Ugh. What a slog. Took me a week and several tries to get through, and that almost never happens.
The book was just all over the place. Makes me wonder how many of the people out there writing these days know or care that relatability matters, or if they understand thing one about human nature.
Honestly, foster care isn't the best everywhere and bad things do happen sometimes, but must every. single. story that utilises the system portray it in the absolute worst light? It's annoying, not to mention unfair. I've known people that went through the system and did so unscathed. I've known others who never experienced foster care and wished they had. Some of the worst incidences of abuse are perpetrated in the home by a child's own parents, and that's a fact.
I mean, the h has scars from cigarette burns, AND cuts, AND belt lashings and these were inflicted upon her by a different foster family each time? Um...no. I don't think. I have no doubt it can happen, but in reality even the arsey-est (yes, I made up that word) of foster parents out there aren't going to risk that care cheque each month. The book is fiction and all, but River's experience is proper overkill.
Lots of overkill in this story, however, and a lot more that didn't make sense.
I feel like the title came first, and then the story was tasked with living up to the title. The result was...well, heartbreaking.
To read, that is.
I sense that is hardly the intended context.
But seriously, for starters, the H and h just bored me. I'm heartily shut of pathetic, abused heroines with their scars and fears of everything. Give that shite a rest already. I'm a strong woman who wants a strong heroine, not a stuttering blob of neuroses, tears and snot. Everett was just immature and lacked any kind of edge.
Also, the hero should NOT be with someone else for over half the book! The main couple being apart most of the story is kind of a chemistry killer. The reason for it was laaame and just one of several nonsensical things here, but I never felt like he was that into her. Even when he chose her
he never seemed all in. If you ask me, he was clueless that the OW was a sea-hag and couldn't let go of promise he made her in his teens. Literally a decade of limbo, for what.
Christ, grow up, yeah?
So, the h was the OW - even said so herself several times - and that was the status quo too long to make me invest in them.
After a climax that felt contrived to manipulate the feels and the wrap-up that followed, I was past caring.
The following are examples of sloppiness that made this story exasperating.
River went to see her bestie because she was told to because of Everett, but then the story changed to her birth mother being the reason.
Okay, since when?
Was Everett a fire fighter, or did he work for Robert? Why such a contrast in jobs? To be fair, it's possible I skimmed the answer to this one.
What the hell was that convoluted business with The Scarlett Letter and River being Hester Prynne? How did that story have ANY parallel here?
W. T. F.
Too many plot bunnies running around, and too much stretching to tie them all together. Keep it simple.
The assumption is some kind of symbolism was intended with the couple's history and The Scarlett Letter, but for it to work it kind of needs to make sense. If I have to think too hard to cram it into a place it maybe sort of fits, it's not working.
Indecisive hero = weak.
Unwanted orphan/victim heroine = weak.
Too many random ideas, tropes, etc thrown against the wall in the hopes that something sticks = bad execution.
These are all signs of a novice with average talent and a gross lack of knowledge in the craft of writing. I don't know this writer so I can't attest to any of this, I just know I don't care enough to find out.