Issues with this book (warning: SPOILERS)

[Daniel]

I should start by saying I was really excited to read this one. I kept hearing about it and everyone went on and on about how good it was. It wasn't.

The "twist", if you can call it that, was obvious, but I didn't mind. I liked the idea and thought she could do some pretty interesting things down that road.

What ended up nearly ruining all my early enjoyment of the book was the irritating way the author seemed to think she was writing The Count of Monte Cristo for women who'd been cheated on. I never thought a simple thriller would end up being so pretentious. The difference between the two books is vast. Many of the people in Dumas' classic deserved what they got. This woman was just a monster. Not an anti-hero or a "you go girl" kind of woman taking control of her life. She was totally irredeemable.

I kept reading reviews where people were saying how they deserved each other. Really? He was not a good person. He cheated on his wife. That is a mean thing to do. But he's a saint compared to her. She's an absolute monster. Why does that get soft-pedaled just because she happens to be a woman?

The more I think about this book, the less I like it and I suppose I only care because of how excited I was to read it. I'm just not clear on what book everyone else read that they rave on and on about.

I'm going to read her other two books because she has potential as a writer and the others may be better, but at this point, I'm having to reset expectations quite a bit.

[Dee]

supposedly the other books are better from ppl who have read all 3

[Daniel]

Dee wrote: "supposedly the other books are better from ppl who have read all 3"

That's good to hear. I'm working on Sharp Objects right now.

[Kellie]

I absolutely HATED this book. It made me so angry that many times i wanted to throw it across the room. I really liked her other 2 books, this one was a total waste of my time.

[Elisabeth]

Wasn't the whole point that Amy turned out to be a monster? At first I thought that maybe Nick would be a bad person and Amy just wanted revenge, but then you find out how Amy is constantly looking for some justification to hurt others. She even killed somebody. And remember how she had done evil things before as well to other people. I didn't really get a 'you go girl' feeling when I read it, not sure if I should have felt that way.

[Nikki / Tinyavenger]

Hmmm, I didn't take this at all as the wife being written as someone 'good' or as someone to root for. For me that was a big part of the twist. You were thinking that she was genuinely a good person getting screwed over by her husband (and by people in her past) and then you realize that if anything she is the villian and is really quite an evil force to be reckoned with. What she did to her husband and the people in her past was really vile and utterly despicable. This character that you sympathized with in the beginning was really the true monster in the end.

[Shannon]

I think the author was trying to make a point about how quickly one's perspective can change about a person. Even just in one sentence. I was so frustrated by this book though, too.

[Elisa Santos]

This was not someone to root for - they were both despoicable, only the author took more time to reveal what kind of person Amy was - Nick was always on the clear that was a cheater, but she took her sweet time about revealing what asick twisted f**k Amy was.

You might say that the twist was a predictable, but that does not remove impact from it, nonethless

[Daniel]

Maria wrote: "they were both despoicable"

They were not in the same league. One did something hurtful and the other is the reason some places still have the death penalty.

I also question your assumption that just because something changes the story (has impact), it is good.

[Gina]

I liked the book all the way up until the ending. I was so disappointed she ended it that way! I'd like to hear some feedback of what others thought about it...

[Dee]

I always figured, it wasn't that they deserved each other, but Nick stayed with her, because he knew if he left her (once her character was revealed) that she would do it to some other poor schmuck, similar to the 2 previous people she had screwed with

[Daniel]

Dee wrote: "I always figured, it wasn't that they deserved each other, but Nick stayed with her, because he knew if he left her (once her character was revealed) that she would do it to some other poor schmuck..."

I thought it was so that she wouldn't torture the child or turn him/her into a monster as well.

[Dee]

maybe...but I also saw it as a magnaminous gesture on Nick's part...maybe because yeah he cheated but I didn't actually hate him...IDK, I figured if Nick wanted to he could have left her - he would have had enough dirt to probably get full custody

[Sparkle]

This book made me angry. I can not come up with one single thing I actually like about it...it's so pretentious, the characters are very unlikeable, the ending was horrible.
I know this author can write very well, I've read Dark Places and enjoyed it. It wasn't her writing that I had the issue with it was just the whole annoying idea that there was not one "good" person throughout the entire story.
It was really depressing.

