Becky's Reviews > The School for Good and Evil

The School for Good and Evil by Soman Chainani
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
7356691
's review
Jan 17, 2014

did not like it

[spoilers]
Sooooo this is a lesson on how an amazing cover can sell even the worst book. I deeply regret buying this. Let me tell you why.



At first, I read the way Good was portrayed (especially the girls) and I thought, this will be overturned. By the end, it will be revealed that these vain, catty, boy-obsessed children are actually evil. And I can't really blame them for being vain and catty, because if they aren't asked to the ball by a boy, they fail (aka, they die. Literally).

But then I start to realize, that the divide between Good and Evil is REALLY confusing.
Evil can never have love (the catch phrase of the book), and yet according to Dot, being a friendless villain is humiliating.
Evil does not forgive, they seek revenge, and yet Dot (who is evil) saves her roommate's life and they're friends again.
Good is about purity and not vanity, and yet at the end when the evil students do good things, they become beautiful (Dot even becomes skinny) and the good students become ugly (some even go bald). (Aside, I find the implied fact that fat and bald are indicative of evil to be incredibly disturbing.)

Evil must be ugly because only when they're ugly can they get rid of vanity and be FREEEEEE, so they obsessively try to make themselves uglier.


So at the end, when the evil people did good and got pretty and the good did bad and got ugly, I realized that what the book was ACTUALLY saying was that appearance actually does indicate the state of the soul.
But, I hear you say, isn't it saying that the outside reflects what's inside, making a physical response to the saying "actions speak louder than words"? You would be right, if you weren't so wrong!
Because Aggie, who everyone thought was evil, is said through most of the book to be very ugly (thus everyone thinks she is evil). Then, a teacher tells her she will make her beautiful. When Aggie thinks this has happened, she is beautiful (people even stop and stare, amazed by her beauty). When Aggie finally sees a mirror and realizes nothing has actually changed, she realizes that because she thought she was ugly, she was ugly. So even though she was "good," poor self-esteem was enough to make her look "evil." Once her self-esteem had been boosted and she thought she was beautiful, she was beautiful. Let this be a lesson, teenage girls: even if you do good things, unless your self-worth improves, you will always be ugly and people will call you a witch.

And actually, I'm not sure this book even says THAT, because is it really self-worth if you only thought you were beautiful because other people were telling you as much?

However, now that Aggie is pretty and has self-esteem, suddenly she fits right in with the good girls. Suddenly, she doesn't care about going home, seeing her cat, seeing her mother, or helping Sophie (her only friend). Because who needs home, family, or friends when you've got BOYS! One boy, in particular. Now that she has the possibility of a happy-ever-after, she throws everything out the window and tries to get asked to the ball so she doesn't die.
That's right, it's a world where if a girl is not pretty enough for a boy to ask her out, she is killed. And apparently, every year the boys make a pact that two of them will go together rather than having to be the one to go with the ugliest girl. And again, I thought, this will be overturned.
NOPE

Instead of the girls becoming self-reliant beings who are worth more than what a man is willing to say they're worth, the magical thing that happens is THIS year, all the good girls get asked and no one dies.


But that's not how it ends. It ends with Sophie (evil friend) dying for Aggie (good friend) and Aggie's kiss bringing Sophie back to life (true love's kiss). Sophie says, "who needs princes in our fairy tale?" and for a moment I think YES! It is all undone! Realizations abound!
NOPE.
Because as the girls disappear to go to Happily Ever After together, Aggie realizes if she goes with Sophie she'll never get to be with the BOY!
"She whirled to Tedros. With a cry, her prince seized for her--'wait!'"
And as I understand it, in the sequel Aggie regrets spending happily ever after with her best friend, so she leaves and goes in search of Teddy.


One brief shining moment, and then that.


So what is the book about? It's about how girls are motivated entirely by boys. Female friendships are broken apart by boys. The back-stories of evil women usually involve boys. And even though you might not need a boy in the end, you REALLY want one. Also, poor self-esteem makes you ugly, and no boy will want you then.
To be followed by the sequel, which is about how best friends will never replace boys (although, to be fair, I haven't read it. And won't.)

