What do you think?
Rate this book
Jean
Seventeen–year–old Jean, a troubled Jewish boy caught in the countercultural swirl of 1970s London, arrives at Compton Manor, a rural alternative boarding school for boys with “problems.” Though he is an outcast among these outcasts, he is befriended by Tom, a much wealthier, more popular classmate, and it seems as if Jean’s world might change.
When things turn romantic, Jean is tipped into a heady, overwhelming infatuation. What before seemed odd now brims with promise—the compulsory farming at school, reading poetry aloud, pagan ritual—and Jean thinks he might even pass his exams. But the differences between Tom and Jean—Tom is tuition–paying, Jean is on a scholarship; Tom social, Jean reclusive—create too wide a chasm to cross.
Set over one hot summer, Jean is a startlingly assured debut about the kinds of love that break us and make us whole.
When things turn romantic, Jean is tipped into a heady, overwhelming infatuation. What before seemed odd now brims with promise—the compulsory farming at school, reading poetry aloud, pagan ritual—and Jean thinks he might even pass his exams. But the differences between Tom and Jean—Tom is tuition–paying, Jean is on a scholarship; Tom social, Jean reclusive—create too wide a chasm to cross.
Set over one hot summer, Jean is a startlingly assured debut about the kinds of love that break us and make us whole.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published January 13, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 244 reviews
December 8, 2025
First off, I really do appreciate the ARC via Netgalley and Norton - but sadly, this just did not work for me hardly at all.
The debut novelist lists 6 well-known authors (J. Eugenides, J. S. Foer, K. Kitamura, G. Greenwell, B. Markovits, Brandon Taylor) in the acknowledgments who served as teachers/mentors during the composition of the book - but apparently NONE of them taught her the #1 most obvious rule for writers: write what you know.
Not only was the author (obvs.) never a 17-year-old questioning queer boy, but, to judge by the author photo, she can't be much older than 30, so was also not around in 1976 when she sets her story - although you would hardly know that without being told, as there are virtually NO period details (I suspect the era was chosen so as NOT to have to deal with the impending AIDS crisis).
Now having been approximately the same age as the titular character in 1976 AND a questioning queer boy back then too - this lacked any verisimilitude for me as to what one went through. Sure, I was in Calif and a bright student, NOT in a remedial school for delinquents in the UK - but even allowing for that difference, Jean's trials and tribulations rang largely false to me.
Compounding that issue, the writer has an odd quirk of starting something in the present tense and then without warning, segueing to a memory or flashback, and then as abruptly, whiplashing back to the present. Not only did I find this jarring and often confusing, but that caused the book to lack any forward momentum ... in the immortal words of the Friends theme song: "it's like you're always stuck in 2nd gear".
It took me five days to get through this, when normally a book of this length would take me two... Also: no quotation marks in dialogue scenes, so often you had to work to figure out who was speaking- I wish this horrendous fad would die a swift death.
Finally, my other issue is that there is an extended, totally superfluous section detailing in minute and gross detail the slaughter and butchering of a cow - if I weren't already a confirmed longtime vegan, those passages would certainly have converted me!
Despite my lack of virtually any enjoyment, others have found a lot to like in this, so perhaps it's a case of 'it's not you, it's me' - so don't let me dissuade you from trying it out if it seems of interest - your mileage may very well vary!
The debut novelist lists 6 well-known authors (J. Eugenides, J. S. Foer, K. Kitamura, G. Greenwell, B. Markovits, Brandon Taylor) in the acknowledgments who served as teachers/mentors during the composition of the book - but apparently NONE of them taught her the #1 most obvious rule for writers: write what you know.
Not only was the author (obvs.) never a 17-year-old questioning queer boy, but, to judge by the author photo, she can't be much older than 30, so was also not around in 1976 when she sets her story - although you would hardly know that without being told, as there are virtually NO period details (I suspect the era was chosen so as NOT to have to deal with the impending AIDS crisis).
Now having been approximately the same age as the titular character in 1976 AND a questioning queer boy back then too - this lacked any verisimilitude for me as to what one went through. Sure, I was in Calif and a bright student, NOT in a remedial school for delinquents in the UK - but even allowing for that difference, Jean's trials and tribulations rang largely false to me.
Compounding that issue, the writer has an odd quirk of starting something in the present tense and then without warning, segueing to a memory or flashback, and then as abruptly, whiplashing back to the present. Not only did I find this jarring and often confusing, but that caused the book to lack any forward momentum ... in the immortal words of the Friends theme song: "it's like you're always stuck in 2nd gear".
It took me five days to get through this, when normally a book of this length would take me two... Also: no quotation marks in dialogue scenes, so often you had to work to figure out who was speaking- I wish this horrendous fad would die a swift death.
Finally, my other issue is that there is an extended, totally superfluous section detailing in minute and gross detail the slaughter and butchering of a cow - if I weren't already a confirmed longtime vegan, those passages would certainly have converted me!
Despite my lack of virtually any enjoyment, others have found a lot to like in this, so perhaps it's a case of 'it's not you, it's me' - so don't let me dissuade you from trying it out if it seems of interest - your mileage may very well vary!
June 30, 2026
I’ve read this before, and you probably have read it too. It is like any other coming-of-age story with a gay adolescent as the protagonist. It lacks identity as a story and in its prose. Is that a sin? I’m not sure. Maybe if it’s your first, you will like it more.
March 28, 2026
I thought this was a disappointing novel. It started off captivating: Jean has been sent to a boarding school of last resort for troubled boys, but even there, he is a misfit and an outsider. He is Jewish, fatherless, and prone to violent eruptions. His mother is an artist and a libertine, and he has inherited from her a disregard for bourgeois trappings. He has little desire to fit in or move up in the world; he doesn't care about his exams. He just wants to escape to his getaway beyond the pig pen where he can smoke weed, and soon he develops a confusing, on-and-off infatuation with a boy named Tom. So far so good. It is the 60s, homosexuality is illegal, and he is unsure how to process his feelings for this boy. As a result, he is explosively angry. He dreams of trekking through China.
However, the novel seems unable to settle into and explore Jean's psychological conundrum. Jean, as it turns out, struggles to express and reciprocate Tom's desires not because of societal attitudes to homosexuality or because of anti-semitism but because he must first confront his repressed traumas—his past relationship with an older, now-famous musician; sexual abuse by a stranger while on vacation; his father's absence (and confusing reappearance). I think this novel—like much misery porn—presents an inadequate theory of the human psyche, imagining all sexual desire and every romantic hesitation as just the product of painful memories. It reduces the individual to a set of trauma-responses. I also feel uncomfortable with these narratives of homosexual abuse, which implicitly reinforce the idea of gay men as inherently predatory. Why couldn't the gay elders in this story—the teachers and role models—be supportive mentors rather than prurient lechers? What is the point of this story today?
