amber_lea84's reviews
789 reviews

omg, I absolutely hate this.

Okay, can we just talk about HOW Love's family could possibly be THIS rich from owning a few grocery stores in southern California? Is this meant to be some kind of joke about what hippies will pay for health food? The book portrays them as people who can afford to bathe in champagne and throw away $100,000 in a day when they're in a bad mood. They own vacation spots in the most expensive places, and boats and jets and literally do whatever they want whenever they want...because they own a very small grocery chain.

I think what's frustrating about this book is it almost passes for satire. There are so many things about it that would tickle me if it was clearly intended as a joke. Like Joe is a massive hypocrite who constantly contradicts himself, and it's GREAT. I actually did laugh at times because of what a massive chode he is. Joe is the most entitled, narcissistic piece of crap I've ever read about.

What gets me about the situation though is that other people seem to read him as a serial killer you hate to admit you like...and the author describes him that way too!

What? He is THE WORST. He is a caricature of every shitty dude I've ever had the misfortune of being in the same friend's circle with. He thinks he DESERVES the attention of every woman he's interested in because he thinks he's the smartest, most interesting guy in every room, and he's super threatened when he realizes he's not. He either loves or he hates people based on the smallest things. He thinks he can read every situation all the time, and that he knows what everyone is thinking and feeling, and he routinely ACTS on what he thinks he knows like it's irrefutable fact. And you know, that means he's like, "That person doesn't respect me...I'm going to MURDER them tonight."

I think you can maybe see why I feel like this is almost really hilarious satire. Joe is such an over the top cunt.

I don't admit to liking Joe. I hate Joe. Joe is the most wonderfully awful character. I almost want to give the book four stars because...bravo. Joe is a very realistic bad guy. The mental gymnastics are perfection.

But I've watched interviews with the author and SHE creeps me out. I don't even think she knows how terrible Joe is. She's said, "Joe doesn't scare me." And it's like...really? You're not afraid of a guy who murders everyone who rejects him or gets in his way? Who feels entitled to love from everyone he likes and who doesn't care what other people want? Joe isn't capable of actual love. His love is obsessive and shallow.

Anyway, switching gears for a moment, I'm also super irritated that the Kepnes doesn't do her homework. You don't need a boating license in California and you can legally turn right on red. The author lives in California. This is common knowledge there. At least google the law before you make a whole thing out of it in your stories.

Hidden Bodies also mocks LA in a way I found grating. I'm from California and mock it all the time, but I feel like Kepnes misses the mark with most of her attempts to take a swing at the terrible culture of Southern California.

Also, this author loses points for writing a trilogy and then turning around and being like, "Oh, a third book? Maybe. I've definitely been thinking about it, but I haven't started it." Wut. You wrote a cliff hanger...why are you being coy?

Obvs, I'll read the 3rd one. It really is a four star book with glaring flaws. That's the best way I can think of to describe it. I want to keep reading, and also want to throw it across the room and yell at everyone who likes it.

So I've known about this for awhile because we have a copy at the library. I didn't take the time to read it because it has mixed reviews, and I thought it was fictionalized. (It's in our fiction section.)

Then I started reading Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman where he talks about this graphic novel at length and it sparked my interest in it again. This isn't fiction. Derf went to school with Jeffrey Dahmer and he tried his best to make this graphic novel historically accurate.

It wasn't quite as in depth as I expected it to be, and Derf's position that Dahmer was a sympathetic character until his first murder, and then Dahmer became an incomprehensible monster, is just a dumb thing Derf tells himself so he can separate himself from Dahmer.

I agree that Dahmer is a sympathetic character, but I feel like the horrible thoughts and urges that plagued him are the incomprehensible thing. The fact that he acted on them just makes sense. I act on most of the thoughts and urges I have, I'm just lucky that most of them are perfectly okay or at least not terribly bad. I think my worse urge is that I want to eat junk food for dinner, AND I DO SOMETIMES. I can't imagine living with dark urges like this. When I was a kid I suffered from the unwanted compulsive thoughts that come with having OCD, and I imagine it's like that but 1000 times worse. I also sympathize with the isolation of being gay in a small town. When I was a kid I thought I was literally the only person on the planet who had gay thoughts and I was terrified.

So I agree with Derf's assessment that Dahmer needed help and that things could have turned out much differently if he'd gotten that help. It's one of those situations where obviously, none of his peers were equipped to do anything (it was the 70s and they were kids), and honestly they just would have been in danger if they'd tried. His parents were clearly in no state to help because they also needed help. And Derf blames the teachers at the school for not helping, but I'm not quite sure what they could have done either. What resources did they have? I think it's easy to understand why nobody did anything. I don't know that any one person could have done much. But I do think in a perfect world, Dahmer could have been saved from himself. I think if he grew up in the right time and the right place things could have played out very differently.