But I'm not finished! I could, in fact, go on for a very long time about all the problems with this book (go ahead, ask me. I dare you), but I just want to mention quickly the problem of the wolves, and the naked thing.
I'm not sure the author understands what wolves are in fairy tales. In this book, the wolves are in charge of the evil school, and at one point Sophie refuses to change into her school uniform. "So the wolf took care of it himself." So this child has just been stripped and re-dressed by a wolf. In a fairy tale. Later, Sophie dreams of her father, who is wearing a wolf mask.

I felt kind of sick to my stomach.
This leads me to my final problem: how often the girls are naked in this book. I don't have the patience for it, but if anyone is going to read/re-read it, I would love it if you would put a flag next to every time a character is naked/wrapped in or hiding behind something to hide their nakedness. They take each other's clothes off their backs, they wear boys' PJs because they burned each other's clothes, they come back naked from this spell that they do (and they do it a lot), a boy becomes naked to use his talent... It would just be interesting to see how many times in this book children are naked.

Okay, tl;dr, I'll shut up now.
But don't buy it. I'm begging you. Don't pay money for it.


EDIT:
GUYS! IT'S DISASTER:


OMGEEEEEEEEE! NO PRINCES?!


*gag*
139 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The School for Good and Evil.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

January 17, 2014 – Started Reading
January 17, 2014 – Shelved
January 17, 2014 –
page 108
22.13% "Thus far, I am deeply concerned with the portrayal of good. Especially where the girls are concerned."
January 24, 2014 –
page 178
36.48%
February 6, 2014 –
page 380
77.87% "uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuug"
February 7, 2014 – Finished Reading

Comments (showing 1-50 of 76) (76 new)


Marissa Bless you for pointing out everything I thought and even some things I didn't realize but agree with!


Becky Marissa wrote: "Bless you for pointing out everything I thought and even some things I didn't realize but agree with!"

There were so many more things I wanted to pick on, but I got tired of writing.


Marissa Yeah :S It was one of the books that I was just trying to get through.


Deanna Pina All of these. These are all the reasons why I just couldn't love the book. I tried. I even thought the book was nailing it for the first third, but then... Then it had to go and get stupid. I thought TEDDY (ugh) was fo'sho not going to end up anyone's love interest... boy, I was pretty naive, huh?


message 5: by Megan (new) - added it

Megan Ugh. Ok, thanks. I just started the book and it was killing me. I thought that, I dunno, maybe it would use the scenario to make a point about what good and evil really are- rather than just stereotypes concerning beauty and princes- but they really just reinforced them. Made them worse, actually. It was like being good required being shallow and vacuous and being evil required being gross... uh, really? Glad to see there is no reason to force through the second half.


Nicole J I liked some parts of this book but I liked that you pointed out the thing about the 'good people'


message 7: by Ilka (new) - rated it 1 star

Ilka finally an explanation, now I get what happened in the end


Brittan Wait so what exactly happened in the end? Does Agatha still like sofie?


Becky Book Girl wrote: "Wait so what exactly happened in the end? Does Agatha still like sofie?"

As I understood it, Aggie likes (loves? who knows) Teddy, and the next book she regrets the ending she chose with Sophie and seeks to change her decision. The ending of this book suggests that she while wanted to save her friend, she also wanted to stay with her prince.


Natalie I still like this book, but you made some really good points. I too thought that Chainani was going for a complete subversion/deconstruction of fairy tale tropes by the end even with Sophie turning evil and Agatha turning good, but it didn't quite work that way in the end. (especially the part where Agatha is all like "I don't faint", then sees her bloodied legs and faints into Tedros, who smirks and is like "Yep. Definitely a princess. Must valiantly carry her away". That, and other moments, irked me.)
I mean, he did a little subversion, like with the revelation of the wolves/fairies' identities, on how the School Master is wrong in trying to pin people as pure good/evil with no morally gray areas, which, of course, doesn't work out that way. But then he goes with the whole "good people are actually really, really beautiful, and bad people are ugly" and other standard tropes and it turns into a mess. And there doesn't seem to be any pointing out of the "evil people don't have/can't feel love", even though they OBVIOUSLY do--they care for their parents and children and friends. It's what I liked most about this book, which ties in with Sophie and Agatha's friendship as well. (in all its sociopathic glory)
Which is why I'm now edgy about this sequel from what you've said--seriously, princes are the best thing ever now? Tedros isn't even all that great, charming, or interesting--in fact, he's an idiot and I don't see why Agatha should lose her own intelligence and personality over "true love" just because she's supposed to be pure good.
Anyways, there are still some good things about this book, but I do appreciate and agree with what you said. (Also, love the Sherlock giff)


message 11: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Natalie wrote: "I still like this book, but you made some really good points. I too thought that Chainani was going for a complete subversion/deconstruction of fairy tale tropes by the end even with Sophie turning..."