However, the novel seems unable to settle into and explore Jean's psychological conundrum. Jean, as it turns out, struggles to express and reciprocate Tom's desires not because of societal attitudes to homosexuality or because of anti-semitism but because he must first confront his repressed traumas—his past relationship with an older, now-famous musician; sexual abuse by a stranger while on vacation; his father's absence (and confusing reappearance). I think this novel—like much misery porn—presents an inadequate theory of the human psyche, imagining all sexual desire and every romantic hesitation as just the product of painful memories. It reduces the individual to a set of trauma-responses. I also feel uncomfortable with these narratives of homosexual abuse, which implicitly reinforce the idea of gay men as inherently predatory. Why couldn't the gay elders in this story—the teachers and role models—be supportive mentors rather than prurient lechers? What is the point of this story today?
September 30, 2025
4.5
Thank you to Netgalley and the publisher for providing me with an arc in exchange for an honest review. This book was soooo good. From the atmosphere to the prose I could not put it down. It definitely reminded me a bit of call me by your name with the secluded setting some of the book had. It definitely also has an academia sort of vibe with the school scenes. The two main characters both heavily flawed were so compelling to follow and read about. This book is not a romance but instead an exploration of queer youth and the messiness of it. Totally recommend to literally everyone.
Thank you to Netgalley and the publisher for providing me with an arc in exchange for an honest review. This book was soooo good. From the atmosphere to the prose I could not put it down. It definitely reminded me a bit of call me by your name with the secluded setting some of the book had. It definitely also has an academia sort of vibe with the school scenes. The two main characters both heavily flawed were so compelling to follow and read about. This book is not a romance but instead an exploration of queer youth and the messiness of it. Totally recommend to literally everyone.
March 20, 2026
abolish the NYU creative writing program i’m so serious. i cannot deal with any more novels about gay teenage boys being emotionally tortured written by women in their 30s!! this read like if someone tried to turn a little life into marauders-era harry potter fanfic!!
January 14, 2026
3.5 ⭐️
Thank you NetGalley and the publisher for an ALC of the audiobook!
Jean is a seventeen year old attending a rural boarding school for troubled boys. Through out the story we see Jean struggle to fit in as well as trying to figure out his feelings for Tom.
I did very much enjoy this book it was a very easy read and the plot was engaging however I did have a few issues.
I felt that the ending was a little rushed and the book in general could have been a bit longer and I don’t mean it in the “I wish this never ends” sense more in the “you could have done more with this” kind of way.
Another thing was the time period the book is set in 1970s the author states, if I wasn’t explicitly told I would have been none the wiser. Nothing would have changed if the book was set in 2000s it adds nothing to the story.
Now for the audiobook: I did enjoy it to an extent but good god I didn’t like the narrator. It might be just a me thing but the way he portrayed literally EVERY side character to sound was so grating hearing it for the first time was a shock to the system and I wish I could say you get used to it but I’d be lying.
Thank you NetGalley and the publisher for an ALC of the audiobook!
Jean is a seventeen year old attending a rural boarding school for troubled boys. Through out the story we see Jean struggle to fit in as well as trying to figure out his feelings for Tom.
I did very much enjoy this book it was a very easy read and the plot was engaging however I did have a few issues.
I felt that the ending was a little rushed and the book in general could have been a bit longer and I don’t mean it in the “I wish this never ends” sense more in the “you could have done more with this” kind of way.
Another thing was the time period the book is set in 1970s the author states, if I wasn’t explicitly told I would have been none the wiser. Nothing would have changed if the book was set in 2000s it adds nothing to the story.
Now for the audiobook: I did enjoy it to an extent but good god I didn’t like the narrator. It might be just a me thing but the way he portrayed literally EVERY side character to sound was so grating hearing it for the first time was a shock to the system and I wish I could say you get used to it but I’d be lying.
August 18, 2026
What I loathed about this novel is not simply its pretentious prose but above all the author's five pages of thanks and acknowledgements that reads like the some grotesque parody of an Oscar acceptance speech - except without any trace of irony - and redolent of curated tributes to writers like Garth Greenwell and Katie Kitamura (surprise, surprise they both provided lavish praise for prepublication publicity use) and Brandon Taylor and Jeffrey Eugenides. One gets the feeling the writing of this novel was as much a way of cultivating 'contacts' as an artistic endeavour. Do I really need to tell you that her pretentious pose comes out of a creative writing course?
The oddest thing about this novel is why it is set in 1976 - half a century ago (I was 18 in that year) - though in my few forays into reading fiction by young writers with 'gay' characters I have noticed an almost universal retreat into the past - because not only is there no pressing reason for 1976 the author doesn't seem to have done research into how 1976 was different from 2026 (please see my footnote *1 for a few a few of the howlers I spotted). The author, like many other young writers, sets her story in the past but writes both story and characters as if they were contemporary with now. Although the story is set in a school for 'troubled' teenagers it is clear the author knows nothing of schools like Summerhill or Dartington that were radical and innovative and placed children at the centre of education. Significantly schools like Summerhill and Dartington, and all 'trendy' schools like Beadles, were co-educational but Ms. Dunnigan insists on the school being radical but also archaically old fashioned. What she has created is not a 1976 'alternative' private school with hippy overtones but a portrait of a 21st century finishing school for the rich and the thick. Nothing in the way the pupils behave smoking, fighting and cursing in front of teachers for that time. Also I doubt any 17 year old boy in 1976 would have thought of himself as 'gay'.
The novel also suffers from a plethora of plot lines so that when the denouement comes and we learn of Jean's sexual abuse and rejection by his father they are just two more things piled on as if to ensure every possible misery base is touched on (including a mother with serious boundary issues who is constantly invading her sons bedroom while he is naked). This is the sort of self-indulgent pity fiction that writers like Hanya Yanagihara produce but it has no connection with reality.
I don't like criticising women gay male characters but I have noticed a trend of females writing teenage gay boy characters as if they were different to their heterosexual. Butt 17 year old gay boys are exactly like their sex obsessed 'straight' counterparts - they are often in lust with those straight boys. They are not more enlightened or sensitive - they are full of hormones and desperate for sex. The Jean that is presented in this novel makes no sense as a queer boy 1976 or 2026.
What I find so deeply disappointing in novels like this is that it tells us nothing about the past or the present. There are queer/gay stories to be told - it is still difficult to be young and grow up gay, to make connections, find friends, lovers (read about Stephen Port the grindr murderer at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen...) it is not that the past must be avoided (see Philippe Besson's 'Lie Witth Me') but today can make for illuminating reading (check out the stories of Keith Banner) but writers like Ms. Dunnigan eschew reality because it cannot be wrapped up in pretty language, it most stand up for more or been seen for the empty shell it is. I have seen Ms. Dunnign praised as one of Britain's next great novelists, if she is, then we must be grateful that English language literature has secure future away from Britain.
