I enjoyed this book, primarily because of the characters. The plot is very readable, but it’s the characters that bring the book to life. I find it interesting that the advert blurb seems quite intent in telling us this isn’t a Christian romance, but it is, and it’s better done than many Christian romance books. This book is earthy, fresh, and sexually charged. It’s a story about regular non-devout people who get dumped on by life events. The basis of the book involves how they recover and move on. God is present, but not in a smack-you-in-the-head way, rather a more natural way similar to when you look back on your life and connect the dots that got you to wherever you are. Those dots are God at work. The presentation of those dots in this book is good.
This is a story of Grant and Carla, both people who have been wounded deeply by their pasts. They meet in a Duluth, Minnesota coffee shop owned by Carla where Grant, an Australian born Physical Therapist from California (yeah, true) stops in for coffee in the mornings on his way to work. The rest of the book is a slice of their lives, how each helps the other recover.
I was a little concerned when I reached the 48% mark, at the end of chapter 14. The book could have ended here. The plot had unwound, the past issues had been brought to life, and it felt finished. I put the book down for a few days, and thought about the characters, finally deciding I liked them enough to see what else was in store for them. I was glad I returned to read the rest of the book. More characters are presented to us and we are shown a different slant on Grant’s life, an excellent lesson in the realization that often our own view of events is only a small part of them, and not always the most accurate. Again, well done.
Sometimes the writer does smack us over the head with concepts we know must be important, but they are presented oddly. For instance, In chapter 13, a conversation between a bartender and Grant expounds on the existence of three types of men and/or women (the gender isn’t clear). The bartender says, “I can tell you that as far as men are concerned, there are three types of women in this world.” Outside of this being a strange statement, and not at all true, the types mentioned apply first to a man (“the love ‘em and leave ‘em’s, and those guys are pretty easy to spot”), then the next type refers to a woman and/or a guy (“The second kind of woman is the wrong decision. Those guys come in here and nurse a beer….”). And the third type is actually called a woman. The entire conversation is odd and difficult to follow. Is a woman a “guy” to this bartender? Or is the bartender deliberately mixing her genders? Unknown.
The steamy (sex) scenes are awkward and unnecessary. The writer doesn’t write sex scenes well. She seems intimidated by them and unsure which anatomical terms to use, so she elects to use none. This makes for scenes that are illogical and poorly described. I think they should have been left out.
There are some things in the book that I thought were treading the fine line between a healthy relationship and a co-dependent one. Here’s an example from the end of chapter 2:
“He’s going to break your heart, over and over, but in the process, you’ll be fixing his. And when he finally gets through whatever valley he is walking through, he will know, without question, the reason for everything he’s gone through was you.” Putting aside the questionable verb tense, I’m doubtful that having one’s heart broken over and over again is going to appeal to anyone unless that person is an emotional masochist. So the heartbreaker knows that the person he’s running roughshod over is “you?” So what? Making oneself a doormat for someone else’s walk in a terrible place does not sound healthy for that poor doormat. Neither is it a healthy attitude for the person doing the walking.
There are some errors that caused me to stop my reading. While some errors are inevitable, these felt too numerous.
“I pulled Carla into the promenade positioned and waited for Max’s nod.” Either a comma is needed after ‘promenade’ to indicate that the narrator had positioned his dance partner correctly (“I pulled Carla into the promenade, positioned and waited….”) or the word, ‘position,’ should not be in the past tense, indicating that ‘promenade’ is a dance position (“I pulled Carla into the promenade position and waited for Max’s nod”). Of the two, I think changing the tense of ‘position’ makes the most sense. But…as a reader, this sentence made me stop and try to figure out what the writer was trying to say.
There are also superfluous commas, as in, “What you have done here is honor, my brother.” The way this sentence is written, the speaker is talking to his brother. However, he’s actually talking about honoring his brother, so the sentence should read, “What you have done here is honor my brother.”
“Her face was pallor.” Here, the noun, ‘pallor,’ is being used as an adjective. I think, perhaps, the writer meant “Her face was paler.” But who know? The odd usage halted my reading.
