Denial

by Jon Raymond

The year is 2052. Climate change has had a predictably devastating effect: Venice submerged, cyclones in Oklahoma, megafires in South America. Yet it could be much worse. Two decades earlier, the global protest movement known as the Upheavals helped break the planet’s fossil fuel dependency, and the subsequent Nuremberg-like Toronto Trials convicted the most powerful oil executives and lobbyists for crimes against the environment. Not all of them. A few executives escaped arrest and went into hiding, including pipeline mastermind Robert Cave.

Now, a Pacific Northwest journalist named Jack Henry who works for a struggling media company has received a tip that Cave is living in Mexico. Hoping the story will save his job, he travels south and, using a fake identity, makes contact with the fugitive. The two men strike up an unexpected friendship, leaving Jack torn about exposing Cave—an uncertainty further compounded by the diagnosis of a life-threatening illness and a new romance with an old acquaintance. Who will really benefit from the unmasking? What is the nature of justice and punishment? How does one contend with mortality when the planet itself is dying?

Denial is both a page-turning speculative suspense novel and a powerful existential inquisition about the perilous moment in which we currently live.

Genres: Fiction, Science Fiction, Dystopia, Climate Change Fiction, Climate Change, Novels, Speculative Fiction

240 pages, Hardcover

First published July 26, 2022

About the author

Jonathan Raymond is an American writer living in Portland, Oregon. He is best known for writing the novels The Half-Life and Rain Dragon, and for writing the short stories and screenplays for the films Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy (both directed by Kelly Reichardt). He also wrote the screenplays for Meek's Cutoff and Night Moves, and was nominated for a Primetime Emmy for his writing on the HBO miniseries, Mildred Pierce.

Raymond grew up in Lake Grove, Oregon, attended Lake Oswego High School and graduated from Swarthmore College. He received his MFA from New School University in New York.

Reviews

[Rachel (TheShadesofOrange) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0 Stars
As someone with a fascination for climate change, I loved this one. Set in the near future, the author draws a very possible world of the coming calamities. The premise is honest but not so grim to be unreadable. Instead this explores the future we are heading towards as our children inherit the world we have forsaken. The actual plot of this story was good, but the worldbuilding is what really drew me into this sparse, smart novel.

[Laura Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jon Raymond has gifted us with an interesting climate change novel with a new twist. The year is 2052 and the predicted environmental calamities have come to pass. The major perpetrators have been held accountable as environmental criminals. Robert Cave was one of the worst offenders but disappeared before he could be brought to justice.

Jack Henry is a journalist who is given information about Cave's whereabouts during the same time he is given a potentially deadly diagnosis. He travels to find him. By chance, Cave befriends him and we learn that doing the right thing is not as clear as we thought.

So who was in denial? It appears we all were. Denial reminded me that no matter how much we may wish otherwise, the past always haunts the present. It also gave me hope for the future and we can always use more hope.

[Rachel the Page-Turner · Rating 2 out of 5]

I tried with this book, I really did. But at about the 60% mark, I had to start skimming. I just couldn’t wait for it to end (not in a good way).

My opinion is probably no fault of the book itself; there is definitely an audience for this book, it’s just not me. I like post-apocalyptic books a lot, but this was pure science fiction that just happens to be set in the far-away future.

I think this made me realize that I also prefer near-future post-apocalyptic more. I thought this would have a thriller aspect, but I was incorrect. Yes, the world was experiencing crazy climate problems as I was excited to see, but it was all like a throwaway. I wanted more of that.

I’m giving it 2.5 stars because I saw it through and while the story was decent in some aspects, overall I didn’t like much about it (the writing wasn’t even that great) but if you are a true sci-fi purist, this one’s for you!

(Thank you to Simon & Schuster, Jon Raymond, and NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my review.)

[Susan Tunis · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars. Who the hell is Jon Raymond, and why have I never heard of him before? I mean, I get that he's more of a successful screenwriter, but he's written other novels. And his name is ringing no bells. And I feel it should be, because this was a really good book!

Cli fi is a big thing now. That's climate fiction, for the uninitiated. And a lot of those stories are big survival epics of one kind or another. (Bruce Holsinger's recent novel The Displacements being an excellent example of the genre.) But Mr. Raymond's book is entirely more subtle. It's set in the middle of this century in the 2050's. And, oh sure, there's an occasional reference to storms or sea level. But this is just a very different approach to illustrating the story, because in the reality of this novel--which really isn't futuristic at all--back in 2032 there were criminal tribunals where fossil fuel executives were tried for crimes against the environment. And these fat cats were locked up in what was, admittedly, a largely symbolic gesture. Except...