Totally there are good things in here that subvert the tropes. That's actually THE problem. He sets it up like it's going to be this great feminist work that brings upheaval to the fairy tale world, so that's what we're looking for. And when we look for those things, we find some. But then He undercuts it all with these very dangerous problems.
"Who needs princes in our fairy tale?" A wonderful, self actualizing statement, and if we're not careful we'll spend so much time praising it that we miss what comes after.
The School Master is wrong to try and box people up, and we're so glad to see that in here we miss the fact that in this world, the School Master is actually right: there is actually a solid physically defined line between good and evil. Literally, the physicality of the children changes based on which side they're falling on. They can't just be people who take action and make mistakes, the state of their souls is actually written on their faces.

Honestly, it feels like a trap. It feels like Chainani is trying to pull the wool over my eyes with these brilliant moments, making loud statements like "self esteem is beautiful" so that I won't notice him quietly whispering that my value is actually dependent on how I am seen, usually by men.
Totally my opinion, this is just how I feel, and I'm super glad you found valuable things in this book! But most of me feels like you found valuable things in spite of what it is, lol. Maybe I'm trying to say... be careful with it? If you like it, awesome, do that! But it makes me nervous.


Natalie Becky wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I still like this book, but you made some really good points. I too thought that Chainani was going for a complete subversion/deconstruction of fairy tale tropes by the end even wit..."

I understand that. True, there's all these attempted deconstructions and statements that do sound good (and are pretty good), but everything does seem null and void by the end with the solid lines and attributions of "good" and "evil", which makes about everything pointless--or rather, with a dangerous point. It's okay to like it, but I also like it when people do acknowledge the flaws in it and make me realize some points.

It seems like a true deconstruction of fairy tales is very hard to do, or, even better, do right--many end up saying the old stereotypes are actually very true or go to the opposite extreme and say that all the evil characters are actually pure good (or have a Freudian excuse) and the good characters are actually EVILEVILEVIL. No rendition is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze it and its various meanings, like with this work--even if I like a work, I should still be able to recognize its intentions, both good and increasingly disturbing.

Thanks for your reply!


message 13: by Becky (last edited Mar 17, 2016 08:47AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Natalie wrote: "Becky wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I still like this book, but you made some really good points. I too thought that Chainani was going for a complete subversion/deconstruction of fairy tale tropes by th..."

As Jasmine suggested to me (I think it's in this comments list somewhere?) Ever After High does a much better job at deconstructing, but is aimed at a younger audience, I think? I'm sure there are other decent deconstructions out there, but I haven't read them yet. Jasmine (who is my roommate and reads significantly faster than me) suggests also "Ever After School" by Shelby Bach as being very good. She also says Robin McKinnley's "Beauty" has been highly recommended to her.
Also, for adult audiences, the October Daye series by Seanan McGuire does some REALLY interesting things with fairy tales. It doesn't deliberately deconstruct them, but does some awesome things with the tropes. It's my favourite ongoing series out there right now.

I run with the theory that if I only loved things without flaws I would have nothing to love. However, School for Good and Evil is something that I found flawed to the point of being dangerous. It's not something I'll ever feel okay recommending.


Forrest Only one thing I'd disagree with: that cover ain't amazing!!! It looks like a tween from the book drew it.


Forrest Only one thing I'd disagree with: that cover ain't amazing!!! It looks like a tween from the book drew it.


Rachel "Because who needs home, family, or friends when you've got BOYS!" YESSSS!


Jasmine I love how this review keeps getting comments, and every time I go YESSS. OTHER PEOPLE SHARE MY THOUGHTS. YES.


message 18: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Jasmine wrote: "I love how this review keeps getting comments, and every time I go YESSS. OTHER PEOPLE SHARE MY THOUGHTS. YES."

I have the exact same reaction :p


Marissa I saw that someone is doing a giveaway for the second book and I literally cringed.


message 20: by Becky (last edited Jun 20, 2015 09:49PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Marissa wrote: "I saw that someone is doing a giveaway for the second book and I literally cringed."

