I lived in NYC (Astoria, Queens to be exact) in 2003/2004. During that time, a coworker who lived in Williamsburg confided in me that she had bedbugs in her railroad style apartment. An apartment that I visited, and internally I freaked the eff out. Suffice to say—as someone who gets a little paranoid and Google happy—I know a thing or two about bedbugs. But enough about me.
This is a book about bedbugs. This is not a book about bedbugs. Oh wait it is. Oh wait, I have no idea what this book was really about. What I mean is, I don't know what was "real" or imagined toward the end of the book, and I don't believe that my confusion was the intended by the writer. Or maybe it was. I believe it was because this was a story that needed heavy editing and revising. Overall, the feeling I get from Bedbugs is that it was a loosely thrown together in a plot that unravels in the end and there were a lot of unnecessary frayed threads poking out all over the place. This is a problem for a book that is only 256 pages. I felt like it was written by a wannabe writer. If I read a book that reminds me of my own creative writing endeavors, I know it's bad because I was a crap writer, which is why I gave it up. Sure, I'd love to give some concrete examples from the book, but that would require me to spend more time inside of it, and I feel like I've devoted enough of my life inside its pages.
Maybe my level of dislike for this book is shaped on my faulty assumption that I was going to read a book about a classic bedbug infestation and be absolutely horrified by the possible reality of this happening to me. This was not the case. Instead, this was a book about crazy people and/or people who were not likeable and nothing about the story felt like it could be related to my reality.
The characters are not easy to like. Except for maybe the kid. She was OK. The nanny was selfish and lazy. If I had a child and could afford a nanny and she was like this, she would have had a short tenure watching my child. And why did they have a nanny? It seems like Susan didn't do anything that required one. All of the things she did while the nanny was around, could have been done without her being around.
The wife, Susan, was kind of selfish, too--quitting her job to paint and never painting. She wasn't very happy and really wasn't very productive. Readers like to see a character do something to change their flaws and by change, I don't mean go crazy. She did none of this. She did stuff, but the stuff wasn't interesting.
The husband, Alex, was OK, but was neither likeable or unlikeable. He was just there occupying the space of the pages, but overall he was a pretty good guy. Irritable, which is understandable due to his financial stress, but good overall. Then the author tries make us question his good-guyness with a few little mentions from Susan about some hidden threatening, menacing part of him she was afraid of. Well, it just wasn't there, but nice try. Overall, he was practically a mannequin who was good with his kid.
The handy man was a creep, and the landlord, Andrea, was weird and crazy. Enough said about those two for now.
Then there's the whole issue of them being tight on money, yet getting a bigger, more expensive apartment and paying for a nanny that wasn't necessary. I think that if you're going to quit your job to paint and then not paint while your husband struggles to make a business succeed, you should probably not be worried about expensive beds and new apartments and nannies.
Here are some more random things I disliked:
If there were actual bedbugs in this book, the husband and daughter would have had bites. If this was a book about badbugs, then that is just annoying and the title should have been Badbugs. People would would have still thought it was about bedbugs and it would have done nothing to spoil the introduction of badbugs plot turn.
There were times that I thought I was picking up on huge clues or foreshadowing of what was to come, but these pricks of my mind turned out to be nothing or kind of poorly done. I expected something more to be said about this expensive bed that Susan kind of selfishly convinced her husband to splurge on. I expected the infestation to possibly start from it, but it was just something mentioned and then abandoned. I thought the painting would hold actual significance, and I guess there was some parallel to what happened to it and what actually happened in the book, but I expected more. I expected it to be revealed who was changing the painting, but it was probably Susan with all of the Ambien and wine she gobbled up. This was just crap.
Oh, and this whole thing about the mother who let the baby carriage roll off the roof of a building killing her kids? It served no solid purpose. It had no necessity to the plot, yet it kept being thrown back into the book. I feel like the author thought it was some very cool element that she would weave into the plot and then AHA! bring mention it again in the end. It wasn't woven at all. It was thrown in there here and there awkwardly.
I take issue with the sudden turning on the nanny. Sure, it was after Susan read about the badbugs and it was obvious she had issues with her, but it seemed so unnatural, especially the things she said/conclusions she jumped to and the way she let the nanny kind of walk all over her. Of course, this is probably an attempt to establish that she's crazy, but it did not fit the character or progression of the events taking place in a way that was natural.
What happened with the cat urine smell anyway? That cannot be explained away by the dying girl trying to "ping" for help in the basement because cat urine and human urine do not smell alike.
Also, it seemed odd that Susan killed the handyman. If there were more clues to him "knowing too much" or some other motivation for the sudden hammer to the head (perhaps by some dialogue between Susan and Andrea). He didn't deserve it either. He was OK. Weird, but OK.