Except a few of them got away, went into hiding. They were tried and convicted in absentia, and have been known in the two decades since as the "Empty Chairs." Except... Except one of these men has been seen, and that tip has been passed along to the journalist who is the protagonist of this novel. What I've described is simply the backdrop, the story starts here. And despite the modest length of the novel, there's really a lot more going on within it's pages than I've even hinted at. This is a book about ethics and human nature, far more than it is about speculative fiction.

This is a quick, little read, but it will leave you thinking long after you've put it down. Honestly, I picked it right back up and read it a second time after I finished reading it, to glean just a little more after reaching the denouement. It would be a great choice for book club discussion. And lucky me--I'm about to launch a book club. Highly recommended!

[Jacqueline Nyathi · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

Beautiful writing; but I wanted more from the central plot. Bit of an anticlimax.

[Patrick King · Rating 3 out of 5]

“He’d spent his life despoiling the earth, destroying these children’s very future, and now he was giving them this gift of his knowledge. Although one could also say he was taking a gift from them, feeding on their innocent love and attention, finding undeserved absolution in their adoring gazes. He was like a person who’d given up meat late in life, only to pretend none of it had ever passed his lips. What a lucky guy, to avoid the consequences for so long. How Catholic.”

Not the book I was expecting and not a traditional “thriller,” but instead a measured look at consequence and denial. We can deny our history and we can deny the truth, but reality continues regardless of consequence. The narrative thrives on coincidence, on cosmic happenings.

This book works so well because the reader is allowed to fill in the gaps of history after a brief overview of where we are in history and brief glimpses to changes in attitudes. Generally we’re dealing with propulsive narrative focused on telling the story rather than world-building. It feels, appropriately, film-like.

And for a book on the climate crisis, it almost reads with hope. Things will go on, people will be held accountable. Will it make a difference? Yes and no. At the end of the day, time grinds on.

[Joshua Glasgow · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although I see the value now in audiobooks as their own artform with a character distinct from simply reading the book in print, I still find myself choosing titles which I’m not entirely certain I’ll ever get to if I read them from the page because my interest is only half-hearted. That’s definitely the case with DENIAL, which was one of those dang ol’ Goodreads Giveaways that I failed to get given. I knew that it was written by a Hollywood screenwriter and I knew it was kind of a futuristic story about climate change and while both of those things were enough to interest me initially when I lost the giveaway I didn’t feel a strong urge to read the book. In fact, when I did choose the book for my latest listen, I remained skeptical once I discovered that author Jon Raymond wrote the screenplays for several Kelly Reichardt movies, including Old Joy, Wendy and Lucy, and Meek’s Cutoff. If I’m being honest, I’ve only seen one of these but I think I get the idea from that one—they’re small-scale, plodding, and resolve with a whimper. I expected much the same from the book and, for the most part, that is what I got.

DENIAL does take place in a near-future, sometime in the mid-2050s, in a period after climate disasters have grown so obvious that the CEOs of environment-destroying corporations—oil companies, automobile manufacturers, real estate developers, big box stores, and the like—have been charged, put on trial, and convicted for crimes against the earth. A handful of those charged went into hiding, but were symbolically convicted anyway with their names written on the back of empty chairs a la Clint Eastwood haranguing an imaginary Barack Obama at the 2012 Republican National Convention. One of these “empty chairs” is a former oil tycoon, Robert Cave, who we learn as the book opens may have absconded to Guadalajara, Mexico.

Our eye into the story is a journalist named Jack Genericwhiteman. I’m not positive if I’m spelling his last name right; that’s one of the dangers of listening to audiobooks… you don’t always know how the characters’ names are spelt. Jack is a complete cipher with no character or personality of his own yet he has failed upward into a highly-paid journalism job. Jack, for whatever reason, has been tasked with traveling to Guadalajara to locate Cave, spy on him, and then ultimately “bag” him by ambushing him with a cameraman and a giant fuzzy microphone to get him to admit to his many crimes.

