Blythe's Reviews > No One Else Can Have You

No One Else Can Have You by Kathleen  Hale
Rate this book
Clear rating
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read No One Else Can Have You.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
January 1, 2013 – Finished Reading
June 13, 2013 – Shelved as: to-read
June 13, 2013 – Shelved
July 27, 2013 –
2.0% "Well, that was an awesome prologue."
July 28, 2013 –
12.0% "I am enjoying this so much."
July 29, 2013 –
16.0% "I could REALLY do without the multiple animal deaths in this one..."
August 24, 2013 – Shelved as: to-get-back-to
November 1, 2013 – Shelved as: to-read
November 10, 2013 –
24.0% "This is all probably just some kind of postwar flip-out.\n \n So...this book has essentially trivialized PTSD (a fucking postwar "flip-out"?), and will soon trivialize domestic abuse and mental issues (among other things)? \n \n WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THIS IS OKAY.\n \n I. DO NOT. LIKE. THIS. BOOK."
November 10, 2013 –
25.0% "[...] I'm not saying that Ruth brought it on herself for being huggable, or anything, just that the whole Colt thing [Colt being Ruth's ALLEGED MURDERER] makes sense to me now on more than one level.\n \n If this book just excused an alleged murderer and maybe rapist for doing such because the girl who was murdered and maybe raped was HUGGABLE..."
November 10, 2013 –
25.0% "Let's see...in three pages: \n \n 1. The MC has revealed herself to be a rape apologist;\n \n 2. The brother of the murdered girl said he doesn't think the alleged murdered killed his sister because, and I quote, he is a pansy; \n \n 3. and lastly, slut-shaming! Kippy: "So what, everyone's hooked up with [her]. She's like some kind of blonde rabbit in heat."\n \n *uses book to build a fire*"
November 13, 2013 –
28.0% "I can say with certainty that this is one of the worst books I've read this year. Must. Get it. Over with."
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: almost-fell-asleep
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: arc
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: caught-in-a-bad-romance
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: doesn-t-deserve-the-hype
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: disappointments
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: hooray-for-masochism
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: judge-a-book-by-the-cover
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: no-stars-for-you
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: netgalley-edelweiss-arc
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: snark-bait-ooh-ah-ah
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: unmet-potential
November 14, 2013 – Shelved as: was-warned-not-to-read-this
November 15, 2013 –
33.0% "Almost an entire chapter without any offensive comments or actions, and then this happens:\n \n "I'm not going to pretend to be some faggot crybaby like you just because that's what everybody wants."\n \n Should have seen that one coming."
December 11, 2013 –
33.0% "*opens book* \n \n "Your daughter's a hoochie mama," I blurt.\n \n \n \n *closes book*"

Comments (showing 1-50 of 110) (110 new)


message 1: by Katie (new)

Katie Oh gosh. I don't know if I can handle multiple animal deaths.


Blythe It's really just a lot of deer deaths, regarding the gory details of roadkill and hunting season. :/


message 3: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond Eek.


Becki I am stuck at the same spot as you are for the past month, I know I'm going to get angry when shes at the mental health hospital.


Saru (Queen of Bookland) Uh oh. I was looking forward to this too. Since you only just updated that you were 25% through I'm guessing that you DNF'ed it?


Blythe Saru (Queen of Bookland) wrote: "Uh oh. I was looking forward to this too. Since you only just updated that you were 25% through I'm guessing that you DNF'ed it?"

I haven't DNF'd yet. But there's no way I am giving this more than one star.


Saru (Queen of Bookland) Blythe wrote: "Saru (Queen of Bookland) wrote: "Uh oh. I was looking forward to this too. Since you only just updated that you were 25% through I'm guessing that you DNF'ed it?"

I haven't DNF'd yet. But there's ..."


Oh, okay. Is it because of what you said in your previous status about the "Huggable" thing?


Blythe Saru (Queen of Bookland) wrote: "Blythe wrote: "Saru (Queen of Bookland) wrote: "Uh oh. I was looking forward to this too. Since you only just updated that you were 25% through I'm guessing that you DNF'ed it?"

I haven't DNF'd ye..."


