ŷ������

1 Star

Overview:

I should have known better. I don’t have an excuse.

I read Gillian Flynn's other book, Gone Girl, last year—and wasn’t a fan. Everyone raved about it, but I found the characters shallow, the plot twists weak, and the narrative so busy being cynical it didn’t seem to know what it was trying to say.

Nevertheless, I’d heard great things about Gillian Flynn’s writing. So I went into this with an open mind--- maybe I had just started with the wrong book!

But I really should have known better. When I wanted to DNF this around 13% of the way through, I should have trusted my instincts and realized Flynn's writing just isn't for me. But I kept seeing reviews talking about “the twist�� and how the ending was the best part. So I persevered. Safe to say, I didn’t like this. Actually I think I disliked it more than Gone Girl.

*language and mature themes ahead, due to the nature of this book*

Pros:

I don’t like to rate things so low. I really don’t, and I rarely do it. I was initially going to round this up to a two-star, but I realized I didn't have a real reason. I have 'criteria' for all my ratings and in order to earn two-stars from me, a book has to contain some elements I liked. This contained a handful of descriptions I liked. That’s it.

At points in the text, Flynn compares a new-found murder victim’s appearance to that of a baby doll, with mouth open and ready to suckle. This was an incredibly creepy simile that I thought painted the scene quite clearly.

Then later, Flynn describes a woman as having “hips like antlers.�� In regards to the bony prominence that juts out against the rest of the woman's body. Again, I thought this was an incredibly inventive description that also perfectly illustrated the character.

Cons:

Oh boy. Here we go.

What were these characters supposed to be? Every single character was filled with an intense hatred and cynicism about everything. They were all incredibly violent, shallow people with no other defining characteristics They were all very boring, flat people who just seemed to be awful without any motivation.

It seems Flynn’s work relies upon a belief that all people are inherently evil and selfish—which is a popular theory in itself that I’ve seen in a wide variety of fiction. But the characters still need to make sense.

Everything was needlessly dark? Like I just don’t understand?

I don’t have a problem with darker books. I think a story can be just as dark and twisted as the author feels it needs to be, as long as it still tells the story well This just seemed to include random gritty details or supppppeeerrr intense descriptions. The main character’s struggle with mental health problems and self-harm (is this a spoiler? It’s pretty evident from the book’s blurb) was never discussed in any sort of nuanced way. Instead, it’s used almost as a plot device to show just how “edgy�� this book is.

I don’t mind profanity or adult material in adult books. But the over-abundance of it in this book, again, just seemed like it was trying to hard to be gritty or “edgy.�� Everything was needlessly sexualized even when the conversations or characters didn’t call for it at that time.

This book was too short to be so boring The pace was irrationally languid despite the intense subject matter, and it felt like it took chapters and chapters for the characters to stop just discussing things and for things to actually happen.

There’s been a fairly large amount of controversy surrounding the way Gillian Flynn, a self-proclaimed feminist, writes her female characters.

You have those who think it’s problematic all of her female characters are such awful people: Like

And then you have those who believe all her characters are horrible people, and that feminism means allowing for female villains and anti-heroes:

I won’t be touching upon this controversy too much, as I don’t think there’s very much I can say that hasn’t already been discussed. I personally want female villains and anti-heroes who are just as complex as their male counter parts—which I didn’t find in this book where all the characters were so shallow.

There were a few things that did seem problematic:

- The main character calls a man a “sexist, liberal lefty practicing sexual discrimination�� for believing a drunk woman having sex with an entire football team without her explicit consent was sexual assault. Even when when it was revealed the woman was a minor.

- This entire quote: “Sometimes I think illness sits inside every woman, waiting for the right moment to bloom. I have known so many sick women all my life. Women with chronic pain, with ever-gestating diseases. Women with conditions. Men, sure, they have bone snaps, they have backaches, they have a surgery or two, yank out a tonsil, insert a shiny plastic hip.��

- The whole book is filled with the assumption that woman are either so fragile they are sick and broken all the time, or that they just love the attention of being sick. I understand a large part of this was related to the situations Camille was raised in and her mother, but it extended to every other character as well.

- “Women get consumed. Not surprising, considering the sheer amount of traffic a woman's body experiences. Tampons and speculums. Cocks, fingers, vibrators and more, between the legs, from behind, in the mouth.�� WOMEN ARE NOT COMMODITIES THAT GET CONSUMED. The implication that a woman can be ‘run-down�� based off the amount of things she’s had in her orifices is completely disgusting.

I guessed whodunit less than halfway through. The reasoning was interesting, though the way it was all revealed match the same odd, explicit tone as the rest of the story.

In Conclusion:

Safe to say, I will not be reading Dark Places.