I would not take it, even for free.


Marissa Becky wrote: "Marissa wrote: "I saw that someone is doing a giveaway for the second book and I literally cringed."

I would not take it, even for free."


Yes! My bookshelf doesn't deserve that.


Florrie I just found out this book was written by a guy, and that kind of frightened me. Okay, so I started reading, and I was like, "Wow, what king of shallow woman wrote this? Geez, who could really believe that someone would suddenly become beautiful to OTHER people just because they decided they were beautiful?" and then I realized it was written by a guy.
Okay, so here's the thing. I'm not black, so I can't say what it is like to be black, and even though i could write a book with a black protagonist, if I wanted to know what it's like to know that there are big jerks who believe they can shoot me because I'm buying skittles at night then id have to ask some questions. But I am female, so I sure can say what it's like to be female. I think I will sure can say that self-esteem does not work like that, and it's pretty insulting the number of assumptions that are made about the way women or girls think. Some people are saying that this book really showed how people really are, but I feel like it just slapped feminism into the ground like some plant that you didn't know how to plant. I really like your review, by the way. You totally got a lot of really good points.


message 23: by Ana (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ana What I am most impressed at is how people fail to understand the sarcasm and irony in the book.
Can we just take a moment to try and realize that almost every villain in fairy tales are ugly and the heroes/princes/princesses are gorgeous?
And that the author tried to enhance the absurdity that is that the Good are always beautiful/lovable and Evil ugly/lonely?
And as for the obsession with boys on the part of the Evergirls, it's the same thing. The author tried to expose the vanity and futility that are present in all the classic fairy tales. Can't you see that?


message 24: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Ana wrote: "What I am most impressed at is how people fail to understand the sarcasm and irony in the book.
Can we just take a moment to try and realize that almost every villain in fairy tales are ugly and th..."


That's what I thought he was doing too, but he doesn't carry it through. It was set up to be amazing, and then instead of turning these tropes on their heads he just reinforced them. He set it all up so it would be so easy to expose vanity and futility, and then never pulled back the curtain to do the reveal. And by not doing the reveal, what you end up with is either a.) a enforced notion of what good and evil/beauty and ugliness is or b.) (the worse option) a critique of female behavior that basically says "it can be no better," because all he's done is said "look at how ridiculous this is" and then ended the book.

What I'm trying to say is there's no redemption for the characters. And if it was about sarcasm and irony, if he's pointing out incorrect tropes, there needs to be a reveal or some redemption. His characters don't learn anything, they don't overcome anything, they just get sucked into the system with hardly a fight.
If he was trying to be ironic he missed the mark by a mile.


message 25: by Ana (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ana Becky wrote: "Ana wrote: "What I am most impressed at is how people fail to understand the sarcasm and irony in the book.
Can we just take a moment to try and realize that almost every villain in fairy tales are..."


Hm, I understand your point of view, and while there was no redemption for the majority of the characters, you can see Sophie making progression in that respect.

But, being this a first book in a trilogy, I didn't expect anything more than what I got... I would say that some unresolved plot points are normal for a first book and would be truly surprised to see it all wrapped up and everyone redeemed.


message 26: by Becky (last edited Aug 16, 2015 08:37AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Ana wrote: "Becky wrote: "Ana wrote: "What I am most impressed at is how people fail to understand the sarcasm and irony in the book.
Can we just take a moment to try and realize that almost every villain in f..."


While I don't expect total redemption in the first book, I do expect some suggestion that it is, in fact, going that direction. He's got a massive cast of characters and the only one who makes any progress in the entire book is Sophie (and I'm not actually convinced that she does). Aggie's character actively devolves over the course of this book. It's not unresolved plot points I have an issue with, it's the degradation of female characters and a thousand other smaller problems that bother me :p


