The Sister

The Sister

by Louise Jensen

Blurb:

‘I did something terrible, Grace. I hope you can forgive me…’

Grace hasn't been the same since the death of her best friend Charlie. She is haunted by Charlie's last words, and in a bid for answers, opens an old memory box of Charlie's. It soon becomes clear there was a lot she didn't know about her best friend.

My Reaction:

I spent too much of my time reading this book either feeling annoyed or laughing at things that weren't meant to be funny.  That's probably not the intention with a thriller, right?  

• Grace lets people walk all over her!! 
  Her (disgustingly slobby jerk of a) partner and her so-called "friends" take advantage and treat her badly!  The book shifts between "now" to "then", and she lets people mistreat her in both timelines.  Fortunately, she does eventually stand up for herself, but it takes a frustratingly long time. 
  
  
• Charlie really annoyed me in the first quarter or more of the book.  
  You're supposed to love her.  I did not.  Blah!
  
  
• Drip. Drip. Drip.
  I understand wanting to build the tension and make the reader wait for solutions to the mysteries, but too many major plot points are held back or shrouded in mystery for too long, in my opinion.  What happened to Grace's parents?  What happened to Charlie?  How did Charlie even die?!  Are we sure she's actually dead?  Worse, when I finally got the answers to some of these questions, my reaction was more of an "Oh... Is that all?" instead of a shocked gasp or satisfying "aha".  Hold back too long and the solution can't live up to the hype or anticipation.  Many of the revelations don't make much sense, either.  Characters behave oddly and make strange decisions for the sake of the plot.  
  
  
• When is this set, again?
  Okay, for context, this was published in 2016 and Grace is 25 (I believe), so she was born in 1991 or thereabouts.  On one hand, Grace seems not to understand how to use Google (or believes that a fancy computer will retrieve different/better search engine results than a basic computer or smartphone).  Yet on the other hand, she (or someone else in her age group) says that people of their parents' generation often aren't very tech-savvy.  Bear in mind, her parents wouldn't be octogenarians (many of whom manage just fine with computers, by the way).  No, the parents in question could have been in their 50s or even just their mid-to-late 40s in 2016.  I'm pretty sure that generation knows how to "Internet"!  
  
  
• More anachronisms... Maybe?
  --Charlie, born circa 1991, is a huge Madonna fan, to the point that she dresses like her and says she's the most influential woman in the world.  While it's possible, it seems a little odd that someone born in 1991 would care that much about Madonna.  Wasn't she kind of... old news by the time Charlie would've been idolizing her?  Well past her zenith, certainly.  
  
  --Grace dresses in "one of [her] Mum's old 60s tunics".  Again, I guess it's possible that a woman who was old enough to wear teen-sized tunics in the 60s could have had a baby in 1991.  It seems a little of a stretch, though.  I guess it would explain why she thinks her parents' generation don't understand technology, if her own parents had her later in life.  
  
  ...Actually, giving it more thought, doesn't Grace say that her grandparents are in their 70s?  Yes, found it.  Her grandmother is 72 years old in 2016.  So she would've been born in 1944, only 20 years old, herself, in 1964.  Even if her grandmother gave birth at 16 or 17, Grace's mum could not have been a teenager in the 1960s.  I guess it's possible Grace is wearing tunics her mother wore in the 60s as a pre-teen, but the more obvious conclusion is that the author made a mathematical miscalculation.  It's a little thing, but I found all these odd "doesn't quite add up" moments disorientating.  Everything is just a little askew.
  
  
• Punctuation woes.
  This is pedantic and potentially petty, but I can't stand it when an author uses question marks incorrectly.  If it's not a question, it doesn't need a question mark.  Example: "I don't understand?"  That's a statement of the fact that your character doesn't understand, not a question!  No question mark is needed, unless you want to annoy your punctuation-conscious readers. 
  