*1 She has Jean and Tom refer constantly to Russia where it should have been the Soviet Union. They study maps with the city Yekaterinburg on them but in 1976 the city was called Sverdlosk (and had been since 1924 and would be until 1991). You don't transport a live cow on the roof of a Landrover, and eating shellfish is as much a no, no for Jews as eating Pork.
The oddest thing about this novel is why it is set in 1976 - half a century ago (I was 18 in that year) - though in my few forays into reading fiction by young writers with 'gay' characters I have noticed an almost universal retreat into the past - because not only is there no pressing reason for 1976 the author doesn't seem to have done research into how 1976 was different from 2026 (please see my footnote *1 for a few a few of the howlers I spotted). The author, like many other young writers, sets her story in the past but writes both story and characters as if they were contemporary with now. Although the story is set in a school for 'troubled' teenagers it is clear the author knows nothing of schools like Summerhill or Dartington that were radical and innovative and placed children at the centre of education. Significantly schools like Summerhill and Dartington, and all 'trendy' schools like Beadles, were co-educational but Ms. Dunnigan insists on the school being radical but also archaically old fashioned. What she has created is not a 1976 'alternative' private school with hippy overtones but a portrait of a 21st century finishing school for the rich and the thick. Nothing in the way the pupils behave smoking, fighting and cursing in front of teachers for that time. Also I doubt any 17 year old boy in 1976 would have thought of himself as 'gay'.
The novel also suffers from a plethora of plot lines so that when the denouement comes and we learn of Jean's sexual abuse and rejection by his father they are just two more things piled on as if to ensure every possible misery base is touched on (including a mother with serious boundary issues who is constantly invading her sons bedroom while he is naked). This is the sort of self-indulgent pity fiction that writers like Hanya Yanagihara produce but it has no connection with reality.
I don't like criticising women gay male characters but I have noticed a trend of females writing teenage gay boy characters as if they were different to their heterosexual. Butt 17 year old gay boys are exactly like their sex obsessed 'straight' counterparts - they are often in lust with those straight boys. They are not more enlightened or sensitive - they are full of hormones and desperate for sex. The Jean that is presented in this novel makes no sense as a queer boy 1976 or 2026.
What I find so deeply disappointing in novels like this is that it tells us nothing about the past or the present. There are queer/gay stories to be told - it is still difficult to be young and grow up gay, to make connections, find friends, lovers (read about Stephen Port the grindr murderer at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen...) it is not that the past must be avoided (see Philippe Besson's 'Lie Witth Me') but today can make for illuminating reading (check out the stories of Keith Banner) but writers like Ms. Dunnigan eschew reality because it cannot be wrapped up in pretty language, it most stand up for more or been seen for the empty shell it is. I have seen Ms. Dunnign praised as one of Britain's next great novelists, if she is, then we must be grateful that English language literature has secure future away from Britain.
*1 She has Jean and Tom refer constantly to Russia where it should have been the Soviet Union. They study maps with the city Yekaterinburg on them but in 1976 the city was called Sverdlosk (and had been since 1924 and would be until 1991). You don't transport a live cow on the roof of a Landrover, and eating shellfish is as much a no, no for Jews as eating Pork.
August 20, 2026
I don’t find it that easy to give this book a rating as it is quite different from books I’ve read recently. I do think it addressed sexual abuse and trauma in an interesting and (as a person who has not experienced these things) realistic way. I sympathized a lot with the main characters issues of self worth but found it hard to understand his character development. Generally this book is written in a way that makes it difficult to visualize what is happening.
I expected this book to be about the difficulty’s of being a closeted gay teenager at an all boys boarding school, which it was to an extent but it was also much more than this.
All in all I would recommend but don’t think it’s for everyone.
“He feels heavy, weighed down by the knowledge that for Tom, for his father, he was not and never will be the real thing. He will only ever be practice.”
I expected this book to be about the difficulty’s of being a closeted gay teenager at an all boys boarding school, which it was to an extent but it was also much more than this.
All in all I would recommend but don’t think it’s for everyone.
“He feels heavy, weighed down by the knowledge that for Tom, for his father, he was not and never will be the real thing. He will only ever be practice.”
Read
October 3, 2025I’m sorry. I really thought I would love this one, but starting reading while traveling for 26 hours with a flu on a plane (three actually) might not have been the best decision. Add headaches preventing me from picking it back up, lacking quotation marks, and sudden jumps from present to past and back to present and I got lost. Such a shame because I saw people comparing this one to Young Mungo, These Violent Delights, Swimming in the Dark, and the first pages made me think of Brian Washington’s writing.
For now it’s a DNF, but I might come back to it later when I’m feeling better!
For now it’s a DNF, but I might come back to it later when I’m feeling better!
January 20, 2026
Too much trauma, not enough story
Thank you to NetGalley, Madeleine Dunnigan, and Dreamscape Media for this advanced audiobook in exchange for an honest review.
CW: Child sexual abuse, grooming, maternal sexual abuse/incest, teacher-student abuse romanticized, exploitative relationship dynamics, drug use, sexual content, childhood abandonment, death, suicide, physical violence
I went into Jean by Madeleine Dunnigan expecting a story about a seventeen-year-old boy finding love at a boarding school in 1970s London. What I got was trauma after trauma thrown at me without any real exploration or purpose behind it.
Keval Shah reads the audiobook. His pacing was pretty good, but the voice choices he made for different characters just don't work. The voices didn't match who the characters seemed to be, which made things harder to follow.
This book drops serious content on you constantly. Jean had a relationship with an adult man named Mickey when he was around fifteen, just two years before the story takes place. Mickey gave him alcohol and drugs. They bathed together, with Mickey massaging Jean's scalp and watching him. It's deeply unsettling. Jean insists "nothing ever happened," but this is grooming and abuse even if it never became overtly sexual. This relationship is supposedly important to the ending, but it's confusing and never gets resolved.
Jean's mother crosses every boundary you can imagine. She strips him naked in front of people. She slides her finger under his waistband. She doesn't knock before coming into his room and laughs if he's not dressed. She climbs into his bed at night even now when he's seventeen. This is abuse, but the book never calls it that or deals with what it means.
The book also drops a major revelation about Jean's father near the end without exploring what it means or how it affects Jean. It felt like the author might be using this to explain why Jean seeks affection from men or boys, which is a really harmful way to think about queer people. Like trauma made him gay or explains his desires. That's not okay.
The relationship with Tom isn't a romance. Tom uses Jean. He takes advantage of him. It's exploitative, not love. There's also mention of a past teacher-student relationship at the school. The quote I included shows how the book talks about a teacher having an "affair" with a student like it's passionate and tied to fighting authority. That's not romance. That's abuse of power dressed up as something exciting.
The book also mentions sexual things happening in the school bathrooms late at night. Jean knows about it, other students know about it, they participate. The way it's written makes it seem normal, just something that happens. That bothered me.
The way this book handles trauma and queer sexuality makes me think the author doesn't really understand these things from lived experience. Maybe she didn't do enough research. These are serious topics that need careful treatment. What's here feels careless.