It's about that, and the fact that someone is called a "pansy", and slut-shaming, and domestic violence and mental illness are used as punchlines, and PTSD is trivialized for the sake of a laugh. It's all just awful.


Saru (Queen of Bookland) That does sound awful. I might have to rethink reading this.


Jessica Almon For what it's worth I loved this book -- I finished it -- and I have a very different interpretation of the author's dealings with the issues you mentioned above. I think the maybe-flippant nature of the protag's view of PTSD, etc. is a realistic illustration of a very young girl who doesn't know much about the disease. As the book goes on, if you give it a chance, the disease is humanized through her relationship with Davey and she grows up quite a lot. That's what characters do, they grow. There is also no rape or domestic violence in this book -- not sure where you're getting that.


message 11: by Blythe (last edited Nov 11, 2013 10:10AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Blythe Jessica wrote: "For what it's worth I loved this book -- I finished it -- and I have a very different interpretation of the author's dealings with the issues you mentioned above. I think the maybe-flippant nature ..."

A trusted friend of mine told me that there is a scene later on in the novel wherein Kippy and Davey say they are domestically violent, and the scene is used for laughs. And there is rape, (view spoiler). Also, I'm not sure I agree with you about the way in which Kippy treats PTSD resulting from the fact that she doesn't know much about it. Correct me if I am mistaken, but Dom is a therapist of some sort, no? Or something in that field? Consequently, Kippy knows many things regarding mental health; she knows that true schizophrenic tendencies may take until the age of 18 to surface. Yet she does not know what PTSD truly is, despite the fact that she lives in a town where military deployment is not uncommon? It all just seems contradictory. Based on what I've been given in the novel thus far, I think she does or definitely should know enough about PTSD to at the very least restrain from referring to it so insensitively. And I do plan on continuing, so I do hope that I agree with you by the end. But still, the "pansy", "blonde rabbit in heat", and "huggable" passages are all very problematic to me, as is the PTSD comments, because I can't bring myself to see that any differently given the above points I've made.


Jessica Like Jessica, I also read the book in a very different light. First of all, the passage you quoted above about Ruth being "huggable" -- you must have missed the "not" in there. Kippy is NOT saying it's because Ruth is "huggable." If anything, that line is evidence for the fact that this book comments on the way small towns (often poorly) handle tragedy and how average people talk about and react to difficult situations like this. Just because this young girl's father is a therapist doesn't mean Kippy would actually understand any one mental disorder. Who does, especially when you don't have first-hand experience with it? I think another thing this book does well is -- pretty accurately -- show how a young girl from a close-minded, toxic place can recognize injustice, start to view her world in a different light, and act against that injustice. Most of us, especially people who live in places like this, grow up with words and ideas shoved into our mouths, and it can be very difficult to learn "right" from "wrong" in this situation. Why are you targeting Kippy? Why aren't you saying the same things about the heinous police officer? Surely, then, you see the difference. This book is about learning and growing up, and I don't think it's much suited for people who tend toward knee-jerk reactions. Everyone who wanted to read this book should read it, and not have their opinions colored by one poster's misplaced rage on Goodreads.


Jessica Almon Well said. Thank you! Jessica wrote: "Like Jessica, I also read the book in a very different light. First of all, the passage you quoted above about Ruth being "huggable" -- you must have missed the "not" in there. Kippy is NOT saying ..."


message 14: by Becki (last edited Nov 14, 2013 10:37AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Becki Blythe wrote: "Jessica wrote: "For what it's worth I loved this book -- I finished it -- and I have a very different interpretation of the author's dealings with the issues you mentioned above. I think the maybe-..."

I agree with you Blythe I am having so much trouble with this book and I heard something about the Kip and Dave fake abuse scene and I cringe. First you should never make something like that up ever. Your just adding to the discrediting of actual victims. And then to treat it like a laughing matter when it never should be is sick.

Jessica wrote: Like Jessica, I also read the book in a very different light. First of all, the passage you quoted above about Ruth being "huggable" -- you must have missed the "not" in there. Kippy is NOT saying it's because Ruth is "huggable."...

