October 25, 2011
Egmont USA
Young Adult | Contemporary
Standalone
Pages: 256
Source/Format: NetGalley/eGalley
Author's Website | Amazon | Barnes & Noble | IndieBound
Emmy Rane is married at nineteen, a mother by twenty. Trapped in a life with a husband she no longer loves, Baby is her only joy. Then one sunny day in September, Emmy takes a few fateful steps away from her baby and returns to find her missing. All that is left behind is a yellow sock.
Fourteen years later, Sophie, a homeschooled, reclusive teenage girl is forced to move frequently and abruptly from place to place, perpetually running from what her mother calls the "No Good." One afternoon, Sophie breaks the rules, ventures out, and meets Joey and his two aunts. It is this loving family that gives Sophie the courage to look into her past. What she discovers changes her world forever. . . .
The riveting stories of Emmy and Sophie—alternating narratives of loss, imprisonment, and freedom regained—escalate with breathless suspense toward an unforgettable climax.
You Are My Only is a unique contemporary. Emmy’s scenes are written in the past, and I guessed around the 1970s. Sophie’s is in “present”-time of the novel, and I guessed probably early 1990s. So I’m reading, trying to get into this book (I loved the prose; everything else was very, very confusing) and I stumble.
Because Sophie says it’s 2004 and she’s fourteen.
Blink blink.
Say what now?
Argh. I think that was the most annoying part of this story. It does not read like it was set in 2004; I honestly thought it was set in the 70s/90s because of the way they speak. Sophie. Oh dear god, Sophie is fourteen and I swear to you she speaks like it’s 1975. And it’s not; it’s 2004!
0_o
Another annoying point is you can tell what the ending is from the summary. It’s still a good read if you get past the inconsistences, but holy wow, it disappointed me in a big way. I just wish it was easier to understand, the setting actually … less confusing, and for it to not be so predictable. I have no doubt people will like this one, though; it just wasn’t for me. And that makes me a sad Ashy.
It wasn't for me, but if you think this sounds like a good book, go ahead and read it! You may like it.
I'm curious about how the way she talked made you think it was the 70's. Was it the slang, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this a great review and it takes courage to give low marks to something that you honestly felt was troublesome, even though you wanted to like it. Hate to have to do it, but we must as reviewers!
@Cathy, it was slang, yeah, but more like proper slang. I don't know she just felt like she wasn't a fourteen year old girl in 2004. And it was also the setting, like where they live, and Joey, the boy next door. It was just odd for me.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I feel so bad for giving low marks to books. They are so hard to write and edit that I do feel a tad bit guilty and probably in the future I'll only write positive reviews.
No, don't do that! You should write negative reviews if you genuinely don't like something, and publish it. If not, then how can anyone trust you? I always feel like I can trust the reviewers who have a good mix of positive and negative reviews.
ReplyDeleteIf all are positive, I just stop reading their reviews. I figure they like everything and aren't very discerning in their taste. If all are neg., I feel they have some vendetta, or are just trolling the interwebz.
Balance is key to being trustworthy, and it may be hard, and you'd want to only review the books you like, but you might lose credibility.
@Cathy, your comment made me smile. I guess I'm feeling so guilty because I had two negative reviews posted this week, out of three reviews! Balance is the key, I just feel like I have been writing way too many negative ones and not enough positive ones!
ReplyDelete