The ending didn't satisfy me at all. After everything that gets brought up, nothing feels finished or earned. The concept is interesting. A character study of someone carrying all this trauma. But it doesn't work. The audiobook jumps between past and present suddenly without warning, which is disorienting in a bad way.
I don't know who should read this. If you want a queer love story, this isn't it and the content might actually upset you. If you want thoughtful exploration of trauma, you won't find it here. The 1970s setting doesn't add anything important.
A book that tries to do too much and doesn't handle any of it well, leaving serious issues unexplored and me confused about what the point was.
"Years ago, a french teacher had an affair with a student. It was quiet, impassioned. Involving marxist theory and late night rallies and resulted in the teacher and student leading a revolt to overthrow the school board. Since then, relations between boys and of course between boys and teachers have not just been discouraged, but seen as a direct threat."
Thank you to NetGalley, Madeleine Dunnigan, and Dreamscape Media for this advanced audiobook in exchange for an honest review.
CW: Child sexual abuse, grooming, maternal sexual abuse/incest, teacher-student abuse romanticized, exploitative relationship dynamics, drug use, sexual content, childhood abandonment, death, suicide, physical violence
I went into Jean by Madeleine Dunnigan expecting a story about a seventeen-year-old boy finding love at a boarding school in 1970s London. What I got was trauma after trauma thrown at me without any real exploration or purpose behind it.
Keval Shah reads the audiobook. His pacing was pretty good, but the voice choices he made for different characters just don't work. The voices didn't match who the characters seemed to be, which made things harder to follow.
This book drops serious content on you constantly. Jean had a relationship with an adult man named Mickey when he was around fifteen, just two years before the story takes place. Mickey gave him alcohol and drugs. They bathed together, with Mickey massaging Jean's scalp and watching him. It's deeply unsettling. Jean insists "nothing ever happened," but this is grooming and abuse even if it never became overtly sexual. This relationship is supposedly important to the ending, but it's confusing and never gets resolved.
Jean's mother crosses every boundary you can imagine. She strips him naked in front of people. She slides her finger under his waistband. She doesn't knock before coming into his room and laughs if he's not dressed. She climbs into his bed at night even now when he's seventeen. This is abuse, but the book never calls it that or deals with what it means.
The book also drops a major revelation about Jean's father near the end without exploring what it means or how it affects Jean. It felt like the author might be using this to explain why Jean seeks affection from men or boys, which is a really harmful way to think about queer people. Like trauma made him gay or explains his desires. That's not okay.
The relationship with Tom isn't a romance. Tom uses Jean. He takes advantage of him. It's exploitative, not love. There's also mention of a past teacher-student relationship at the school. The quote I included shows how the book talks about a teacher having an "affair" with a student like it's passionate and tied to fighting authority. That's not romance. That's abuse of power dressed up as something exciting.
The book also mentions sexual things happening in the school bathrooms late at night. Jean knows about it, other students know about it, they participate. The way it's written makes it seem normal, just something that happens. That bothered me.
The way this book handles trauma and queer sexuality makes me think the author doesn't really understand these things from lived experience. Maybe she didn't do enough research. These are serious topics that need careful treatment. What's here feels careless.
The ending didn't satisfy me at all. After everything that gets brought up, nothing feels finished or earned. The concept is interesting. A character study of someone carrying all this trauma. But it doesn't work. The audiobook jumps between past and present suddenly without warning, which is disorienting in a bad way.
I don't know who should read this. If you want a queer love story, this isn't it and the content might actually upset you. If you want thoughtful exploration of trauma, you won't find it here. The 1970s setting doesn't add anything important.
A book that tries to do too much and doesn't handle any of it well, leaving serious issues unexplored and me confused about what the point was.
February 5, 2026
Coming of age novel about a boy, Jean, who is gay in the 1970s in an English boarding school.
It's a theme that has been done many times before and I was a bit bored to be honest. This is a book that will come to life when you are emotionally invested, and for some reason I could not.
One reason may be that I listened to the audiobook and found the narrator not well chosen. Technically there is nothing wrong with him, but it didn't fit the narrative and the voices he did for some of the characters really didn't match (e.g. hippies with a posh accent).
It's a theme that has been done many times before and I was a bit bored to be honest. This is a book that will come to life when you are emotionally invested, and for some reason I could not.
One reason may be that I listened to the audiobook and found the narrator not well chosen. Technically there is nothing wrong with him, but it didn't fit the narrative and the voices he did for some of the characters really didn't match (e.g. hippies with a posh accent).
January 27, 2026
Jean is a 17 year old boy who attends a school for troubled boys. His life up till this point has been chaotic to say the least - an absent father, a hippy mother, few friends and a violent temper have led to this point.
Jean is even more of an outcast than the other outcasts he is at the school with: a scholarship boy amongst fee payers. But then he strikes up a friendship with Tom, one of the popular boys. Will this mean a change of fortune for him?
I'm afraid this book simply didn't ever land for me. None of the characters were particularly believable and the story felt like a series of snapshots loosely linked together; nothing felt coherent. I simply wasn't invested in Jean's story.
I listened to the audiobook, which was well narrated by Keval Shah except for the fact that every other character, apart from Jean, sounded like John Gielgud at his plummiest.
Thankyou to Netgalley and RB Media for the audio advance review copy.
Jean is even more of an outcast than the other outcasts he is at the school with: a scholarship boy amongst fee payers. But then he strikes up a friendship with Tom, one of the popular boys. Will this mean a change of fortune for him?
I'm afraid this book simply didn't ever land for me. None of the characters were particularly believable and the story felt like a series of snapshots loosely linked together; nothing felt coherent. I simply wasn't invested in Jean's story.
I listened to the audiobook, which was well narrated by Keval Shah except for the fact that every other character, apart from Jean, sounded like John Gielgud at his plummiest.
Thankyou to Netgalley and RB Media for the audio advance review copy.
March 8, 2026
just filled with sordid boring cliches and wasn't really enjoyable
February 5, 2026
There’s a very particular part of me that goes absolutely insane while reading a specific type of book: a queer coming of age literary fiction novel set in summer. I don’t know what it is, but I’m a fan.
Usually, though, if the book is about a queer man, I’d prefer the author to be a man himself. And same goes with a book about a queer woman, I just feel more comfortable if the writer is a woman. And this was not the case… which is probably why it rubbed me the wrong way. Not all the time, let’s be fair, but there were parts where you could tell who the person behind the book is.
This is the story of Jean, a 17 year-old problem student who gets sent to a boarding school for troubled boys. There he meets Tom, and his feelings for him begin to arise on top of his already questioning sexuality. And so it goes.