[Katie]

I think Gillian Flynn was differentiating between people who make bad choices (Nick, and others - it's been a few years since I read the book), and inherent wickedness (Amy). I guess I always like books where the characters are unlikable people; it usually means they are human. Human beings are flawed, complex animals. I like that Flynn doesn't write typically charming lead characters, her leading characters are always deeply, deeply flawed people. That being said, I thought this book was way too hyped up. Her other books are a lot better.

[Gina]

I also enjoyed her other two books, Dark Places and Sharp Objects.

[Daniel]

Kat wrote: " I guess I always like books where the characters are unlikable people; it usually means they are human. Human beings are flawed, complex animals."

I agree that people are flawed, but there's been a terrible trend toward the notion that just because everything is presented grimly and "dark", that it must be more realistic. Dark is not deep. Dark is not more honest. Dark is not more realistic. Dark is just dark. Real people are too complex for either a purely dark vision or a purely good vision. Both sides make the same mistake in falsifying human beings, but one side does it while congratulating itself for being so edgy and dark and honest. It's kind of odd that they don't bother to notice that it's every bit as dishonest and shallow, just the opposite side of dishonest and shallow.

That said, I enjoy a dark story sometimes. Just like I sometimes enjoy all kinds of stories that don't much resemble reality.

I enjoyed Sharp Objects much more, for what it's worth.

[Dani]

Hype can too easily marr a person's initial response to any book. You come in with bloated expectations that are easily shot down... I'd never heard the book described as the Female Monte Cristo, but I guess I can see how that could be thrown around.
I admit, I very much enjoyed this book, I agree that the main twist is in the perception of the characters and how they flip by the end of the book. To the point where, you don't really want to root for either of them. Amy's diary entries are so relatable and pop-culture-riddled, that it's hard not to fall for her great deception. The fact that she is a major sociopath colors the story in a way that I found fabulous. I liked that they eventually evened the playing field... Nick may not have been as stealthily manipulative, but he did his fair share of damage to feed the downward-spiraling plot.
For me, I appreciated that the author, took a no-holds-barred anti-hero approach to her characters, I found it refreshing. You liked them, you related to them, then you kinda hated yourself for it. It was a fun read.
People are flawed, self-serving and it's nice to see our darkest revenge fantasies played out, in all their horror and gore.

[Elisa Santos]

Daniel wrote: "Maria wrote: "they were both despoicable"

They were not in the same league. One did something hurtful and the other is the reason some places still have the death penalty.

I also question your a..."

I feel you have not read my full post - i never said they were on the same league - i fact i called Amy a sick twisted f**k, while Nick was a cheater and a complusive liear, at that. But they both had no redeemable qualities.

Ans an impact on the story doesn´t necessarily means a good thing, which i never said it was.

You didn´t liked the book and that is ok - other people liked it - also ok. You won´t be changing their minds just by putting arguments otherwise, simply because the book didn´t live up to your expectations.

[Daniel]

Maria wrote: "You won´t be changing their minds just by putting arguments otherwise"

I agree. Reason and logic will not change any minds in a discussion like this. Of course, that hardly means I am not allowed to share my views and the reasons for them.

[Mochaspresso]

Dee wrote: "maybe...but I also saw it as a magnaminous gesture on Nick's part...maybe because yeah he cheated but I didn't actually hate him...IDK, I figured if Nick wanted to he could have left her - he would..."

I don't think the child is the only reason he stays. That's just what he tells himself. I think Nick was a little twisted, himself. Not as twisted as Amy, obviously, but twisted in the sense that he willingly stayed in an unhappy marriage. They were unhappy well before Amy's disappearance. Deep down, I think that he was a lot like Amy in the sense that he derived perverse pleasure in being "the victim" and was overly concerned with appearances. He wanted to leave her and expose the truth about her but not if it meant that he would also look like a bad guy to the rest of the world.