So I don't regret that I read this. I didn't really know anything about Jeffrey Dahmer beyond the really basic stuff almost everyone knows, and it surprised me to learn this is who he was to the people who knew him because it's not what I would have imagined. I just wish Derf understood himself, other people, and the world better.

I picked this book up because someone I follow on goodreads (Emma) was raving about it.

I'm kind of mortified because when I took it back to the library one of my coworkers was like, "Ooo, interesting" and took it home and now I'm worried she's going to think I'm a sociopath. Especially after I convinced her to check out Krampus because "it's my favorite Christmas movie."

ANYWAY. I keep trying to figure out how to describe this book, and the only thing I can really think to say is that I feel like the protagonist in this book isn't Joe, it's Narcissism itself. Every character in this book is a giant narcissist, or at least it seems that way looking at everyone through the filter of Joe's inner monologue.

The entire book is Joe thinking as if he's explaining everything he does to this woman he's obsessed with. The book starts the moment she walks through the door and he sees her for the first time. And knowing nothing about her he begins this campaign to figure her out and become her boyfriend. He's willing to be and do anything to make it happen, and you as the reader understand what is happening, but the woman he's stalking doesn't have the benefit of hearing his thoughts. And it's so. real.

Definitely don't read this book if you're the paranoid type, because this book will give you serious trust issues. Or maybe do read it, so if you're ever around someone and they start to sound like Joe you know to RUN. Because Joe may be fictional, but his mentality isn't.

(Also, I just read that Caroline Kepnes was a writer for 7th Heaven. XD I wish I'd known that before I started reading this because that is hilarious.)

Man, it has been a real struggle lately to figure out how I want to rate books.

This book is a time capsule. It's such a perfect piece of Gen X writing from the early 2000s. People don't think or talk like this anymore because it's no longer cool and I think that's what makes it so interesting.

To give you an idea of what you'll encounter in this book, here's a short list of things he mentions: The Real World, Big Brother, the Man Show, MASH, My So-Called Life, Saved by the Bell, the Lakers-Celtics Rivalry, Magic Johnson, the Dixie Chicks, Jewel, Lisa Loeb, Billy Joel, Elton John, Jenny McCarthy, Pamela Anderson, Ralph Nader, and The Sims.

I alternated between loving this book and being mildly annoyed by it. The essay about how there's a 50-50 chance of anything happening was my least favorite, followed by an essay on how to sound smart, and my favorites were the essays about being addicted to the Sims, what it means to know a serial killer, and how it might be kinda nice to be a born-again Christian. I also really appreciated his essays on Star Wars and Saved by the Bell. So it was probably more good than bad.

Overall, I was somewhat frustrated he spent so much time talking about sports, but at the same time, those essays were still good and I could understand them without knowing much about sports. And there were definitely times he sounded like a pretentious asshole, but again, being smart and a little hateable was the epitome of cool back then and he really nails it. 10/10 period piece.

Man, this is awkward.

So, I didn't think I was going to like this book because I rarely agree with people on what feminism should be. And after a few essays I was surprised to find I was getting pretty into it. I was like wow, Roxane Gay is really smart, funny, and relatable.

At first my only complaint was that the part where she talked about competitive scrabble playing went on for an eternity. I now feel like *I* spent years as a professional scrabble player. About a week after reading that essay I was actually playing scrabble (which I don't care about) with my boyfriend and he was trying to explain how to play "real" scrabble and I was like, "Shut up, I read Bad Feminist, I know how to play scrabble."

Was the scrabble essay even about feminism? I feel like there was a small bit about mansplaining in there. Mostly it was like, "Here are the rules of scrabble and the ways in which I'm kind of a little psychotic about scrabble." Which was horrifying and funny when it wasn't putting me to sleep.

My real problem with this book came later. I started to notice that every time I didn't like her Very Strong Opinion on something, she would back track shortly after. Then I started to realize...she was covering the full gamut of opinions. She would say something was "totally unacceptable" and then turn around and be like, "But I'm actually okay with it sometimes." And it wasn't a "it's okay to like things and agree they're problematic" thing. She was actually contradicting herself. She seems to do that in most of the essays. She strongly states an opinion and then walks it back and takes it around the block.

I felt like I suffered through the last few essays just to see if she recovered at the end. She didn't. And I could say a lot of not good things about the end, but honestly I don't think it's worth the energy.

Would I recommend reading this book? No. Do I think it was all garbage? No? I don't know. I was really enjoying it until I wasn't. The last half was boring and contradictory and nothing new. And if I reread the beginning knowing the end I might feel differently, but I remember it as being different and smart.

I picked up a copy of this book because I came across it at the library. I actually failed to watch ANY election coverage on tv and had never heard of Katy Tur before I picked up this book.

