Reading the synopsis of "Looking for Jane" you'd think it's a poignant story about the lives of three women intertwined by adoption, secrets, struggles and a dark, shared history. I think it actually says that somewhere in the synopsis. As an adopted child myself, I was intrigued and more than ready to relate to and fall in love with every single word.
Instead, I actually hated this book. A lot!
Initially, I thought I had read a completely different book than everyone else because the mess I read was no 5-star masterpiece. And, quite frankly, I believe the only reason this book has so many glowing reviews is because it covers a very hot-button topic during a very dark period in Canadian history and readers feel that they need to love it. But if you look past the subject matter, you'll see it for what it really is: a badly written, agenda pushing, commercial for abortion rights.
Now, just to be clear, I am a woman, an adoptee and a Canadian liberal. I'm as far left as left goes. I am and will always be staunchly pro choice so my review isn't based on some deep seeded, bible-thumping morality that I insist on beating people over the head with. It's based on the fact that this book is 400 pages of some first-timer writer preaching at me and pushing her own personal and political agenda. What's a surefire way to ensure that I won't care about something? Insist that I MUST care about it and then shove it down my throat until I choke on it.
Not only is the abortion rights argument so blatant and shoved down your throat, the word "abortion" is used no less than a hundred times in a 400 page book. It's shoved into nearly every page and into nearly every conversation regardless as to whether or not it even fits there. The author even includes an Authors Note at the end where she encourages readers to hound politicians, harass the office of the Prime Minister of Canada and "be the squeaky wheels" in order to advance abortion and women's rights.
And to ensure her point is driven all the way home, the majority of the conversations between the characters are deliberately contrived to reflect the struggle and the unfairness of abortion laws back in the 70s and 80s. "Oh, how I wish things were different and women had access to safe and legal abortions!" "Yes, life would be so much better if abortion was legal!" "Why are the men doing this to us???" "I don't know! But we need to fight to change things for our daughters and granddaughters so they may access safe and legal abortions!" "Yeah, we need to fight for a woman's right to choose!" "Let's go protest!!!" "Yes, we must if we want to see change because as long as men exist, abortions will be needed!"
I didn't make any of that shit up. All those cheesy, contrived statements appear, in some form or another, multiple times throughout the story. It sounded like the dialogue in a workplace training video. I half expected the characters to all stop, look directly into the camera and the More You Know rainbow to pop up on the screen
The author routinely wobbles back and forth between present tense and past tense, sometimes in the same paragraph, which was distracting. She also has trouble deciding if she wants to tell her story in the second or third person narrative. Yes, you read that right, SECOND (not first) and third person. Then, she employs some of the worst, most contrived dialogue ever put to paper, removes all character development, weaves the rest of the story using only coincidences and tops it all off by using every, single adverb in the dictionary, ensuring that none of the cardinal rules of fiction writing are even sort-of respected.
If all of that wasn't bad enough, the author then decides to insert a pointless storyline about a "stereotypical" married lesbian couple who, naturally, have fertility issues...because of course they do. *insert eyeroll here* Really? That's all your lone gay characters are good for? There's absolutely nothing else for them to do? At all? Their story feels so tacked on and out of place, that it almost seems like she decided on a whim that her novel didn't have enough diversity so she added the couple almost as a side note without giving them a proper storyline. Later on, she pulls a third gay character out of her hat to serve no other purpose than to be Evelyn's beard....or Evelyn is HIS beard. I dunno. Either way both storylines are insulting and stupid. Whatever happened to characters just being regular people?
Then, she seems to forget that she spent a hundred pages telling the reader allllllll about what a great, patient, understanding, open guy Nancy's husband Michael is only to have him completely flip out and flush their brand new marriage down the toilet when Nancy tells him about an abortion she had years before she even met him. DAFUQ?
And if all that wasn't bad enough, SPOILER ALERT, you find out at the end that the main characters, Evelyn and Nancy, who have known each other for years, are actually mother and daughter.... because we never saw THAT one coming a mile away. 😒 It was WTF enough but later, as Evelyn is telling her story, she talks about how the baby she was forced to give up for adoption looked just like her brother. So, you mean to tell me that she didn't notice after alllllllll that time working side by side that Nancy had a family resemblance? Not once? She didn't share a single look, gesture, tick, habit with Evelyn or her biological father? Fuck straight off!
However, the author probably had the foresight to assume that we readers would have figured out the mother/daughter connection ages ago so she does try to fool us with a red herring that could have really gone somewhere had she thought it through. Instead, she uses it to crank up the crazy on her whole book by telling us that teenage Evelyn, following the birth of the baby she didn't even want, nearly murders a nun at the home for wayward girls, attempts suicide, fakes her own death, assumes the identity of another girl who was with her in the home, goes to university, becomes a famous doctor and is actually a totally different character than who we believe she is.......and not a single person ever noticed. Fuck allllll the way off and when you get there, keep fucking off! And she springs this on us out of the blue, at the very end, without ever having even minutely eluded to it and actually expects us to just accept that and not immediately think that Evelyn is a fucking psychopath. Are you sure you jumped all the way over that shark? I could go on all day pointing out all the inconsistencies and nonsense.
The author could have written a beautiful story and made her political, abortion / pro choice argument if she had just eased up a bit on the political, abortion / pro choice throttle. Instead, she wrote preachy, agenda pushing feminist junk that we'd do well to just ignore.