Give Nora a more logical reason to go to the bachlorette party in the first place and to stay when things start getting weird. I think a lot of it could have been easily fixed too. The lack of real motive, logic, and emotion completely crippled this book. – She has an unreasonable love for coffee despite being English. This is our crime writer at the height of her skills. She WILLINGLY drinks tea that a MURDERER offers her, and then is SURPRISED that the drink has been drugged. It takes her ten years to realize that a break-up text her then boyfriend supposedly sent was sent by someone else. She returns to the scene of the murder in the middle of the night by herself despite knowing she is a suspect She runs after a murderer in a moving car You know what is weird? Going to the bachlorette party to begin with. Her reason? Clare and James might think I’m weird. She does not leave immediately upon finding out Clare is marrying her old boyfriend. Did I mention the lack of cell phone? I’m sure it’s not crucial to the plot. – She gets predictably uncomfortable at the bachlorette party and goes for a late night run in an unfamiliar area.
Why wouldn’t Nina just say, “boy, won’t that be uncomfortable for you to go considering Clare is marrying your old boyfriend?” I literally cannot think of a single friend who would not say this to me if I were in that situation.) – She does not bother to find out who that frienemy is marrying (This was super hard to believe. – She goes to the bachlorette party of an old frienemy she hasn’t seen or spoken to in ten years. Here are some of the dumb things she does. I won’t check it out, though.įinally, Nora is about the dumbest protagonist ever. Remember the weird footprints? I’m sure those footprints aren’t important, but I will mention them about 20 times just so it’s clear there were footprints. – There are some weird footprints in the snow. Here’s a shotgun, but it’s loaded with blanks. Did I mention the lack of cell phone? No cell phone? Nada cell phone? The author also reeeeally beats you over the head with certain details. There was no emotional resonance in any of it. So we just get Nora literally telling us what to think about all the characters. Unfortunately, a lot of the reason for that is because so much of what is important for the story happened in the past. The mystery from who is going to be killed, to the killer, to why was all pretty obvious because the author had no subtlety in conveying the story. I actually do think that the story had some good bones and could have been very compelling, it was just told in such a clumsy way. A story is not thrilling just because there is a murder in a forest somewhere with all of the above elements. – Other creepy elements? A girl with a past! An old rivalry! A complete lack of phones! Convenient Amnesia! Check! Check! Check! Check!īUT… it is not enough to simply have these elements (and some are detrimental) you have to actually utilize them in a suspenseful way. – Creepy premise? Bachlorette party with a gun! Check! – Creepy setting? A glass house in the woods! Check! – Creepy title? How about a classic poem! Check!
#In the dark dark woods poem how to
I can see the author planning her novel, thinking about how to make her story thrilling and suspenseful. This kind of empty trick happens a lot in “In a Dark, Dark Wood.” It was just a hand-wave illusion of trying to make the story suspenseful. Nora is supposedly a crime writer, because that is a cool job to have if you are a character in a mystery/thriller novel except this was a terrible choice for Nora, because she was so wildly illogical and did not use any of this supposed knowledge she had from her career. This book! Unfortunately graced with one of the absolute stupidest protagonists I’ve ever read.
0 kommentar(er)