I always forget how much I like books with journalists talking about journalism. This wasn't one of the best I ever read, but it was still interesting. I enjoyed reading about Katy's recollection growing up with two journalist parents and the decisions she made throughout her career that somehow happened to lead to her covering the Trump campaign.

This is kind of a strange thing to point out, but I kept finding myself reading in Anna Kendrick's voice because Katy has a similar rhythm to her writing her style of humor is similar.

I didn't learn much about Trump, other than the fact that maybe what you see is what you get, but it was still a worthwhile read just to learn something about Katy Tur, and to see events we're all familiar with from the point of view of someone who was there.

The only real complaint I have is that this story jumps around in time, which is a writing device I'm not very fond of. But she does a good job with it, even if it's not my cup of tea.

The title of this book is misleading because it’s really a memoir. A good third of the book has nothing at all to do with the Clintons and is just Byrne recounting his life.

I really appreciate that Byrne gives a lot of background on himself and insight into the way he operates, because this book is mostly about how he feels about the Clintons, as opposed to a bunch of information you didn’t already know about them. It’s easy to understand his perspective because he gives you what you need to follow his thought process.

Bryne is a rule follower with a lot of respect for order and authority. He started out his career as a uniformed SS officer under Bush Sr, who was obviously a good fit for him, and then he started working for the Clintons who ultimately drove him out of the White House. I think he was in a legitimately tough situation, because I pretty much believe his account of how the Bushs were kind and respectful and the Clintons were adversarial. I can see how the tension developed and why Byrne felt moved to write this book.

I see this book as Bryne’s truth. Which sounds idiotic, but I can’t think of a better way to describe it. I think the media criticisms of this book are probably true, that a lot of this book is based on rumors he heard and wasn’t necessarily present for, and that he placed himself closer to the action than he actually was, but I don’t get the impression he’s intentionally lying. At one point somewhere in the middle of the book he’s telling a story and he keeps going from being the driver to being the passenger back to being the driver again, which is clear evidence that his memory is suspect. He also tends to tell stories as if he knew what was going to happen before it did, which is pretty hard to believe at times. For example, he really tries to make it sound like he saw the incident with the blue dress coming, not because he had any information about any of what was going on with the dress or Linda Tripp, but just because he had a moment where he was like, “Dear god, one day the president is going to jizz in the wrong place and someone is going to escape with the evidence!” It’s weird. He does it like two or three times. He writes as if he had a revelatory moment where he saw into the future and lost sleep over it and it’s a bit of a stretch. Also, there were definitely things he said that seemed like they were inspired by a recent viewing of House of Cards.

Like I said earlier, this book is basically an account of his feelings toward the Clintons. And a lot of his complaints about them were for the things he saw as important. (For example, it really bothered him how little care they had for the White House as a historical landmark, and he thought they were too casual about things in general.) So a lot of what you think about what Byrne saw comes down to whether or not you agree with Bryne about what matters. Do your priorities align more with the Clintons or Byrnes? I find some of his complaints a bit comical. He spends about a third of this book recounting how he tried to keep Monica from sneaking into the president's office and I couldn’t help but find this really amusing. It almost reads like a Tweety and Sylvester skit.

My biggest criticism of Bryne is that he often falls into the trap of thinking that other people thought of him and the Uniformed Division more than I’m sure they did. He’s often certain that other people had malicious motivations toward him, or the UD, when there was no way for him know that, and in all likelihood the real problem was that whoever it was just didn’t consider him/UD officers at all. There seems to be more paranoia behind his perception than was required by the job.

The book starts pretty strong, but about a third of the way through a lot of typos start creeping in, and then after that some stories become kind of rambling and strange. I get the impression there was a lot of proofreading in the beginning and almost none by the end. Though, the writing is pretty impressive for a non writer with dyslexia.

It’s a hard book to rate because as far as the quality of the book goes, I’m inclined to want to give it one or two stars because I can’t accurately judge the quality of the information or Byrne’s judgement, but I enjoyed reading Byrne’s perspective. I like Byrne. He seems a bit simple, and he’s clearly a republican loyalist and I would hate to work directly above him, and if I ever worked with him I’d be afraid he thought I was just an affirmative action hire...but I like him. He has kind of a dopey uncle vibe -- you know he’s wrong about stuff, but you love him anyway because he’s a good guy who means well.

Review coming soon.

I thought I was going to hate this book, but it's actually really entertaining. Annie Spence is a much more feelingsy reader than I am, but I liked hearing her opinions on different books. My favorite was her letter to Fifty Shades of Gray.

I'm surprised she has such a high opinion of some books, like Yes Please, which is Amy Poehler's 300 page book about how she doesn't want to write a book. I've read about a third of the books she mentions and I found most to be three to four star reads at best, so I'm not planning to run out and read the rest, but I did take away a few suggestions.

Also, she totally got an extra star for agreeing that the Hobbit is boooooring. I thought I was the only person on earth who felt like that book was three times longer than it was.