Another incorrect word choice: “She was ready to bold and I had to help her….” I believe she was ready to bolt.
“She gazed up and leveled an eyebrow at me.” Carla is the ‘she’ referenced here, and the narrator is Grant. They are standing together in an elevator. We’ve established, more than once, that Carla is several inches taller than Grant. She can’t be gazing up at him.
In chapter 11, Grant is the narrator and thinking about the angel and the devil that sit on his shoulders. Suddenly, in the next paragraph, we read “’Happy sixteenth, Grant,’ my mother sang when I walked in the kitchen.” We need a break between the two paragraphs, something to indicate that Grant is back in the past now. As written, it jars the reader. There’s a similar time shift later in the same chapter.
The writer uses two negatives in a sentence and they cancel each other out: “And you honestly don’t think they didn’t lose the both of you?” This is the same thing as saying, “And you honestly think they lost both of you?” In context of the discussion Carla and Grant are having, I think the writer is trying to say, “And you honestly think they didn’t lose both of you?” or “And you honestly don’t think they lost both of you?” There’s a slight difference in the emphasis in the sentences and I’m not sure which the writer meant.
The writer sometimes changes verb tense on the unsuspecting reader. Here’s one example: “I didn’t like that feeling. She’s been nothing but understanding and supportive, and I’d been nothing but a self-centered prick. I picked up the drink….” The book is told in past tense with occasional lapses into present and future tenses. The second sentence, currently beginning in present tense, should be past tense, as in, “She’d been nothing but understanding….” If the writer really wants to use present tense here, then it needs to be placed within a past tense context such as, “I thought about how she’s been nothing but understanding…,” but this sounds a little contrived. Better to stick with past tense, IMHO.
Here’s another change in verb tense: “I also needed to finish the rest of his Christmas present. Best to do that now before he gets home, and I don’t get another chance. I picked my way through the snow….” The second sentence is in present tense, in the middle of a paragraph using past tense. It would be better to remain in past tense, maybe something like, “I needed to do that now before he got home and I didn’t get another chance.” It’s an awkward paragraph to read.
And another change in tense: “Dealing with Littleton was getting harder and harder. If I barely look at him wrong, he gets defensive.” The second sentence uses present tense and appears in the middle of a paragraph that uses past tense. That sentence should be utilizing past tense, too, as in: “If I barely looked at him wrong, he got defensive.”
“The rest [of the money] has just sat in the accounts accruing more interest.” The incorrect verb is used. Animate objects (people, animals) use the verb, to sit (past tense ‘sat’) and inanimate objects (books, money) use the verb, to set (past tense, ‘set’). The sentence should read, “The rest has just set in the accounts….” I think this is an overlooked error because the writer obviously knows this rule. Here’s an example, just a bit further in the book: “…setting the coffee on the table and sitting next to me.” The coffee, an object, sets on the table; Carla, a person, sits next to the narrator.
The sits/sets problem occurs again later in the book: “The second one [a didgeridoo] that I made still sits in the corner….” That should read, “…still sets in the corner….”
By the time I reached the final chapters, I found myself tired of the high drama that seemed to permeate Carla’s and Grant’s relationship. One moment they were loving each other and the next, they cut each other no slack and one or the other would have a hissy, and stomp off with hurt feelings. Eventually, Carla’s intense self-doubts become tedious, bordering on the inane. In chapter 25, she is still beating herself up, and calls herself “the most sinful person” Grant’s father will ever meet. She doesn’t think that Grant's father will see her as someone he’d want his son to be with, much less bear grandchildren. Ho hum.
I’m not belittling Carla’s background, but we’re almost at the end of the book, and there’s no change, no self-forgiveness in her. I’d like to have seen some change in her self-esteem. Goodness knows, she’s been given ample opportunity to see that there is goodness in her. Modesty is one thing, and self-flagellation is quite another.
I rated this book 3.5 stars and rounded up because it is a better than average read, but the pauses in reading caused by errors and confusing or negating concepts made for a bumpy reading experience. Also the sex scenes are cringe-worthy and really need to either be managed better or removed completely. I did like the characters, Carla and Grant. Days and two books later, I still remember them fondly.