  Authors who do this may be chronic "upspeakers" who frequently lift the pitch at the end of sentences.  Traditionally, people have done that with questions.  The change in pitch is a cue that they're asking a question-- it even sounds uncertain or questioning-- but now more people "upspeak" at the end of other types of sentences.  Some authors apparently are getting confused about when/where to use question marks.  Or maybe they're making a conscious decision to use question marks incorrectly.  Either way, it's annoying!
  
  Grammar Lesson:  The only time I can think of where this usage would be correct is if the character were in an argument with another character, throwing their words back at them.  
  
  Character A: You just don't understand.
  Character B:  I don't understand?  Of course I understand!
  
  
• This made me laugh... (But it's a bit spoilery!)
  At one point in the book, a box containing dog poop is spilled onto Grace's bedspread.  The reaction is quite something to behold:  "I gagged.  Charlie wrenched the cover from the bed, bundled everything together and flew downstairs.  I flung open my window and took huge gulps of cold November air.  Damp circulated around my lungs, causing me to choke." Sorry, but I laughed and laughed!  Later, Charlie tells Grace that she threw the bedspread away.  I mean, yeah, dog poop is gross, but it's usually not that messy, especially if it's had plenty of time to, well, dry out-- and besides, have these teenagers never heard of a nifty invention called a washing machine?!  I guess it's safe to say Grace won't be using cloth diapers for any future children...
  
  
• I'm sorry, but Grace is absolutely clueless.
  Again, she gradually improves, but for most of the book, she does the stupidest things!  Mixing alcohol with her prescriptions, stubbornly refusing to see huge red flags as they slap her in the face.  She's a frustrating character, to put it mildly.  

This last bit is a pretty big spoiler, so... You've been warned!


B I G

B A D

S P O I L E R S 

to 

follow. . .

Well, if you're reading this, I assume you don't care if I spoil several key points, so here we go!

Grace has finally figured out that Anna is an evil bitch.  (Sorry, but it's true!)  She finally, finally realizes that Anna has tried to ruin every aspect of her life.  She intentionally sought out and slept with Grace's serious, long-term boyfriend/partner-- lied to her from the very beginning about everything--  weaseled her way into Grace's house--  sabotaged Grace's self-confidence by undermining her and paying backhanded compliments--  tried to cost Grace her job (and threatened her position in the community)--  stole Grace's memento of her best friend--  poisoned her (twice)--  killed her cat--  and nearly killed Grace by setting her house on fire with her in it.  Have I missed anything?  Oh, right.  I think she also tried to push her in front of a train in London, though I'm not sure that was ever confirmed.  Grace thinks she sees Anna, and then she thinks someone pushes her off her balance, toward the on-coming train.  Even if that incident was only paranoia and clumsiness, Anna has definitely been on a mission to destroy Grace.  She's attacked Grace's life from every angle, and now she has her chained to a bed in an isolated location.  "No one can hear you scream", etc., etc.  Grace has every reason to believe that Anna will kill her within the next day or two.  

But do you know what really upsets Grace?  Anna has left Grace with a plastic bucket as a stand-in for a toilet.  Initially Grace thought she could just hold it in for the foreseeable future (???), but it's been a while, and now Grace really, really needs to go.  Sure, Anna wants her dead, but making Grace endure the indignity of a toilet-bucket is evidently taking things one step too far.  "I look at the bucket and begin to cry with frustration, but I don't have any choice."  (She describes the process in more detail than is strictly necessary.)  "I vow never to tell anybody about this-- then wonder whether I'll ever see anyone again to tell."  Well, yeah.  That's the crux of the matter.  She's gonna kill you, girl, and you're getting all teary-eyed upset about having to pee in a bucket?!  I gather that Grace never went camping or hiking in the woods as a child.  Peeing in a bucket really isn't worth all this heartache and hand-wringing.  Squat, get on with it, and revel in the relief of an empty bladder!  Life does go on.  Somehow.  

I had one final laugh-out-loud moment when Anna/Belle screeches at Lexie, "Genetic?  So it's your fault?  YOU KILLED MY BABY!"  No, dead babies aren't funny, but this... Well, I'm sorry, but this was!  It's so kewl when you first realize that you can blame everything that ever goes wrong in your life on your parents for daring to conceive and give birth to you!  (Yeah, Lexie was a truly crappy mother, but my point still stands.)