I also have to point out I live in a small town and have never had someone elses ideals and beliefs shoved down my throat. Or gotten confused on what is right and what is wrong. I believe the author streched the small town living a bit too much into NRM.


Jessica If you aren't willing to at least *try* to understand what the author was trying to do, then I don't see how this can be a productive conversation. You comment indicates that you have not even read the "fake abuse scene," which means there's no way you've digested it and thought about what it means or suggests on a deeper level.

The fact that you think "you should never make something like that up" shows me that you are ill-equipped to critique fiction of any kind. Let's all try to think a little deeper. Do you honestly think the author wrote the "fake abuse scene" to make fun of domestic violence?

Use your empathy, people.

The thing about beliefs being "shoved down the throat" is, despite my choice of words, not so outwardly violent. It's called socialization and it happens to everyone. Your culture influences the way your think Your beliefs might align with the town you grew up in -- so there's no friction there, is there? Kippy's ideas, on the other hand, do not. Which is the main conflict of this novel. (If she didn't sense something was wrong and the town was brushing off a very serious issue, then there wouldn't be a book and the truth of Ruth's death would never be vindicated.)

Humor me. Tell me you realize that this is a *very common* conflict among people, especially young women.


message 16: by Blythe (last edited Nov 14, 2013 04:31PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Blythe Jessica wrote: "Like Jessica, I also read the book in a very different light. First of all, the passage you quoted above about Ruth being "huggable" -- you must have missed the "not" in there. Kippy is NOT saying ..."

And you must have missed the "makes sense to me now on more than one level" part. Kippy is saying that Ruth's death MAKES SENSE to her, what, because she was huggable? Is that not what the passage states?

And while there is a possibility Kippy wouldn't know much about PTSD, if she knows enough about something as seemingly random as schizophrenia to know that true symptoms may take 18 years to arise, she should know PSTD well-enough to at least treat the issue with respect. Especially since she lives in a state in which it very common for people to enter the military (especially in a small town), and, as a result, likely suffer from PTSD.

And I'm targeting Kippy because we're actually supposed to like her and understand her. And I haven't come across too many "heinous" incidents with the police officer yet; only with Kippy, and with Ruth's brother. And it's not just that I'm targeting Kippy, it's the way the entire novel is written and handled, which is in such extremely poor taste. Rape is brushed off as it is nothing; PTSD is referred to insensitively with no drawbacks for the characters whatsoever; domestic abuse is the punchline of a joke, as is mental illness. That's what I have a huge problem with. If you're going to incorporate such issues in your novel, treat them with respect. The author of this novel is doing quite possibly the farthest thing from treating each and every one of these issues with respect.


message 17: by Blythe (last edited Nov 14, 2013 04:37PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Blythe Jessica wrote: "If you aren't willing to at least *try* to understand what the author was trying to do, then I don't see how this can be a productive conversation. You comment indicates that you have not even read..."

The only reason I'm still reading this book (which is one of my most hated books of the year, so I likely would have quit by now in other cases), is so that I can get to this particular scene.

And excuse me, but the fact that Becki thinks a domestic abuse scene played off for laughs "shows [you] that [she is] ill-equipped to critique fiction of any kind" is rude and far, far off the mark. You requested a productive conversation? Perhaps you should get rid of the condescension and insults in your own comments.

On the other hand, authorial intent does not negate a reader's perception. The author may not have written this domestic abuse scene to poke fun at the matter, but the fact is that the scene is, according to many, used for laughs. You can say that such vastly different views in authorial intent and readers' perceptions are a result of poor comprehension skills or the reader being "ill-equipped to critique fiction"; I say that the author's execution in this scene, and scenes throughout the entirety of the novel on every single page, is terrible. She does not regard any of the issues I've mentioned above tastefully, and does not amend the distasteful comments made by many when concerning such issues. If the author's execution was actually well-written, and the characters had an epiphany of sorts that domestic violence is not something to joke about, nor is mental illness, then I can assure you many negative reviews would read differently, including mine. But so far in the novel, and according to friends of mine, right up until the end there are no penalties for the characters and their offensive actions/statements.

Refer to PTSD as "postwar flip-out"?
No penalty, no learning curve.