[Elisa Santos]

Daniel wrote: "Maria wrote: "You won´t be changing their minds just by putting arguments otherwise"

I agree. Reason and logic will not change any minds in a discussion like this. Of course, that hardly means I..."

No one said that...that´s why you are on a GR forum - expressing your arguments.

[Samantha]

I did not like this book AT ALL. i actually predicted what was going to happen and looked ahead to find out I was right. I didn't enjoy the characters and I still to this day have not finished reading it. waste of money and time

[Paolo]

I liked the book. I don't think that the twist was obvious.

The book was actually really great until the reveal. There's something about the dynamic of Nick and his present-day chapters contrasted with Diary Amy's "flashback" chapters.

After that though the novel dips in quality but is never bad. I gave it 4/5.

[Christina]

Samantha wrote: "I did not like this book AT ALL. i actually predicted what was going to happen and looked ahead to find out I was right. I didn't enjoy the characters and I still to this day have not finished read..."

If you didn't like it at all, how come you gave it 3 stars, which according to Goodreads means "I liked it" ? LOL

[Tameeka]

Kellie wrote: "I absolutely HATED this book. It made me so angry that many times i wanted to throw it across the room. I really liked her other 2 books, this one was a total waste of my time."

If I hadn't borrowed this book from the library, I would have done the same thing Kellie.

[Tameeka]

Daniel wrote: "I should start by saying I was really excited to read this one. I kept hearing about it and everyone went on and on about how good it was. It wasn't.

The "twist", if you can call it that, was ob..."

Daniel, I agree with everything you have written. I could not believe how many people love Gone Girl. I still haven't read the rest of Gillian Flynn's works and I'm not sure I want to.

[Lint]

Michael wrote:

I agree with you-- Flynn seemed to let everyone end on a happier note-- well except for one person. No one was held accountable for their actions even though everyone seemed to know what was going on. It seemed more unbelievable to me that no one in the entire story could find something to prove what Amy was really doing. Flynn was rather dismissive with respect to the two people in the Ozarks who robbed Amy; 'Just call them crazy opportunists and everything will be fine.' Really?? ..."

Greta and Jeff weren't important. It's what they do to Amy that ultimately matters. Jeff and Greta robbing Amy reinforces her growing insecurity about being able to survive in the normal world without a [relatively] lavish lifestyle where doormat Nick [or insert any other man here] can provide for her.

Did anyone seriously think Amy was going to kill herself? Sociopath she maybe, but she is equal parts narcissistic and self-serving. Her motivation for exacting revenge on anyone who crosses her boils down to petty vindication. She wants to make people pay for crossing her, BUT at the same time she makes sure that she comes out of the situation looking the better. She would have never killed herself because that would have meant a sacrifice on her part - the ultimate sacrifice. Again, she's too narcissistic for that, she wants to make the other party suffer, but she wants it to happen without any real hardship for her.

Anyway, to get back to my point, Amy getting robbed was a catalyst to cementing her misgivings, eventually causing her to make the decision to return home. She would have eventually come to that conclusion anyway, but losing all her money at once conveniently sets up the situation with Desi etc.

[Violet]

Lint wrote: "Michael wrote:

I agree with you-- Flynn seemed to let everyone end on a happier note-- well except for one person. No one was held accountable for their actions even though everyone seemed to kno..."
You really summed up very well! That's exactly what I thought, But I'd probably rant about it in a dozen pages :D

[Avilash]

For me the biggest disappointment were the characters. They were so unrealistic and uninteresting. The worst and most ill-formed being Desi. And the way people communicate in the book was weird (like, the lawyer and Nick make a "Godfather" reference/joke and after a few pages, the framed 'rapist' and Nick make another "Godfather" reference in their first conversation.)
Well, I was thinking of reading Flynn's other books but am not so sure now.