It always feels weird to critique someone's memoir. It's their story and they can tell it how ever they want. That being said, The Spitboy Rule fell flat for me. I think I was expecting more depth and analysis. I didn't feel very connected to the author, somehow it felt like she was holding back or guarding herself. Despite my interest in 90's punk culture and in intersectional feminism and analysis, the reading experience was fairly dull.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
I don't know why people like writing about stuff they clearly don't know anything about. It's kinda embarrassing. Also this book does that annoying thing where everything is conveniently revealed at the end and side plots and details that were never mentioned before come out of nowhere. Poorly executed thriller that fails to create any tension at all.
What a brutal read! This book was hard to get through because being in Hank's head is horrifying, but I couldn't put it down. The psychological manipulation and compartmentalization he engages in is so chilling and gross. A really interesting character study and look at human psychology. As with The Ruins, I didn't love the way Scott Smith wrote the women characters. I really wanna know more about Sarah and what motivated her actions. She was a bit of a question mark for me.
Overall, a very effective, impactful reading experience that made me squirm with discomfort.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Phew! This book is bleak as hell, but overall, I really enjoyed it. It's gory and deeply unsettling. The physical and psychological anguish experienced by each character is relentless. The pacing is slow and meticulous but somehow manages to be consistently engrossing throughout. The "monster" in this book is refreshing in its originality. I found it much more disturbing than an actual monster, ghost, etc. And the constant shift in perspective was expertly pulled off.
There were a few things that bothered me about this book. The biggest problem I have is when Jeff accidentally sees Stacy's breast and then contemplates the differences and similarities between Amy and Stacy's nipples. I really hate when male authors include that kind of shit. The women characters are sexualized for no reason and in ways that the men never would be. Amy and Stacy are written as Madonna/whore stereotypes. I guess there's some "commentary" about this when Eric describes how Hollywood would write their story, but still, the only two women in the book are comparatively two dimensional and clearly written from a male perspective. The shallowness of the women and the references to their bodies really made this book go from 5 to 4 stars. I thought the whole pretext for the group to be in the jungle in the first place was weak and could've been fleshed out more. I feel uncertain about how the Mayan community was portrayed. They are nameless, voiceless, and for our purposes basically interchangeable. And like the environment itself, the Mayan people are a lethal threat to our (white) main characters, with unknown motives. On one hand, the way the Mayans were presented felt realistic to how the main characters would view them. At the same time, it's hard to say where the characters end and the author begins.
I had to read this as a first assignment for my Montessori teacher training program. I'm passionate about the Montessori method and the contributions it has made to child care and education. This book is kinda awful though. The breathless adoration and reverence for Dr. Montessori is exhausting and off putting. She was an important person but also was surely a flawed human. The writing style is very old fashioned and dense. There's lots of flowery language that I imagine would make this book inaccessible to some ESL readers.
The book is also painfully out of date in its politics and worldview. Dr. Montessori is favorably compared to Columbus (an explorer "discovering" new frontiers, etc). Significant parts of Dr. Montessori's life considered to be "unpalatable" (like the child she had outside of marriage) are left out. There is also language and concepts that are classist, ableist, misogynist, etc. I know social tolerances for these things continue to evolve and I think there can still be value in problematic (harmful?) texts like this one. However, for an overall better reading experience, I'd recommend one of the more modern books about Dr. Montessori and her work.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.5
Trans horror with themes of antifascism is right up my alley but I'm bummed to say I didn't really care for this book. Like a lot of other reviewers, I think both the book's message and horror elements could've been more effective in a short story format. As it was, some passages felt like filler and the pacing was off. The writing was fine but felt a bit juvenile at times, especially in the first third of the book.
I'm also a bit confused by the overall message of the book. And I'm uncertain about fascism as being rooted in some kind of paranormal evilness. It reminds me of the dangers of blaming racism, homophobia, etc on mental illness. The scary thing about fascism is that normal humans just like me are willing and able to take on the most horrific beliefs. The normalcy of it is terrifying. To be fair, Rumfitt did show characters who were conflicted and/or who held internalized unconscious bigotry. Either way, this wasn't a book for me but maybe it's your jam.
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
"She's far happier thinking her sister is normal, even if she has a lot of problems, than she is having an abnormal sister for whom everything is fine. For her, normality-however messy-is far more comprehensible."