Pamela's Reviews > In the Woods

In the Woods by Tana French
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Jul 12, 2010

did not like it
bookshelves: angst, bizarre, clunky, confusing, disappointing, mystery, pointless, overrated, dnf
Read from December 27 to 28, 2011

** spoiler alert ** Right now, I am mad at two people:
1) The author, for writing half of a brilliant book (that would be the first half) and then spontaneously losing it
2) Myself, for wasting time getting into a story that doesn't go anywhere.

I do not understand the absolutely rapturous gushings about French's "prose." It's, um, well ... I can't describe it. It's just ... writing. I didn't feel ... anything about it at all. So there's that.

At first, I thought the premise was interesting: detective gets on a murder case that resembles one that he himself survived as a twelve-year-old. Alas, he (very conveniently) lost all of his memory from that time, and doesn't remember what happened to himself and his two best friends in the woods (see what I did there?). He's partnered up with a character I really liked, Cassie Maddox, who's smart and spunky and drives a clunky old scooter. She and her partner, Adam (narrator), get along like brother and sister, and their interactions in the first half made me smile.

However, at about p. 246, I came to a terrible realization: the whole murder story is a MacGuffin. A big, stinking, horrible MacGuffin. I skipped ahead to the end and found out that we never find out what happened to the narrator, and his life just falls apart because he treats Cassie like *insert your favorite word for poop here* because he's an egotistical jerk and a really bad detective who makes his partner do all the dirty work. Skipping ahead some more, when I saw who the bad person was, I just sort of moaned. Really? Evidently we, the readers, were supposed to be fooled as the narrator was fooled. It's just ... ta-da! Suckers! Plus, no one gets the comeuppance they deserve, I think.

Here's the thing: Hitchcock could get away with MacGuffins because of his atmosphere, his characters, and his general directorial brilliance. I just felt really angry that I had invested time in these people and in this story that turned out not to be real.

ETA: I was reading the reviews on Amazon (which I don't think are as balanced as they are on Goodreads, but that's neither here nor there) and I came across this little gem in a review passionately defending this book against the Neanderthals who just don't get it: "It is way too literary, layered, full of allusion, and linguistically lush." Oh-ho. Somebody likes his alliteration. I'm sorry, honey, that doesn't change my mind about In the Woods.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read In the Woods.
Sign In »

No comments have been added yet.