There’s a couple of things I want to say right off the bat. First, Raymond knows no other words to describe the way people speak aside from “said”. He even uses “said” when a character is asking a question! I do wonder whether I would have been so aware of this limitation of the author’s vocabulary if it weren’t for the fact that I was listening to it read aloud, but it quickly became hugely grating and it never let up for the entirety of the book. Even something as simple as “replied” during a conversation between two characters would have added some life to the writing. I’m not asking for “postulated” or anything—just give me an “answered”, or a “responded” or, hell, just a simple “stated”. But nope! It’s said s all the way down. Secondly—and this is specific to the audiobook—the person performing the reading is George Newbern, a great choice actually because both his name and voice are as banal as the character he’s portraying. Newbern has no range, though. This is especially pronounced when he has to give voice to female characters, as it is invariably as a shrill and slightly higher-pitched version of his own voice. The worst of it comes when he has to voice Cave’s Mexican girlfriend Maggie. It’s embarrassing.

The main narrative of the book is about Jack’s façade of friendship with Cave and our protagonist’s growing unease regarding the task he’s there to accomplish. Actually, though, the moral quandary about what purpose does it serve to punish this man now is but a tiny part of the book. It’s certainly there, though, and it’s a reasonable question. He’s reformed, as far as we can tell, and not destroying the planet actively. Does putting him in jail at this point serve any end except the thirst for justice? Is it, as some suggest, a way for the public to absolve itself for responsibility for climate disaster by making a handful of people at the top the “scapegoat” for a systemic problem? I wish the book had engaged with these sorts of ideas with more directness. Instead, so much of the book is given over to agonizingly in-depth discussions about how a fish dinner should be prepared, or a long and pointless interlude where Jack gets a flat tire while traveling in the Mexican countryside and has to stay overnight in the backroom of a restaurant. That is, so much of the book seems like filler: dawdling on unimportant events just to take up space. Take, as an example, a lengthy sequence where Jack and his girlfriend Sobie (who is attracted to him for god-only-knows what reason) drive to a nursery and choose between two different trees to purchase for Sobie’s tweenage daughter. Exciting!

In fairness, I did feel a sense of tension throughout the read in that I wondered whether Cave already knew about Jack’s identity and was toying with him in some way. I wondered whether Sobie was somehow involved in the con on Jack. I wondered whether a mysterious malady Jack may or may not be suffering from was itself the result of some treachery on Cave’s part. To avoid getting too spoilery, I won’t say specifically how any of those questions turn out except that I feel like I personally was bringing that tension to the book—I’m not confident that it was something that Raymond was intentionally developing. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop because it seemed like something needed to be in the works. You know, sometimes when I’m awarding a star rating, I re-read my reviews of other books I’ve rated to help me judge where a book falls: is it more similar to Book A, which I gave three stars, or to Book B, which I gave two stars? I didn’t do that this time before settling on a rating, but today I did happen to look back at my review of a recent audiobook, PATRICIA WANTS TO CUDDLE, which I also gave 2 stars. I described a similar feeling in that book, the tension of expecting something to happen… eventually. That general tension without any clear antecedent can be effective in the moment, but after the fact feels so ephemeral. It’s akin to J.J. Abrams’ “mystery box” plot device in that you realize how empty it was when you give it any thought.

So I guess mostly I’d say I didn’t really care for this book. There’s some tension throughout, but it ultimately doesn’t reach a terribly satisfying payoff. There’s some hints at a moral dilemma, but it’s addressed on a pretty superficial level. Those are about the only things I can say in its favor.

[Tessa {bleeds glitter} · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a bit unsure as to the actual point of this book. It's just too short for all the themes it tries to cover in my opinion. We're supposed to juggle a very poorly explained world post-climate change (basically? I think?), the MC finding out he's potentially deathly ill, a rekindled friendship turned romantic relationship, muddled future politics and the main storyline of a former oil exec (or something like it) who got away from sentencing back in the day and has now been found- and should be brought to justice (or should he?). That is too much for such a small book. It just is.
Apparently everyone is in denial about something in this book and we all are too, but where is the actual message of this story? My takeaway from the main storyline is that this is about ethics, starting a discussion about when to forgive and what punishment is appropriate and even helps. I'm not sure I entirely agree with what little Raymond says on the topic, even though I did feel for this old man. But when is a monster a monster? Is evil only evil if it continues to do so? Of course these are difficult questions to answer and have a plethora of possible (and arguably correct) answers, but that just once again shows that this book is too short.
The rest of the story kind of went completely over my head, because I don't know why it was in there at all. Especially the romance felt incredibly forced and useless and all the time wasted on that could have been used for some more world building.
Interesting book for sure and mostly well written, especially with how effortless Raymond endeared this old man to us, but I wanted more.

[B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

The protagonist seemed to be rather unconscious, unthinking, presented as a rigid automaton for whom there are no shades of gray, despite the opportunities, especially his wrestling with his own mortality.

