been more acceptable if it had ended with suicide... how awful!

As I was putting together a loose TBR for autumn (it's only the end of August, I'm an early prepper), I took this book into consideration, reading the first few pages to help me decide. Well, I was instantly pulled in, only taking a few days to finish the whole book. Maurice is pretty fast paced for a classic. The writing style is sweet at times, but not too wordy. It also feels very... contemporary for its time, if that makes sense? Rather than having an almost universal "old timey" feel. It's kind of like how The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton absolutely screams 1960s, with certain terms and phrases that don't show up much in other eras, as far as I know.

In addition to the writing style being more fast paced and accessible than I had expected, Maurice is surprising because it's even more explicitly gay than I had imagined. If I were around in the 1970s and read this, I'd be gobsmacked! Can't even imagine what it would have been like if it were released in 1914. Of course, this is very tame compared to more recent pieces of queer media, thankfully we've come a long way since the early 1900s.

Now, let's get into what I didn't like. While I think the somewhat plain language is okay, I felt that the plot needed more room to breathe, maybe ~20 pages longer to flesh things out better? Particularly the last act, which was originally even shorter?! Not everyone will agree, but it uses a certain trope that is a huge turn off for me as a reader. The trope:

insta-love, aka love at first sight. Ack! It's just not believable, and makes it hard to identify with the characters, especially with a new character being introduced late on in the story. I'm a slow burn fan

Overall, I didn't connect deeply with this book, but it was entertaining to read, and I appreciate its uniqueness.

I would recommend Maurice if you like: queer history, academic settings, morally gray characters, ambiguous endings.