Read it if:
* You appreciate unexpected psychological depth, with themes like cyberbullying, dysfunctional relationships, and divorce
* You enjoy small surprises in the plot, such as characters appearing late or whose roles are initially unclear
* You are curious about an unconventional investigative approach, with a cleaning lady playing an active role in the mystery
Don’t read it if:
* You dislike overly long, digressive writing filled with internal monologues and excessive explanations
* You want realistic, subtly portrayed characters rather than ones heavily over-explained and exaggerated
* You expect a straightforward crime story and may be frustrated by the book’s stylistic and thematic mix
Why 2 stars:
- [ ] Theme: 3 (The premise of Acqua Passata is, from the outset, genuinely compelling. Framed as a detective story, it offers all the essential elements of a classic whodunit: a murder, an attempted killing of someone now lying in a coma whose fate remains suspended. Yet the novel distinguishes itself by shifting part of the investigation away from the traditional police force and placing it in the hands of an unexpected protagonist — a cleaning lady who quietly observes what others overlook. This narrative choice positions the book halfway between a conventional crime novel and a more character-driven work. The blend promised by these premises is intriguing. The novel seems to invite the reader to discover how these two strands — professional inquiry and amateur intuition — might converge in the pursuit of truth)
- [ ] Plot: 2 (the unfolding of the plot ultimately proves less enthralling than its premise suggests. The core elements of the crime — the very mystery that should drive the narrative forward — are gradually submerged beneath an overwhelming tide of everyday thoughts, anecdotes and personal dramas. These details, abundant to the point of excess, overshadow what the blurb led the reader to expect. What begins as a mystery progressively shifts into something closer to a domestic drama. Furthermore, there are so many coincidences that I felt stupid reading it at a certain point in time)
- [ ] Characters: 2 (the characters lean on conventions of an old-fashioned narrative style. They are tirelessly over-described — what they do, what they think, what they feel — until each becomes defined by a single trait pushed to its utmost limit. This certainly renders them distinctive and easy to tell apart, yet it also strips them of realism. Instead of allowing the reader to infer personality through action, the narration insists on explaining every interior reaction in painstaking detail. The result is a cast that feels flat, predictable, and, ultimately, rather tedious. It gives the impression of a book tailored to a very undemanding readership, rather than a work aspiring to literary quality)
- [ ] Fun/adventure/surprise: 3 (the novel does offer a few surprises: certain characters appear only midway through the story, and others — present from the beginning, like the private investigator or the priest — remain enigmatic for a long time, leaving the reader uncertain of their relevance. In this sense, there is a deliberate structural design at work. Yet despite these attempts at intrigue, I found the novel neither entertaining nor adventurous. The narrative’s occasional cleverness cannot fully compensate for its lack of engagement or narrative drive)
- [ ] Profoundness: 3 (despite its blend of detective fiction and cozy mystery, the novel unexpectedly offers moments of genuine depth. It touches on issues such as school cyberbullying, imperfect relationships, divorce in its various forms, and couples who, while still together, are profoundly dysfunctional. In this regard, the book deserves some credit for its willingness to explore complex psychological and social themes. Yet, paradoxically, this depth feels somewhat out of place, clashing with the blurb and the crime-centered premise. The psychological exploration, while ambitious, at times overwhelms the story rather than enhancing it)
- [ ] Length of the book: 1 (the novel is simply far too long, weighed down by excessive thoughts-sharing that made reading it exhausting. As I mentioned earlier, the narrative style is not to my taste: it is dominated by an overabundance of introspection, sprawling psychological digressions, and constant over-explanation of the characters’ thoughts and feelings. For a book marketed as a detective story with cozy mystery elements, this mix feels heavy-handed and ill-suited, resulting in a cumbersome reading experience)
- [ ] Language and style of writing: 1 (the writing style is, as previously noted, quite dreadful. Moreover, the book suffers from a stylistic mishmash that will satisfy no one. Its intended audience — readers drawn to detective fiction — are confronted instead with a cumbersome hodgepodge of unrelated elements, a literary “sandwich” of sorts, jarring and incongruous, like mixing bananas, onions, and beans)
Favorite part
- [ ] The part I enjoyed most was the plot’s intertwining, which effectively led me into the very trap the reader hopes for when approaching this type of book
Least favorite part
- [ ] The part I enjoyed least comes at the end: after numerous attempts to piece together what might have happened, accompanied by digressions and flights of imagination, it ultimately remains unclear which, if any, of these competing “truths” is actually real. The resolution is ambiguous to the point of confusion