message 27: by Rain_of_stars (last edited Jul 19, 2017 08:27PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Rain_of_stars I feel the same. I spent a lot of the book frustrated by how Chainani sets up these wonderful points about how absurd some of these tropes are – AND THEN NEVER CARRIES IT THROUGH. You can’t just set up an inconsistency and then wander away from it! For example, the rampant homophobia. Princesses giggle about how of COURSE princes can’t ask each other to the ball, then what would princesses do? And two princes asking each other is seen as a last-ditch resort to avoid the ‘ugly’ girl and an extreme measure. Instead of having Agatha, a major POV character and the one who is best qualified to criticize the ridiculous straight presumption of these ideas, say ANYTHING, the text just moves right along. Not a single line of ACTUAL CRITICISM is written.
And then there’s the sexism. How Agatha’s response to Tedros’s “who’s the man in this relationship?” is not “you don’t need to be a man to make good decisions!” but “then act like one!” OBVIOUSLY she can’t have equal authority to a MAN! She can’t possibly ‘’’’act like a man’’’’ and make tactical decisions and expect to have them OBEYED! No, it has to be TEDROS who gives the orders she thinks are correct. And when Agatha is in Gavaldon, she’s perfectly happy living in a graveyard and has no problem finding the occasional headless bird corpse in her clothes, but apparently as soon as she accepts her “destiny” as a princess she starts fainting at the sight of her own blood? Way to empower girls there, Chainani. (I never understood that trope in the first place. What does he think girls see in their own underwear every month after puberty? Are literally all princesses pre-pubescent?) And the previously mentioned issues with how self-esteem impacts your looks and Good and Evil change physical markers depending on their actions are also problematic. I want to like this book, I really do, but until Chainani actually FOLLOWS UP on pointing out some of the absurdities in how the School and its world is set up, I can’t.


message 28: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky The hearers may cry "amen"! soooooooo many problems!


message 29: by Parawazmin (new) - added it

Parawazmin Jawadin absolutely amazing!! couldn't put the book down. can't wait to read next book. seriously cudnt put the book down


Nikoya This was an amazing review! I tried to capture how much my daughter and I didn't like the book but couldn't find the right words. We didn't even finish it. I don't want my daughter to think that beauty means good and unattractive means evil.


Windy Atika Shut up becky.. you dont understand the whole point of the story.. you cant find the sarcasm and mockery in this book .. people who can't understand and close minded will dislike these stories an idiot like you basically chainani mocks how fairytale are often potrayed .. villain always ugly while heroes are always attractive and chainani did an amazing job mocking that xD clearly you are not a fan of fantasy or have zero imagination . Such a pathetic human being ... hated it dont read!! Not everyone is like you.. the world doesnt revolve around you bitch .. dont bother making a comment and keep your fucking opinion to yourself xD mind re reading it? And open your mind a little bit ? Ah dumb people they are so stupid that they cant understand ..


Windy Atika Oh shut up becky.. like you know everything -_- and the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate


message 33: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Windy wrote: "Shut up becky.. you dont understand the whole point of the story.. you cant find the sarcasm and mockery in this book .. people who can't understand and close minded will dislike these stories an i..."

Hi Windy,
Most of your points, re: sarcasm and mockery are topics I have already discussed with other posters. If you scroll up you can read those conversations. The gist of it is that he sets the story up to be a mockery of those tropes, but then he never actually overturns them.
I'm glad you liked the book. You do you. You, of course, have the right to love whatever you love.
Thanks for chiming in.


Aliscen Khaw well i do admit some of the things you wrote havd a point, so you can skip the 2nd book and directly go to the third, because after reading your review i feel that you can be a little satisfied with the third, since tedros and agatha's relationship turns sour and they FINALLY question the life choices they have made, and how sophie's evil deeds is slowly revealed and she starts to enjoy the "i dont care if anyone dies for my happiness"thing, and how beauty or ugliness and fat shamming was talked about in the book( love how Dot slam hester and the others in the face for fat shamming).It is true many things were not well done in the 1st, and lets not get me started with the 2nd, but i'd still advise you to give the 3rd a try, after all 1st books are just setting ups for better things to come


message 35: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Aliscen wrote: "well i do admit some of the things you wrote havd a point, so you can skip the 2nd book and directly go to the third, because after reading your review i feel that you can be a little satisfied wit..."
Hmm, good to know. Maybe I will give it a look. Thanks!