Their relationship is not a love story, it’s just not, Tom is not a good guy. But I wasn’t expecting a romance out of this, I was expecting toxicity, so it’s not a massive letdown. Everyone in this is a bit toxic, matter of fact. For one, I can’t even begin to describe Jean’s mother. Some parts were really hard to get through. I feel like this is probably a good time to mention the trigger warnings. If you’re easily triggered by… literally anything, maybe this book might not be for you. There’s a bit of every kind of abuse, to make it quick, and some sex scenes. Very trauma heavy.
On top of that, we have Jean’s estranged father, and I don’t really liked how that was dealt with. Especially given that the writer is a (presumably) straight woman, the bomb dropped and it read like an explanation to Jean’s queerness. Which, no thank you.
The prose was beautiful, though. One thing I liked. Pity the story didn’t do it for me, honestly. You can tell Dunnigan is a talented writer and this won’t discourage me from checking out more of her books. This one was just a bit much for me sadly. 2.75/5⭐️
Audiobook notes: I was not a fan of the narration to be honest. I didn’t like the different voices the narrator used to tell the characters apart. And the internal monologue sounded more like he was narrating a documentary than a coming of age novel.
Thank you to NetGalley for providing an ALC in exchange for an honest review.
Usually, though, if the book is about a queer man, I’d prefer the author to be a man himself. And same goes with a book about a queer woman, I just feel more comfortable if the writer is a woman. And this was not the case… which is probably why it rubbed me the wrong way. Not all the time, let’s be fair, but there were parts where you could tell who the person behind the book is.
This is the story of Jean, a 17 year-old problem student who gets sent to a boarding school for troubled boys. There he meets Tom, and his feelings for him begin to arise on top of his already questioning sexuality. And so it goes.
Their relationship is not a love story, it’s just not, Tom is not a good guy. But I wasn’t expecting a romance out of this, I was expecting toxicity, so it’s not a massive letdown. Everyone in this is a bit toxic, matter of fact. For one, I can’t even begin to describe Jean’s mother. Some parts were really hard to get through. I feel like this is probably a good time to mention the trigger warnings. If you’re easily triggered by… literally anything, maybe this book might not be for you. There’s a bit of every kind of abuse, to make it quick, and some sex scenes. Very trauma heavy.
On top of that, we have Jean’s estranged father, and I don’t really liked how that was dealt with. Especially given that the writer is a (presumably) straight woman, the bomb dropped and it read like an explanation to Jean’s queerness. Which, no thank you.
The prose was beautiful, though. One thing I liked. Pity the story didn’t do it for me, honestly. You can tell Dunnigan is a talented writer and this won’t discourage me from checking out more of her books. This one was just a bit much for me sadly. 2.75/5⭐️
Audiobook notes: I was not a fan of the narration to be honest. I didn’t like the different voices the narrator used to tell the characters apart. And the internal monologue sounded more like he was narrating a documentary than a coming of age novel.
Thank you to NetGalley for providing an ALC in exchange for an honest review.
March 21, 2026
I found the author’s choice to use no punctuation really hampered my enjoyment of the book.
May 15, 2026
seriously i was ROBBED by not being allowed to go to a gay ass boarding school
November 5, 2025
Thank you to Norton for providing me with an ARC of this release.
Jean was an uneven and ultimately unsatisfying read. Firstly, it's too muddled in the execution, hampered further with confusing dialogue and points of view; the novel explores a variety of themes that could have cohered, but were not delved into with enough depth, such as Jean’s blond and blue-eyed father (presumably German, and the image of the prototypical Aryan) contrasted with his mother’s more obvious Jewishness, along with the side notes on Jewish assimilation and the conflicts arising from it (such as Micky taking on a non-Jewish sounding name, and not correcting others if they assume he’s Spanish or Portuguese).
Jean's rebellious and violent impulses may have been expressions of a core knowledge or imposition of not-belonging, arising from factors outside of his control, such as his class and ethnic status; notions of control, power and powerlessness drive him to desperately seek alternative ways of being and experiencing through meditation, drugs, and Buddhist philosophy. If one is apart from the constraints and expectations of the material world, then presumably they will be shielded from suffering--this is Jean's rationale, as he grapples with his confusing feelings and desires. I liked the tension between a wish to belong and surrendering to emptiness/nothingness, to escape the confusion and panic of not-belonging or not-understanding.
The execution of the novel is half-baked, with some brilliant moments such as the juxtaposition of the cow slaughter as Jean is distracted thinking of Tom, as he’s making the cuts and lets the knife slip. The bare insight toward the end that Jean was not so different from his peers after all felt like a step into cohesion, interrupted by the realization of the class and ethnic distinction which makes itself stark with Tom’s betrayal--that "differences" are largely imposed and institutional and embraced by most individuals, if not outwardly flaunted, for the privileges granted to them. Then we return to the origin point, so it feels like a wasted "turn".
I also don’t like the typical narrative of a young gay boy wrestling with his sexuality due to an event of sexual violence, as Jean wrestles with the shame of his first sexual encounter being one of violation, with the novel leading you into assuming Micky is the perpetrator, but then it was actually a random Italian man. The relationship that Jean has with Micky is wrought, with Jean attempting simultaneously to find a positive male role model in the absence of his father, and an object of his romantic and sexual desire--all while struggling to meet standards of what it is to be a "boy" or "man", also influenced by his lack of an older male figure to strive to emulate.
The novel teeters frequently between coming off as exploitative rather than delicate, like how Jean shrinks from expressions of tenderness while juggling violent urges and impulses and feelings, to prove himself a man and not a “f****t”, because of that first encounter he never reconciled or confided to anyone about, aside from Tom, who ended up betraying him. The looming shape of the quasi-male figure along with constant derision of his Jewishness combine to leave the reader wondering if the novel will ground itself in a proper engagement of their tension. It seems like his Jewishness was another sign of "otherness" and included tactlessly, with offhand comments about Jean’s grandparents, one “sent to a camp”...couldn’t this have been put more delicately, with another looming shape being generational trauma in the wake of the Holocaust.
Clearly Jean resents his mom for being so controlling and bohemian, and clearly not English, clearly an "other", and thus contributing further to his ostracization—because even when he has his father’s German features, he is still seen and treated as a “Yid”, and thus perhaps why he longs so desperately for his father--perhaps he would be more readily accepted, he may think. I'd have liked more grounding of this.
There are also too many random details that could have been incorporated earlier, like the plan for Jean to go to art school. It seemed pulled out of nowhere that he even liked or indulged in art at all toward the end as he thinks about his classmates' future plans in particular. The novel seems like a lot of spliced together parts that could have connected well, but the writing meandered too much or lost focus.
I did enjoy the confusion and whirlwind of youth against a cold, strange academic background, but the tossed in pagan element does seem out of sorts with how David, the headmaster, is especially bent toward Christian respectability. Somehow they are all fine with being in dresses and general debauchery? What happened to making them “proper” men? It doesn’t check out with how it's a reform school.
