To start with, I listened to the audiobook, and HIGHLY recommend this format if you plan to read the book. This is absolutely a five-star performance. To my recollection, I have never listened to a Julia Whelan audiobook before, and I will certainly be seeking out more of her work. The audiobook experience isn’t just auxiliary to the reading process: the entire plot is set in the world of audiobook recording, and there are all kinds of insider tidbits into how professional narration works that are themselves worth the price of admission. Because the narrator is also the author, it seems pretty clear that she set herself some deliberate narration challenges as she wrote, and she pulls them all off with aplomb.
The main character here, Sewanee, is an experienced narrator who used to be an actor, then got her start narrating romance, then transitioned away from romance to do more “serious” book narration. Part of the backstory here is that Sewanee was in a serious accident, which resulted in her losing her eye, and that change made her feel forced to leave film and television acting and go into audiobook narration. Her injury and facial scar are something she grapples with throughout the entire book, and I don’t necessarily feel qualified to comment on how that’s represented, but I would recommend seeking out reviews from others who have more informed things to say about this element of the story. There's a lot of focus on Sewanee's feelings about her accident, about finding her career path again, about her relationship to her best friend (a successful actress) and her grandmother (who suffers from dementia). That's a lot to balance along with a significant romance plot, and the book mostly does it well, I think. Mostly.
What primarily tripped me up about this book is that it's very meta, but at times had a reductive view on romance as a genre, despite coming from what feels like (and is presented as) an insider perspective. There are a lot of jokes about romance - which to be clear I have no problem with in theory. No genre is without its own foibles, and certainly there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out or making fun of them. And I do want to avoid that weird gate-keepery territory of assuming that it's ok for "romance readers" to poke fun at their genre, but not for others to do so. It's... a complicated thing, and I think on the whole this book walked both sides of a line. A lot of times the fun-making felt like it came from a place of deep understanding and love for the genre's quirks. For example, there's a great scene where Sewanee and her love interest talk about the differences between subgenres, and start spitballing about how their story would end differently if they were in a women’s fiction book vs a romance novel. The bit where they take turns imagining wild plot twists involving billionaires and kidnappings if their love story turned out to be a genre romance was genuinely hilarious and charming: I listened with a giant smile on my face the whole time.
But… there are also a LOT of cliches about the genre in here, and I didn’t love the way Thank You For Listening was positioning itself as… not *better* than the genre it’s written and marketed in, per se, but certainly more evolved and revolutionary? It’s hard to do this without discussing some major plot points, but I'll try to be as vague as possible.
Part of the problem is that some of the cliches about romance here are just tired or unnecessarily normativizing. There are a LOT of unoriginal jokes comparing romance and audiobook reading to pornography. At a book convention that Sewanee attends early on, romance readers get presented, I thought, as an undifferentiated block of straight middle-aged women with no interesting thoughts about what they read, who just want to ogle cover models and salivate over (male) audiobook narrators. (The assumed straightness of all romance readers is a blind spot that the book itself replicates. The only queer "representation," such as it is, is one man with a Tragically Dead Partner, and two puerile jokes about whether the male LI is acutally - hur hur- dating a man. Dislike.)
Anyway, in particular the idea that “most romance readers and creators aren’t smart enough to distinguish between the genre and real life” gets baked more and more into the premise as the book goes on. At one point we are told that June French (the author of the romance Sewanee and the mysterious Brock McNight are narrating) was borderline neglectful to her adoptive son because … no man could ever measure up to the heroes she wrote, and so she just … hated all men in real life? Come on.
This may seem like a small detail, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like the basic thesis of Thank You For Listening was that the book, and its MCs, were somehow revolutionary for their understanding that romance “in real life” doesn’t have to be like it is in romance novels. Sewanee’s big final epiphany is that it’s ok to take a chance on something even if HEA isn’t guaranteed, and to make her own way and figure things out as she goes. And while I absolutely love that as a conclusion, I don’t love how it was presented as this massive revelation that no person who loves the romance genre has truly understood?
I mean... there's absolutely an interesting discussion to be had around whether the function of writing love and desire in romance is to be mimetic, or if it's to present an escapist unattainable fantasy, or if, in fact, it's some combination of the two that tries to reach emotional authenticity through agreed-upon representational codes and tropes. But it just didn't feel like this was a book that thought its readers - or any romance readers really - were capable of that kind of nuanced analysis of the genre. Maybe I'm just being cynical, and I'm certainly sensitive to the idea that I'm being talked down to as a reader. But something here just didn't quite gel for me personally.
Finally, there's a fair bit of poking fun at romance’s plot formulas (including third act breakups and grovels and HEAs) which is ironic because… I think this book has a LOT of pacing problems? In particular, there's a weird double-reveal about the male love interest's identity that felt unnecessarily convoluted, it happens at exactly the same time as a massive fight between Sewanee and her best friend, AND a deeply upsetting episode with Sewanee's grandmother (whose experience in a care home has been a significant part of the plot- please see the CWs on this, I don't think the book really realizes how traumatic this bit could be for some readers). And the book has given itself such a big mess to solve with Sewanee and her love interest that it just... ships them both off to Italy to work on their romantic issues? Meaning that for a good 25% of the book Sewanee doesn't even *think* about her massive blow-up fight with her best friend, or her grandmother's increasingly precarious physical and mental health, even though both women have arguably been a much bigger presence in Sewanee's life, and in the book, than her LI up to this point. It's not the worst plotting issue I've ever run into, and to be honest I might not even have mentioned it here except that... the fact that romance has a fight/make up formula doesn't make it easy to write. Case in point being that the book fumbled it here, I thought.
On the whole, I have to give the audiobook a lot of credit for holding my attention all the way through, which isn't often the case. But I do think that this book is trying very hard to be meta about its relationship to romance, without either fully thinking through its relationship to the genre, or assuming that readers are capable of doing so themselves. A mixed bag, really.
CW: discussion of Sewanee's accident (described in detail in the past), discussion of dementia and a suicide attempt by a secondary character, secondary character death.