Was this book written by a committee? I'm sure it must have been. It was such a mish-mash! Some parts flowed and made sense. Other parts were turgid, boring paragraph after boring paragraph of strange content that made you wonder if the author had any idea if this was truly the direction she wanted to take the story, and us as readers.
Fascinating theme - adoptive children and their rights, or otherwise, in families and how different, or not, those rights are to blood relatives. This could have been a truly fascinating GREAT read. Sadly, due to sporadic and poor writing, it was just okay.
It was difficult to feel any real sympathy for one of the main characters, Gordon, and his quest to adopt his (adoptive) sister's daughter. The author gave us so little to go on, in terms of his relationship with little Keefer and how much he loved her (apart from sentences like that - "I would die without her", but these were *telling* not *showing* us). I think we were supposed to be rooting for Gordon, and feeling that the in-laws were the villains of the piece. But the writing was just so patchy and poor, I wasn't sure Gordon deserved such support. There was also a decidedly off chapter where Gordon describes his feelings for his sister, Georgia, that leaves a bad feeling in your stomach and sour taste in your mouth.
There are so many promises in this book -- promises of intrigue and twists and turns to keep you on your toes, of a suspenseful courtroom drama, of an engrossing tale of villains and victims (the latter of which prevail in a climactic heart-stopping ending). And yet it just doesn't deliver.
I almost stopped reading in the first half, but stuck it out (mainly because I'm a bit of a completionist, not because the book made me continue reading). The plotting and characterisation could have been massively improved, but mainly it was the writing that was just plain poor.