I would’ve liked a progression of the "Aha" moment when Jean realizes how inward he’s been, presumptuous of others, or simply failing to be curious about them, like when he is conscious finally that Hugo’s father is a famous artist, along with the others’ future plans. He reflects on how he just hated and resented his classmates without actual context or reasoning; at the same time, both make sense, from a class and ethnic perspective, like how he’s attending the school on a scholarship--yet this also does not pose much of a problem until it's convenient for conflict in the narrative. Jean doesn’t seem to care much about studying until the very end. And why does Tom care at all, on a side note? He and Jean studying together so fervently doesn't make sense in that respect.
It's a "coming of age" novel, yet there is no sense of maturity or growth by the novel's end. He accepts his outcast status, both self-imposed and societally enforced, and that he’s truly “alone”.
I will say I enjoyed quite a bit of the writing, such as the figurative language during the scenes in wilderness, emphasizing Jean’s inner tension that is released as a “wildness” of his own, that he fears and cannot begin to understand. The writer is good at evoking such visceral scenes and contrasting tenderness with violence.
Ratings confound and confuse me at times, but I'd give this novel a 2.5/5.
Jean was an uneven and ultimately unsatisfying read. Firstly, it's too muddled in the execution, hampered further with confusing dialogue and points of view; the novel explores a variety of themes that could have cohered, but were not delved into with enough depth, such as Jean’s blond and blue-eyed father (presumably German, and the image of the prototypical Aryan) contrasted with his mother’s more obvious Jewishness, along with the side notes on Jewish assimilation and the conflicts arising from it (such as Micky taking on a non-Jewish sounding name, and not correcting others if they assume he’s Spanish or Portuguese).
Jean's rebellious and violent impulses may have been expressions of a core knowledge or imposition of not-belonging, arising from factors outside of his control, such as his class and ethnic status; notions of control, power and powerlessness drive him to desperately seek alternative ways of being and experiencing through meditation, drugs, and Buddhist philosophy. If one is apart from the constraints and expectations of the material world, then presumably they will be shielded from suffering--this is Jean's rationale, as he grapples with his confusing feelings and desires. I liked the tension between a wish to belong and surrendering to emptiness/nothingness, to escape the confusion and panic of not-belonging or not-understanding.
The execution of the novel is half-baked, with some brilliant moments such as the juxtaposition of the cow slaughter as Jean is distracted thinking of Tom, as he’s making the cuts and lets the knife slip. The bare insight toward the end that Jean was not so different from his peers after all felt like a step into cohesion, interrupted by the realization of the class and ethnic distinction which makes itself stark with Tom’s betrayal--that "differences" are largely imposed and institutional and embraced by most individuals, if not outwardly flaunted, for the privileges granted to them. Then we return to the origin point, so it feels like a wasted "turn".
I also don’t like the typical narrative of a young gay boy wrestling with his sexuality due to an event of sexual violence, as Jean wrestles with the shame of his first sexual encounter being one of violation, with the novel leading you into assuming Micky is the perpetrator, but then it was actually a random Italian man. The relationship that Jean has with Micky is wrought, with Jean attempting simultaneously to find a positive male role model in the absence of his father, and an object of his romantic and sexual desire--all while struggling to meet standards of what it is to be a "boy" or "man", also influenced by his lack of an older male figure to strive to emulate.
The novel teeters frequently between coming off as exploitative rather than delicate, like how Jean shrinks from expressions of tenderness while juggling violent urges and impulses and feelings, to prove himself a man and not a “f****t”, because of that first encounter he never reconciled or confided to anyone about, aside from Tom, who ended up betraying him. The looming shape of the quasi-male figure along with constant derision of his Jewishness combine to leave the reader wondering if the novel will ground itself in a proper engagement of their tension. It seems like his Jewishness was another sign of "otherness" and included tactlessly, with offhand comments about Jean’s grandparents, one “sent to a camp”...couldn’t this have been put more delicately, with another looming shape being generational trauma in the wake of the Holocaust.
Clearly Jean resents his mom for being so controlling and bohemian, and clearly not English, clearly an "other", and thus contributing further to his ostracization—because even when he has his father’s German features, he is still seen and treated as a “Yid”, and thus perhaps why he longs so desperately for his father--perhaps he would be more readily accepted, he may think. I'd have liked more grounding of this.
There are also too many random details that could have been incorporated earlier, like the plan for Jean to go to art school. It seemed pulled out of nowhere that he even liked or indulged in art at all toward the end as he thinks about his classmates' future plans in particular. The novel seems like a lot of spliced together parts that could have connected well, but the writing meandered too much or lost focus.
I did enjoy the confusion and whirlwind of youth against a cold, strange academic background, but the tossed in pagan element does seem out of sorts with how David, the headmaster, is especially bent toward Christian respectability. Somehow they are all fine with being in dresses and general debauchery? What happened to making them “proper” men? It doesn’t check out with how it's a reform school.
I would’ve liked a progression of the "Aha" moment when Jean realizes how inward he’s been, presumptuous of others, or simply failing to be curious about them, like when he is conscious finally that Hugo’s father is a famous artist, along with the others’ future plans. He reflects on how he just hated and resented his classmates without actual context or reasoning; at the same time, both make sense, from a class and ethnic perspective, like how he’s attending the school on a scholarship--yet this also does not pose much of a problem until it's convenient for conflict in the narrative. Jean doesn’t seem to care much about studying until the very end. And why does Tom care at all, on a side note? He and Jean studying together so fervently doesn't make sense in that respect.
It's a "coming of age" novel, yet there is no sense of maturity or growth by the novel's end. He accepts his outcast status, both self-imposed and societally enforced, and that he’s truly “alone”.
I will say I enjoyed quite a bit of the writing, such as the figurative language during the scenes in wilderness, emphasizing Jean’s inner tension that is released as a “wildness” of his own, that he fears and cannot begin to understand. The writer is good at evoking such visceral scenes and contrasting tenderness with violence.
Ratings confound and confuse me at times, but I'd give this novel a 2.5/5.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 4, 2026
There was only one reason I picked up this book, as it falls well outside my usual reading lane—but what a pleasant surprise. Jean follows Jean, a troubled young gay man grappling with traumatic events from his past that cloud his mind and often erupt in anger and violent outbursts. The novel is an exploration of Jean’s inner world: how he processes his feelings, his friendships, his relationship with his mother, his experiences at reform school but most importantly, how he deals with his love for Tom. At times heart-wrenching, tender, and frustrating, it is a captivating read. - Jean.
July 8, 2026
really enjoyed but gosh was it sad !
June 10, 2026
This got me. I've read a few of the other reviews (including the most popular) and found myself disagreeing with some of the larger points. I resent the idea that an author can only write what they know. Sure, this woman with an MFA has never been a 17-year-old gay boy from 1970s London, but are we really going to hold that against her? Was Harper Lee a civil-rights lawyer? Am I forgetting a time when Barbara Kingsolver was a teenage boy whose family was ravaged by the opioid crisis? THIS BOOK IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE CALIBER OF "TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD" OR "DEMON COPPERHEAD," but I think the instant we tell people what they can and can't write about because "they should write what they know," we run the risk of losing some interesting perspectives.