There were no significant plot twists, only the humdrum progress towards the supposedly dramatic ending at the bull ring…

The uncertainties of the relationship with Sobie after an extremely uninspiring vacation. The writer brought in repeated, heavy handed and grating characterization of her Mom-ness.

I felt the plot has been building nicely but then it fizzled completely when the journalist had no particular thoughts that came up after his illness started to encroach. The whole thing fell flat at that point and I was irritated by the author’s passing up an opportunity to explore his character’s growth and the moral ambiguity that Sobie started to bring up, but which got quickly shut down.

[Dan Bloom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This Cli-fi noir thriller is set to be the most important climate themed novel of the 21st century. The "On The Beach" of 2020. And very soon, like in 2025, a Hollywood movie, as the author has already been commissioned to pen a screenplay based on the novel.

[Kimberly Gershman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goodreads giveaway book
I actually enjoyed this read even though it's not my normal to to book I like to read. But I enjoyed the story line and the ending for sure. I look forward to more books by this author

[thebookybird · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

“𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥,” 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. 𝘈𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥.”

“𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴,” 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥.

“𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥,” 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦. “𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦.”

This conversation in Denial is a perfect summary of the larger themes working behind this small story.

Set in the near future in what feels like a realistic representation of life after climate breakdown/crisis, we follow Jack as he heads to Guadalajara to uncover a former fossil fuels executive who’s been hiding since being tried and charged in what is known as the Upheavals, a trial for crimes against the environment. But as Jack goes undercover and gets to know Robert he is met with a moral dilemma. Who does this exposure really benefit?

This is a very introspective read, unlike other climate fiction this one is quiet and thought provoking using language and simple plot opposed to dystopian catastrophes. Its simplicity is what captivated me but also left me wanting more, cli-fi is a hot topic and while I love this distinct lens and complicated psychology I still wanted that extra push to a more profound epiphany in the end.

Overall I highly recommend to those interested in climate stories and I am now craving more of these distinctive narratives in that realm.

[Neil Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a slim, concise cli-fi (or whatever climate science fiction is called) read with kinda a noirish vibe to it; it reminded me of Modiano, actually, in the world-weary tone of the protagonist. It's also interesting in how it shows a future that...isn't as terrible as it could be with the climate. Like, things are obviously really bad, but there is still a society and a semblance of a life that isn't just misery. It reminds me of a very efficient and "soft sci fi" version of Kim Robinson's "Ministry of the Future."

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Raymond is a good story=teller. This is engaging, imaginative, and probably memorable (time will tell). Recommended.

Thanks very much for the free ARC for review!!

[Csimplot Simplot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book!!!

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always enjoyed novels set in the near future, mostly dystopian ones but some utopian. Denial takes places in the year 2052 and is neither of the two; it just is. There was an uprising at some point, which was more successful than most. A lot of Earth-destroyers were held accountable and a lot of things changed for the better. Not enough to make life much better, but enough to make it not as bad as it could have been.

The novel centers around Jack, who's a normal dude living somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. He's a reporter who gets diagnosed with an incurable, but largely unknown disease in the opening pages and then gets the story of his life. It involves one of the men who escaped prosecution for his crimes against humanity, and has been found in Mexico. Jack heads down there to befriend and expose the creep and has some adventures while doing so. He falls in love, his disease progresses, and he ends up liking the man he's been sent to expose more than he intended.

If I had to use one word to describe Denial it would be consistent. There weren't any section where I felt like I wanted to stop reading, but there wasn't much that had me too stoked either; the story just flowed. Raymond does a good job of describing the environment both in the PNW and down in Mexico and he gives us just enough information about some of the changes that have occurred between the actual present and the present of the story. The final twenty pages definitely had me feeling uncomfortable in a good way, and the ending was just enough of an ending if that makes sense. This would be a good book to devour on a plane or long bus ride.

[Eman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fairly quick read with an interesting plot, brilliantly written with so many anecdotes. This is one of those novels that stays with you after reading it.

This is considered sci-fi and revolves around how the world in 2052 has decided to revolt against fossil fuels and all of the companies who had enabled that industry. Most major corporations were held accountable, all but 8 key people were missing during the trials.

Our story starts with Jack who is a reporter in the US who stumbles upon Cave by chance. Cave is one of those eight people who vanished off the face of the earth. He was discovered 20 years later in Guadalajara. That’s the general synopsis.