Samantha i like it :]>


Carrie-Anne I also think it was weird how Tedros' inner thoughts near the beginning made him sound like he didn't like all the attention from girls who only liked him for his looks or prince title, how he couldn't remember the last time he ever liked a girl - I thought this was going to go in one of two directions. 1 he got with a girl who liked him for him, cared about his hobbies and thoughts (not that his character was given any personality after that initial thought that made it seem like he wasn't going to turn out stereotypically vapid) or 2 that he was gay. The whole 'I never like girls' and that whole Tristan subplot, I really though it was going to break apart the whole 'prince and princess, the most important thing ever' thought process. Then again, I also thought Agatha loved Sophie, and the whole nemasis dreams were goi g to turn out as true love dreams, but suddenly Agatha fell for Tedros for no reason, and Sophie hated her best friend because of him too


Jennifer R. so much yes! This book danced with really interesting ideas, and then fell flat. I feel like the ugly/pretty and gender norm themes have been discussed enough, I'd like to throw in the crappy good v. evil discussion.

He starts out the book introducing characters that are somewhat ambiguous on the good/evil spectrum. He then struggles through the whole book with the notions tha "Sophie isn't really all evil" and "Agatha isn't fully good." He has a successful moments with the fairy/wolf reveals. "People aren't pure! Life isn't black and white!" (he shouts). The he says screw that, Sophie is 100 % pure evil, and Agatha is wholly good. Let's forget the 500 pages we spent trying to develop this theme only to conclude it's not how it is. People are either good or evil.


message 39: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky @Carrie-Anne, That's so true!! Thanks for pointing that out!

@Jennifer, It feels like he changed his mind part way through the book, or else it was just a big tease, haha!


message 40: by Wai (new)

Wai Liu Um, actually, you should try reading the other two books in the series. In the second book, it's girls VS boys. There is a separate school just for the boys! AND just to satisfy you, the girls learn self defense. So maybe you should try reading the second one before you make assumptions.


message 41: by Wai (new)

Wai Liu And it's not actually a world WITHOUT princes. Now you're just defeating the entire purpose of your review. First you wanted the girls to be less. . . well, GIRLY, now you want them to go back to being the "helpless, fragile butterflies" you didn't want them to be in the first place. Think about that before you go off ranting about a title. Don't judge a book by its cover!


message 42: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Wai wrote: "And it's not actually a world WITHOUT princes. Now you're just defeating the entire purpose of your review. First you wanted the girls to be less. . . well, GIRLY, now you want them to go back to b..."

In regards to your first response: someone else already commented to me that the second book is worse but I might like the third. I'm not too interested in reading them, but I have already commented that it's nice to hear they might get better, and I might look into them at some point. If you read through the comments above, you'll see that.

In regards to your second response: my comment about a world without princes was deeply sarcastic, which is why I included the overly-dramatic Rarity.gif. I wasn't judging a book by its cover, I was judging it by the tone and content of the book directly connected to it.

Thanks for chiming in.


A|_A¥A AARGH! HOW CAN NOBODY LIKE THIS BOOK?!IT IS AW€S()|\/|€!!!!!
(AWESOME)
:·O *So Shocked*


Chantal Noordeloos I think your review was more eloquent and well written than the book was.


message 45: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Chantal wrote: "I think your review was more eloquent and well written than the book was."

<3


Rabbiya Farrukh You said everything which I felt when reading this book. Actually you said more which I realized now after reading your review that I had felt the same. Bless you.


message 47: by An (new) - rated it 2 stars

An  Xin ikr, at first I thought the premise was amusing and I thought the story would be a nice read. But although at first I thought it was nice, with all that about the people hiding their kids and the stuff about the academy being such a creepy place. But after a while, hum around half of the book I realized the stuff I had expected to happen in this kind of scenery was not going to happen, the story felt sloppy and I got bored. So I pretty much skimmed through the rest of it until the ending. The idea was so good but I feel it went downhill real fast. I agree 100% with your post.


message 48: by Nicole (new)

Nicole Becky maybe u don't like the book because you just don't understand how to read it


message 49: by Becky (new) - rated it 1 star

Becky Nicole wrote: "Becky maybe u don't like the book because you just don't understand how to read it"

Enlighten me.


message 50: by Cillian (new) - added it

Cillian Why is it that, so far, every reader who chimed in to defend this book is either childish, rude, or outright condescending?
And why do they feel the need to defend a book that is, allegedly, "so awesum!" it can stand on its own merits?

"You read it wrong!"--Brainless Becky

Can't you see?"--Condescending Ana

"Shut up!"--Uber mature Windy

Am I seeing a pattern here?


« previous 1
back to top