The flashbacks and historical jumps are jarring, but they lend something to the books hazier properties. They felt like quick dunks in a well. You'd submerge your head to see the past and come up for air to watch Jean move through the present. Similarly, I really enjoyed how Dunnigan choreographed the book's intimate scenes. I got the gist of what was happening but could never fully follow who was where and what was happening to who. Jean and Tom restlessly swirl around each other like smoke.
Was it an amazing book? Not particularly. Is it an impressive debut? Yes ma'am. Maybe I'm willing to forgive this book's mistakes. Why? I have no clue. There's gold in these hills. You just have to dig for it.
The flashbacks and historical jumps are jarring, but they lend something to the books hazier properties. They felt like quick dunks in a well. You'd submerge your head to see the past and come up for air to watch Jean move through the present. Similarly, I really enjoyed how Dunnigan choreographed the book's intimate scenes. I got the gist of what was happening but could never fully follow who was where and what was happening to who. Jean and Tom restlessly swirl around each other like smoke.
Was it an amazing book? Not particularly. Is it an impressive debut? Yes ma'am. Maybe I'm willing to forgive this book's mistakes. Why? I have no clue. There's gold in these hills. You just have to dig for it.
February 5, 2026
Wanted this to be a bit trashier than it was. It's more like a less yearned up Call Me By Your Name and a less heartfelt A Little Life (whose successes to me are due to their being over-the-top). It's a languorous summer type of thing—very sepia-toned which I never like—and deals a lot with childhood trauma and abuse.
Also have to say the audiobook narration was abysmal. The love interest, Tom, who is supposed to be in school with Jean is given the voice of a 90-year-old granddad and therefore I could never find him sexy.
Also have to say the audiobook narration was abysmal. The love interest, Tom, who is supposed to be in school with Jean is given the voice of a 90-year-old granddad and therefore I could never find him sexy.
September 19, 2025
I couldn’t stop thinking about this book after I finished. A raw story of love and the way it hurts and pleasures us. Jean was a fascinating character. Despite his troubles I found him endearing and the emotions and feelings he has for Tom were palpable to the reader. I could feel his passion and longing. This book was so beautifully written. It’s truly a literary masterpiece that was honest and real. I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
January 19, 2026
Thank you to NetGalley and Dreamscape Media for this ALC!
“Jean” is a coming of age novel set in 1970s England. Our titular character is a 17yo “troubled” boy, attending a boarding school for boys such as him – Boys with “problems”. But even here, Jean doesn’t fit in. Unlike the other students – fee-paying boys from good, English families – Jean is on a grant, his mother a German-Jewish refugee and his father absent. He is often bullied, which, combined with his common violent outbursts, has led to him being on thin ice at Compton Manor. It is his last summer here – Jean decides to just keep his head down, move forward as he always has. However, this plan is interrupted when fellow pupil Tom unexpectedly befriends him. Jean quickly becomes infatuated with Tom as they spend time together, but does Tom feel the same?
This book was stunning. I find it hard to comment on prose when I listen to a book, compared to when I read it, but from what I heard, Dunnigan seems to have found the perfect balance; descriptive but not overwhelmingly so, beautifully atmospheric.
And the plot was EXACTLY what I wanted it to be. Sad and painful, comfort interspersed. There is the issue of Jean’s “otherness”, how it makes others treat him, his relationship with his mother as well as his absent father, his relationship to other men in his life, and of course, his queerness. I really wish I could give a full rundown on events in this book and what they made me feel, but I shall hold back and add that later on, after I have had the chance to reread it. Just know this: It is now the fourth book to have managed to make me cry within the past two years. You really, really come to care for Jean, and reading about his experiences is wonderfully devastating.
The audiobook is read by Keval Shah, who I thought was a wonderful fit. I’ve seen some other reviewers complain that he did noticeably different voices for each character, however I thought it was fun and made for a more engaging reading experience. I’m not sure I would recommend the audiobook over the book, but I definitely think it is worth checking out if you are the type of person to prefer audiobooks.
If you grew up queer and a little strange, if you have ever felt othered, if you want beautiful heartbreak, this book is for you. I truly recommend giving it a go.
“Jean” is a coming of age novel set in 1970s England. Our titular character is a 17yo “troubled” boy, attending a boarding school for boys such as him – Boys with “problems”. But even here, Jean doesn’t fit in. Unlike the other students – fee-paying boys from good, English families – Jean is on a grant, his mother a German-Jewish refugee and his father absent. He is often bullied, which, combined with his common violent outbursts, has led to him being on thin ice at Compton Manor. It is his last summer here – Jean decides to just keep his head down, move forward as he always has. However, this plan is interrupted when fellow pupil Tom unexpectedly befriends him. Jean quickly becomes infatuated with Tom as they spend time together, but does Tom feel the same?
This book was stunning. I find it hard to comment on prose when I listen to a book, compared to when I read it, but from what I heard, Dunnigan seems to have found the perfect balance; descriptive but not overwhelmingly so, beautifully atmospheric.
And the plot was EXACTLY what I wanted it to be. Sad and painful, comfort interspersed. There is the issue of Jean’s “otherness”, how it makes others treat him, his relationship with his mother as well as his absent father, his relationship to other men in his life, and of course, his queerness. I really wish I could give a full rundown on events in this book and what they made me feel, but I shall hold back and add that later on, after I have had the chance to reread it. Just know this: It is now the fourth book to have managed to make me cry within the past two years. You really, really come to care for Jean, and reading about his experiences is wonderfully devastating.
The audiobook is read by Keval Shah, who I thought was a wonderful fit. I’ve seen some other reviewers complain that he did noticeably different voices for each character, however I thought it was fun and made for a more engaging reading experience. I’m not sure I would recommend the audiobook over the book, but I definitely think it is worth checking out if you are the type of person to prefer audiobooks.
If you grew up queer and a little strange, if you have ever felt othered, if you want beautiful heartbreak, this book is for you. I truly recommend giving it a go.
August 22, 2026
When I started this I was surprised by the strong negative reaction a lot of people seemed to have: it felt like another pretty good, if not great, gay coming of age story in an English boarding school, with the normal mix of class issues, odd characters, etc etc.
By the final quarter or so, though, I was on board with the haters. On a character level, it’s reductive and flat: at the center someone experiencing the childhood trauma —> gay (and anger issues!) pipeline, surrounded by indistinguishable vaguely posh characters (including, really the quasi romantic interest - nothing to him). Structurally, it tries to bring together memory and contemporary experience (including a horrifically heavy handed use of madeleines!), but without doing anything more interesting than basic trauma mining and dumping.