SPOILERS 

are

over

now!

Well.  It was something to read.  

And mutter about... 

And complain to my husband about when he made the mistake of coming near when I had just read something particularly irritating...

Many readers seem to have loved this book, and while I wouldn't say it was mind-blowing (because it wasn't), it's obviously good enough to keep those readers satisfied.  If you aren't a nit-picker, you're probably more likely to love it.  As for me, I must enjoy reading things that annoy me, because I keep going back for more with these types of books!  I will admit that I take a certain perverse pleasure in picking them apart...

The Bird's Nest

The Bird's Nest

by Shirley Jackson

(Edited) Blurb:

Elizabeth is a demure twenty-three-year-old wiling her life away at a dull museum job, living with her neurotic aunt, and subsisting off her dead mother's inheritance. When Elizabeth begins to suffer terrible migraines and backaches, her aunt takes her to the doctor, then to a psychiatrist.  The fabric of Elizabeth's reality unravels with terrifying speed, and it seems there may be no way to repair the damage and make her whole again. 

The Bird's Nest, Jackson's third novel, develops hallmarks of the horror master's most unsettling work: tormented heroines, riveting familial mysteries, and a disquieting vision inside the human mind.

My Reaction:

I edited the blurb slightly to avoid what may or may not be considered a spoiler.  I didn't read a blurb going in, and I certainly didn't know everything that this unedited blurb revealed, but maybe that's not a typical reading experience for this book...  In any case, if you want to avoid spoilers altogether, it's probably best not to read this or any other reviews-- though the plot element I'm referring to as a potential spoiler is integral to most of the book, so... Just giving you fair warning, if you want to go in with no preconceptions.  

As I mentioned, I didn't know what this book would be about, at all, and it came as a surprise when the central subject became apparent.  I feel like I've been unintentionally reading/consuming a lot of fiction, in the past half a year or so, with multiple personalities / dissociative identity disorder as a central subject.  Just an odd coincidence, I guess.  

Though I've read The Haunting of Hill House, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and a collection of her short stories, this is my first time reading one of Jackson's lesser-known novels.  It's clear why this isn't one of her most famous works.  It could use some tightening-up; it was at times needlessly repetitive, and the section set in NYC was over-long, in my opinion.  There were also a few times where I felt uncertain of the author's objective, and while that can be done intentionally, for effect, I don't believe that was always the case here.  There was a whole section about a "practical joke" that felt out of place, as well.  

On the other hand, there were several very unsettling moments, juxtaposed against others that were genuinely amusing, if at times rather dark humor.  Jackson even managed to pull her trick of writing something that feels uncomfortably familiar-- you know, those times when you recognize aspects of yourself in a character, though not always in a positive way.  While I found the ending a bit puzzling, I mostly enjoyed the way it was written.  It seemed to come out of nowhere.  I wasn't expecting something so evidently hopeful!  

(...Well, I found the ending hopeful, anyway.  From the reviews I've skimmed since finishing, not everyone agrees on that point.  I also feel sympathetic toward both Dr. Wright and Aunt Morgen-- both flawed characters, but human and essentially well-meaning.)

I wouldn't count on this novel's depiction of DID for accuracy; however, I'm not sure what I believe about DID, to begin with-- especially with the way that it's become almost "trendy" with some people today (mainly some bizarre and troubled people on TikTok, from what I've seen).  I guess maybe it's real in some cases, but I feel that it must be extremely rare, considering that it's supposed to result from particularly traumatic abuse suffered at a very young age.  Videos of people showing off their supposed "alters" seem false and a disgusting bid for attention.  

Anyway... I found this novel interesting in parts, but rather weak in others, and more slowly paced than I'd have liked.  You can see glimmers of Shirley Jackson's developing style, but it's not her at her best, and it certainly wasn't nearly so much "horror" as you might expect.  I wouldn't suggest reading this one until you've first enjoyed her more famous works.