ISN'T IT SPRING?
It snowed, people. Snow. Not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES.
SNOW.
*throws up hands*
Book:
20. Afterlife by Marcus Sakey
Two Federal Agents find themselves chasing a serial killer into the afterlife.
Well, it's clear that Sakey is a Stephen King fan. His protagonists are linked when they both find the same water-swollen copy of King's "The Gunslinger". The afterlife in which they find themselves is very similar to that of Mr. King's "The Langoliers", complete with "eaters" (King's eat the past world, Sakey's eat energy.) And this novel also has a similar ending to Stephen King's brilliant "The Stand." I honestly don't mean that Mr. Sakey has deliberately imitated Stephen King. It merely feels pretty clear that King is a big influence and it shows up in his work.
This is a story with three sometimes-overlapping sections. The first deals with our world, where Federal Agents (and lovers) Claire and Will are investigating a serial killer. The second is the afterlife, a greyed-out nearly isolated version of the Chicago that they are from and where they both end up (not gonna say Spoiler because the book is CALLED "Afterlife", after all.) The third aspect involves some inhabitants of the afterlife, long-lived (lived? They're dead. Whatever.) former humans who, through their evilness, have learned to straddle the worlds and influence people who are still alive.
That last bit is what I hated the most. I simply cannot abide stories where a person's depravity is explained away as "the devil made me do it" or "the voices said I had to" or "my dog Peanut told me to." No. Some people are just plain evil. And giving them an "out" - especially, as is the case with this story, when they are *real people* who murdered other *real people* -- is disingenuous. It makes my blood boil.
So. The story. It was just sort of… there. I didn't hate it, but it didn't give me any reason to like it a whole lot, either. It was just fine. The concept was fine, but as mentioned above it felt derivative. The writing was fine but not compelling, so I never felt that I had to hurry up and get to the next chapter so I could find out what happens. The characters all felt a little cardboard: the protagonists were much too 'good' for their own good, and the ancient baddies had no humanity so we couldn't connect with them at all, yet were not scary enough to hold up as the ultimate evil they were supposed to portray. I actually found their sections (and the writing style used there) to be pretty boring. *shrugs*
2/5 stars
Goodreads Challenge 33 - non-traditional family
Popsugar Challenge - does not fit
318 pages
Books Read: 20/85
Goodreads Challenge: 20/52
Popsugar Challenge: 17/40
Total Pages Read: 6205 pages
.
SNOW.
*throws up hands*
Book:
20. Afterlife by Marcus Sakey
Two Federal Agents find themselves chasing a serial killer into the afterlife.
Well, it's clear that Sakey is a Stephen King fan. His protagonists are linked when they both find the same water-swollen copy of King's "The Gunslinger". The afterlife in which they find themselves is very similar to that of Mr. King's "The Langoliers", complete with "eaters" (King's eat the past world, Sakey's eat energy.) And this novel also has a similar ending to Stephen King's brilliant "The Stand." I honestly don't mean that Mr. Sakey has deliberately imitated Stephen King. It merely feels pretty clear that King is a big influence and it shows up in his work.
This is a story with three sometimes-overlapping sections. The first deals with our world, where Federal Agents (and lovers) Claire and Will are investigating a serial killer. The second is the afterlife, a greyed-out nearly isolated version of the Chicago that they are from and where they both end up (not gonna say Spoiler because the book is CALLED "Afterlife", after all.) The third aspect involves some inhabitants of the afterlife, long-lived (lived? They're dead. Whatever.) former humans who, through their evilness, have learned to straddle the worlds and influence people who are still alive.
That last bit is what I hated the most. I simply cannot abide stories where a person's depravity is explained away as "the devil made me do it" or "the voices said I had to" or "my dog Peanut told me to." No. Some people are just plain evil. And giving them an "out" - especially, as is the case with this story, when they are *real people* who murdered other *real people* -- is disingenuous. It makes my blood boil.
So. The story. It was just sort of… there. I didn't hate it, but it didn't give me any reason to like it a whole lot, either. It was just fine. The concept was fine, but as mentioned above it felt derivative. The writing was fine but not compelling, so I never felt that I had to hurry up and get to the next chapter so I could find out what happens. The characters all felt a little cardboard: the protagonists were much too 'good' for their own good, and the ancient baddies had no humanity so we couldn't connect with them at all, yet were not scary enough to hold up as the ultimate evil they were supposed to portray. I actually found their sections (and the writing style used there) to be pretty boring. *shrugs*
2/5 stars
Goodreads Challenge 33 - non-traditional family
Popsugar Challenge - does not fit
318 pages
Books Read: 20/85
Goodreads Challenge: 20/52
Popsugar Challenge: 17/40
Total Pages Read: 6205 pages
.