It feels cheap and vaguely exploitative for publishers to continue to put out well packaged and marketed middle to lowbrow stuff like this and pretend it’s good, but maybe that’s a sign that the gays have really Arrived.
By the final quarter or so, though, I was on board with the haters. On a character level, it’s reductive and flat: at the center someone experiencing the childhood trauma —> gay (and anger issues!) pipeline, surrounded by indistinguishable vaguely posh characters (including, really the quasi romantic interest - nothing to him). Structurally, it tries to bring together memory and contemporary experience (including a horrifically heavy handed use of madeleines!), but without doing anything more interesting than basic trauma mining and dumping.
It feels cheap and vaguely exploitative for publishers to continue to put out well packaged and marketed middle to lowbrow stuff like this and pretend it’s good, but maybe that’s a sign that the gays have really Arrived.
June 23, 2026
A solid and well written, if somewhat tragic, coming of age novel. I liked the narrative style and liked the juxtaposition between the calmness of the Jean we saw and the actions others saw. It's not neat or particularly hopeful and I agree with some reviews that it could have been set in any time, although I didn't personally find that a drawback. I did think the boarding school was conveniently offbeat - ostensibly for difficult children but mainly attended by the upper classes, oddly untouched by drama despite unconventional teachers and "troubled" students, straight laced and religious in many ways but then leaning into unusual rituals and traditions that seemed to exist mainly to further the plot. I think I interpreted the novel as being slightly otherworldly in a way that allowed these ambiguities (including the oddness of his mother's job with "students") to fade into the background, but I can see how they would grate on many readers.
April 14, 2026
Albeit the lack of speech marks when people were speaking, causing following dialogue to be difficult, I really enjoyed the story and found it well written. I did find wanting for more story at the end but the perspective does capture the closeted gay boarding school experience well.
May 5, 2026
Competently written, with stylistic flourishes that I occasionally appreciated. Contentwise pretty vapid, with a sheen of faux prestige achieved by borrowing liberally from better books. Makes little to no sense and stirs little emotion.
June 22, 2026
3.25 ✨
August 7, 2026
So often queer experiences are diluted down to trauma and pain. And while these are certainly a part of the experience, this novel seemed unwilling to find the nuance or depth in anything else about Jean’s coming of age. I am left after finishing the novel thinking that Jean is doomed to live a sad, tragic life full of hurt and anger.
These themes I think are natural to explore, but if we reduce queer coming of age to only these we are doing a disservice, and ultimately writing a novel that feels at best trope heavy, and at worst, feels slightly homophobic. This didn’t feel like the author wanted to explore the themes presented in depth or with much personal knowledge or experience.
There’s an argument to be made as to who should be writing queer or gay stories. Who gets to tell them? More and more, I’m finding that when it is someone who has not lived through any of the very complicated and intense emotions gay men deal with, the story often lacks authenticity and impact.
Jean felt reduced to an angry, doomed character that never really had much growth or development beyond that. I wanted to explore Jean more, but ultimately I think maybe the author really couldnt, and so, he fell flat for me. He felt one dimensional, and the story suffered because of it.
This wasn’t a horrible book. It was fine. But if you want to read a gay coming of age that feels authentic, and nuanced, and deep, I’d suggest picking one up from a gay author.
These themes I think are natural to explore, but if we reduce queer coming of age to only these we are doing a disservice, and ultimately writing a novel that feels at best trope heavy, and at worst, feels slightly homophobic. This didn’t feel like the author wanted to explore the themes presented in depth or with much personal knowledge or experience.
There’s an argument to be made as to who should be writing queer or gay stories. Who gets to tell them? More and more, I’m finding that when it is someone who has not lived through any of the very complicated and intense emotions gay men deal with, the story often lacks authenticity and impact.
Jean felt reduced to an angry, doomed character that never really had much growth or development beyond that. I wanted to explore Jean more, but ultimately I think maybe the author really couldnt, and so, he fell flat for me. He felt one dimensional, and the story suffered because of it.
This wasn’t a horrible book. It was fine. But if you want to read a gay coming of age that feels authentic, and nuanced, and deep, I’d suggest picking one up from a gay author.
Did Not Finish
February 9, 2026dnf-ed at 68%, re-reading the summary, i feel like i've been sold a different book than what i got
[audiobook]
the emphasis of this review is: expectations
i think this is a case of severe mismatch between the expectations created, and the story delivered.
i really wanted to like this book from the descriptions i've seen. the elements i was expecting were "hot summer" and "things turn romantic", overall lighthearted with a side of boarding-school and gay-in-the-'70s drama.
instead it felt like constantly being hit over the head with some new kind of trauma, including inappropriate parent-child relationships, grooming, and a way too detailed account of butchering a cow, to name a few.
i can still appreciate a book with all of those elements in it, but encountering them all, having the expectations i've laid out above made it really hard.
(also i felt these traumatic events go mostly unexplored, put there in front of you and not addressed properly again. in the name of fairness i will point out again that i Have Not Finished the book, however i've seen other reviewers make this same point so i'm including a nod to it here)
the two final straws for me were the cow chapter and the following Jean & Rosa phone conversation. this is where i realized it wasn't fun for me anymore and i was actively getting upset.
i tried to like Jean, but he was just rude and unpleasant for me. Tom's whole deal never became more palatable to me either throughout the chunk i've read. i found myself with no anchor to keep me reading anymore.
the audiobook format didn't add to my experience and ultimately had no bearing on my final rating
it's not the book's fault, it's the way it was described 😔
thank you to Dreamspace Media for granting me access to the ARC! i really do appreciate the consideration
[audiobook]
the emphasis of this review is: expectations
i think this is a case of severe mismatch between the expectations created, and the story delivered.
i really wanted to like this book from the descriptions i've seen. the elements i was expecting were "hot summer" and "things turn romantic", overall lighthearted with a side of boarding-school and gay-in-the-'70s drama.
instead it felt like constantly being hit over the head with some new kind of trauma, including inappropriate parent-child relationships, grooming, and a way too detailed account of butchering a cow, to name a few.
i can still appreciate a book with all of those elements in it, but encountering them all, having the expectations i've laid out above made it really hard.
(also i felt these traumatic events go mostly unexplored, put there in front of you and not addressed properly again. in the name of fairness i will point out again that i Have Not Finished the book, however i've seen other reviewers make this same point so i'm including a nod to it here)
the two final straws for me were the cow chapter and the following Jean & Rosa phone conversation. this is where i realized it wasn't fun for me anymore and i was actively getting upset.
i tried to like Jean, but he was just rude and unpleasant for me. Tom's whole deal never became more palatable to me either throughout the chunk i've read. i found myself with no anchor to keep me reading anymore.
the audiobook format didn't add to my experience and ultimately had no bearing on my final rating
it's not the book's fault, it's the way it was described 😔
thank you to Dreamspace Media for granting me access to the ARC! i really do appreciate the consideration
Displaying 1 - 30 of 244 reviews