Call someone a "pansy"?
It's treated as if it's nothing; no penalty, no learning curve.

Lie and say that you and your partner are domestically violent in order to obtain information?

What about when the novel degrades on mental illness?

I think you get the picture.

I think this book is awfully written and offensive; its execution in regards to all aspects is horrible and honestly, non-existent. The characters have not, and as I've been told, will not learn anything from their offensive comments, and because of this I can say with utmost certainty that this is one of the worst books I've read this year, maybe my life.

Is that productive enough of a conversation for you?


Becki Jessica wrote: "If you aren't willing to at least *try* to understand what the author was trying to do, then I don't see how this can be a productive conversation. You comment indicates that you have not even read..."

The issue wasn't me reading the fake abuse scene. The issuse is that Kip and Dave make up being in abusive relationship to get information and is lightly brushed off as humour. That is not okay. Abuse should never be brushed off into humour. If it perseved by her readers as humour than that is a problem. Even if she did not intend it too. Which I did. That does not make me ill equipped to critique fiction. Also many 0ne star reviews for this novel are having the same issue does that make them ill equipped to write critiques?

Use your empathy, people Serioulsy pot calling Kettle.

The problem here is your deeming your arguement more valid than Blythes or mines by not aknowleding our arguements and conseeding that yes I can see where your coming from. Your're completely disregarding Blythes PTSD issue. She make very valid points and even gives examples.

Being in a productive conversation is to also aknowledge other peoples views on these issues and not be condescending to there opinion.


Jessica Usually characters learn stuff over the course of the book. In other words, it takes more than 28 percent of the book for the character to learn.

You haven't even finished reading it, Blythe. How could you possibly know what happens to the characters or accurately judge what the book is about?

I also think your also missing a lot of the "dramatic irony" in the book. And, therefore, missing the bigger picture.

I'm most irked about this PTSD issue -- like it's so hard to imagine there is someone in America who doesn't understand a soldier's plight. We all know soldiers. Yeah. How many of us REALLY understand PTSD? How many of us spend our time thinking about what veterans went through? I think the book is saying: Some people do, a lot of people don't. I think it's saying people have little to no capacity to understand war or a soldier's experience on the battefield -- thus Kippy's fumbling. Trust me, though. She learns something. And you might too if you keep going.

In conclusion: #blytheislibbyquinn


message 20: by [deleted user] (new)

Ouch.. That bad?


Blythe Christine wrote: "Ouch.. That bad?"

Ha, read the above comments and status updates. I finally gave up. I'm going to ask my co-blogger who killed whom and promptly rid this book from my mind.


message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

pfft.. Melanie would have a field day with this


Blythe She actually really enjoyed it! I'm glad. I hope to have a discussion with her when she gets home from China. It should be interesting!


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

She's. In. China?!
I'm placing a hold right now.. Weird obsession of reading really bad books then coming back to beg it out of my head -.-


message 25: by Melanie (new) - added it

Melanie YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)


Blythe Melanie wrote: "YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)"


Yay! And you have to tell me who killed Ruth when you get home.


Becki Blythe wrote: "Melanie wrote: "YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)"

Yay! And you have to tell me who killed Ruth when you get h..."


OOh could you tell me as well, It's been over two months since I started and haven't moved since 20%.


message 28: by [deleted user] (new)

Melanie wrote: "YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)"


Where? Just interested :)


message 29: by Melanie (last edited Dec 28, 2013 10:30PM) (new) - added it

Melanie Christine wrote: "Melanie wrote: "YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)"

Where? Just interested :)"


Tangshan. I was in Beijing a few weeks ago too


message 30: by Melanie (new) - added it

Melanie Becki wrote: "Blythe wrote: "Melanie wrote: "YES! We must have a discussion review of this book. It will be very interesting...

And yep I'm on holidays in China :)"

Yay! And you have to tell me who killed Ruth..."


ah it's so sad to see so many people unable to finish this. But I totally understand why! Sure :)


Crystal (Bookiemoji) This book is such a "you either love it or you hate it" I've noticed. Personally I thought it was extremely quirky and weird but I liked it. Not for everyone though!