I’ll update this later with my notes - there’s a lot. But the main message I took from it, when it comes to cases like this, is about accountability. Often we as a society rally behind these causes and demand certain people and corporations to be held accountable while casting all other instigators as innocent. Problems are complex, people are complex, judgement is complex but justice? That isn’t complex at all with how the archaic system is set up. I’ll leave this statement from the book here: “Willful ignorance is no defense. Denial is an act of will.”

[Cory · Rating 2 out of 5]

As I read this, I kept thinking of the line from Joan Didion, "fiction is in most ways hostile to ideology." I have never seen that axiom on clearer display than in Denial, a book so ideological, even the grandest literary vision couldn't make it compelling or artful. This is shocking coming from Kelly Reichardt's frequent collaborator; I didn't imagine someone so in her orbit could produce something so contrived and unsubtle. Not to sound too bad faith, but the narrator was so myopically and dogmatically Portlandesque his depiction bordered on satire for me. The book is hobbled by his sanctimonious assertions of ethical consumption and habit of utilizing overly-technical language to describe things that are actually pretty simple. For me, it was an illustration of the extent to which how someone says something can feel even more distancing and alienating than what they are saying.

[Jean Wu · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked the premise of the book, thought crimes against humanity —climate change perspective was interesting and creative. In an interview I heard about the book on NPR stating this book was a page turner, I would disagree, however a few interesting facts I learned from the book made it worthwhile for me: 1) bull fighting is cruel, 2) Frederick Douglas and Mark Twine were good friends 3) Jackson Pollock was a student of Jose Clemente Orozco 4) Orozco’s equivalent to sistine Chapel in Hospicio Cabanas located in Guadalajara, Mexico -a UN historical site is a must see (adding to my bucket list). I didn’t know what to expect so I was curious, but comparing corporate greedy executives to Nazi War criminals…hmmm…unfortunately I didn’t find Robert Cave as despicable.

[Nick Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been wanting to get my hands on this for sometime. Jon Raymond is the screenwriter and story partner to Kelly Reichardt, my favorite director, and many of her films are adapted from his novels.

Much like her movies, his books are incredibly engaging without being overly dramatic. Each moment, each scene, each paragraph is delicately crafted. The dialogue is simple. The characters are normal people.

Denial tells the story of a story that’s already concluded. The ending wasn’t rushed, but our time in this future America felt insignificant to the larger narrative being told. I’m fine with what we got to see, but someone wanting more catharsis might not enjoy this one. If that’s you, I’d stay away from Reichardt’s work while you’re at it.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jack reunites with Sobie, a friend from years ago, while picking out new glasses. Clearly some weird things happened in their past and during the intervening years, but they are only hinted at. The novel centers around the story of finding Robert Cave, an Empty Chair who was convicted in absentia of Crimes against Life, along with the Thirty Three. But Bob, as he is now known, seems to be living a quiet life in Guadalajara, even volunteering time with local school children. How will his capture and subsequent life behind bars change the awful state of the environment in 2052? The intriguing characters and excellent writing in sparse style, leave room for readers to make their own conclusions. A great book club pick, as there is so much to talk about and everyone will have an opinion on something!

[Karlos · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic novel from the writer of Kelly Reichardt's brilliant movies (including my favourites Old Joy and Wendy & Lucy among others). Set slightly into the future - 2052 - this barely qualifies as SF even if technically that makes it so, the novel is instead a moral tale that asks many questions without directly interrupting the humancentric narrative. Lightly drawn yet believable characters populate this fairly fast-moving storyline which is unafraid of presenting ethical complexity and moral quandary. All in all a great read 4.5/5 although GoodReads only accepts whole numbers. Raymond is up there now as one of my favourite authors alongside Kerouac, Magnus Mills and Paul Auster.

[Monica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this book thinking it was going to be a short dive into a story about climate change in 2052 - a reporter ready to expose and aid in the arrest of a man who has evaded justice due to his part in crimes against the environment. Silly me...this book was "that"...but it was really so much more. So beautifully written. Walking through Guadalajara, an eclipse, a short history of painting, a man with an uncertain future, birds, and sunrise and sunsets...and did I mention so beautifully written..."a tapestry of words" is what I call this.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story kinda felt flat for me at some point, but the idea is brilliant.

[Mattschratz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The end was really good.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

so good….. love when a book makes me second guess how i should feel. i am slightly filled with dread!

[Candace Felixson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not great.

[Mitchell Greenberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

movie pairing: Night Moves (2013)

[Steven Lazen · Rating 3 out of 5]

“And we shook hands, two readers far from home, two liars who’d found a magnet of truth.”

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

A perfect short novel, and an ingenious view of the near future.