Ceilidh Sorry you're on the receiving end of such patronising comments, Blythe. I thought the book was despicable in its treatment of mental illness & PTSD. It seemed as though the author's only exposure to individuals with mental health issues was through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but even that feels like a sensitive portrayal in comparison to the mess that goes on here. Add on top of that the casual "Oh let's pretend you're my partner and you beat me" crap being used as a cheap joke and the book left a bad taste in my mouth.


Ceilidh Jessica wrote: "Usually characters learn stuff over the course of the book. In other words, it takes more than 28 percent of the book for the character to learn.

You haven't even finished reading it, Blythe. Ho..."


I read the entire novel and still found it to be a terrible, insensitive and ableist mess. Would you like to talk down to me now? I also notice you're a GR friend of the author. Are you aware of the phrase "conflict of interest"?


Jessie  (Ageless Pages Reviews) Ceilidh wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Usually characters learn stuff over the course of the book. In other words, it takes more than 28 percent of the book for the character to learn.

You haven't even finished readin..."


I read the whole thing and I 100% agree with Blythe and Ceilidh.


message 35: by manda (new) - added it

manda awww dang


message 36: by James (new)

James yolo!


message 37: by Janet (new) - added it

Janet Morris I can't believe the author got so upset over your comments on here.


Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship Janet wrote: "I can't believe the author got so upset over your comments on here."

I can't believe the author got so upset over Blythe's comments on here that she wrote an article about stalking Blythe. Holy fuck.


Rabbit {Paint me like one of your 19th century gothic heroines!} The author is in my bad books for not only stalking you but then bragging about it in the media(!). Zero self-awareness. Also, just reading these updates is nauseating.


message 40: by Suzanne (new) - added it

Suzanne The Guardian article clearly revealed an individual with a dangerous obsession that led her to cross the line into personal stalking. Absolutely terrifying.


La-Lionne It's not too late to get a restraining order agains her. The proof of her staking ways was just published on The Guardian. Not only she's dangerous, her stupidity is mind blowing. Print the article out and go to the police. That's what I would do.


message 42: by Jennyjo (new)

Jennyjo Blythe wrote: "Jessica wrote: "For what it's worth I loved this book -- I finished it -- and I have a very different interpretation of the author's dealings with the issues you mentioned above. I think the maybe-..."I can't believe you review a book based on what others tell you about it. How is that even a review, when you can't even be bothered to read the book? And "f*** this"?! Really...


La-Lionne Jennyjo wrote: "Blythe wrote: "Jessica wrote: "For what it's worth I loved this book -- I finished it -- and I have a very different interpretation of the author's dealings with the issues you mentioned above. I t..."

Yo, Jennyjo, you are late to the part. The original review was deleted because of trolls like you.


message 44: by Jennyjo (new)

Jennyjo I am not a troll. I merely wondered why someone would write a review of a book they haven't even finished reading and why they feel it's relevant to "f*** this".


La-Lionne Jennyjo wrote: "I am not a troll. I merely wondered why someone would write a review of a book they haven't even finished reading and why they feel it's relevant to "f*** this"."

I don't know. Maybe because the book sucked, life is too shorty, because it's the whole purpose of this site (for people to express their thoughts about read, barely read, DNFed books). There could have been a lot of reasons. Go read GR TOS. It's not prohibited to review DNF book if one wishes so.
It is, however, prohibited to create accounts in order to troll reviews.


message 46: by Jennyjo (new)

Jennyjo Stop calling me a troll, since when is asking legitimate questions trolling?


message 47: by manda (new) - added it

manda Jennyjo, I have "reviewed" books I didn't finish myself (see: Talon by Julie Kagawa, amongst others). It's not a malicious intent towards the author. I just hated her book, and as a consumer, I have the right to express why I couldn't finish it.

I don't have to finish my entire meal to review a restaurant or say it tastes like ass.


message 48: by Helen (new)

Helen Silly author. What were you thinking?


message 49: by Jennyjo (new)

Jennyjo I think you are bunch of horrible, nasty-mannered people.


message 50: by Caroline (new) - added it

Caroline Blythe, you have my 100% full support. What Hale did to you was criminal, not praise-worthy in the least.


« previous 1 3
back to top