User Profile

I feel like this book failed to actually hit the notes it was attempting to hit. It wanted to work through abuse, death, and grief but really felt like it was forcing the wrong characters to learn lessons when they were meant to be the narrative devices through which the protagonist Sonny (and his family) were meant to learn.

Much of the exploration felt incredibly superficial, with Sonny just moving on through processing the abuses he endured. This isn't to say that there's one right way to process and deal with abuse, but there was nothing that actually made Sonny engage with what he experienced. In a good chunk of the novel, it was very much "tell don't show" or "show but gloss over."

Overall, it's an interesting attempt, but I left it feeling very unsatisfied. I was even left frustrated by the ending, which I think should've had consequences for the protagonists and actually engaged in showing them trying to actively fix the issues they had. There wasn't any work involved in building and repairing the relationships in the novel; they just... were.

It's also worth noting that the author forewarns readers that this book is fiction with autobiographical notes, and you could really feel the ways in which he was trying to force readers to sympathise with Sonny (who was clearly his stand-in). And that's not awful, but it also means that Sonny needs to truly grow and develop and process his world, which also allows the audience to kind of follow him in that journey. And this was something that I very much feel they failed at doing.

The book is structured kind of like a horror novel, though it doesn't really give that feeling as you progress through the narrative.

Using the Grim Reaper, it tries to explore concepts surrounding abuse, death, and grief. The protagonist, Sonny, is a teenage boy who is given an opportunity to replace Death, becoming him in his stead and allowing him to finally rest after thousands of years. In becoming Death, he has to find ways to work through a lot of earthly emotions and those things that tie him to the world.

As I've said, I like this concept. But I don't think the author managed to explore any of those concepts, often skipping over them or seemingly using them in superficial ways. It feels a bit forced how often Sonny moves on or deals with his issues, even toward the end where he seemingly learns a lot about himself outside of the text.

I wanted to like it more than I did, but there was just this nagging feeling in the back of my head that kept screaming about how little anything was actually engaged with. They were shown and mentioned, but they were rarely explored by the protagonist in meaningful ways.

Also! While I'm fine with unsatisfying endings, I felt like the person who learned the most was the Grim Reaper... When he was being used as a device for Sonny to grow and develop, acting as his mentor and guide... And then suddenly it's his lesson to learn, letting Sonny off the hook.

It's been a long time since I last read this book, and I remembered liking it. I don't think I caught all the ways in which the movie Clue either references it or uses it as a guide for their detective spoof before, and that was partially the reason for why I wanted to read it again.

I still very much like the idea that the point of the book is to target those who cannot be touched by the law or who haven't done something that can be considered "criminal." It really feels, particularly in an age where so many people in specific positions view themselves as untouchable because they're either "not doing something illegal" or the law refuses to do anything about them, like a concept we should be revisiting in our narrative fiction.

This novel is enough to bring me back to detective works, something which I've missed quite a bit.

It's been a long time since I last read this book, and I remembered liking it. I don't think I caught all the ways in which the movie Clue either references it or uses it as a guide for their detective spoof before, and that was partially the reason for why I wanted to read it again.

I still very much like the idea that the point of the book is to target those who cannot be touched by the law or who haven't done something that can be considered "criminal." It really feels, particularly in an age where so many people in specific positions view themselves as untouchable because they're either "not doing something illegal" or the law refuses to do anything about them, like a concept we should be revisiting in our narrative fiction.

This novel is enough to bring me back to detective works, something which I've missed quite a bit.

Leveled readers are books that are generally designed for new readers and English learners, which supposedly build language skills by making sure a book 'fits' a level. Personally, I find these leveled readers suspect, as they don't so much build independent readers but create stories that are generally dull for the sake of "being easy" and "using appropriate vocabulary."

This book reads like that, though it doesn't look like a traditional leveled reader because of the art. I've tried using this book with a range of young students, and they all say things that indicate to me that the book is 'speaking down' to them rather than treating them like actual readers. For example, a few kids who like repetition in books (and think it's fun because they can sing it like a song) find the repetition of asking them to do simple maths problems (4-1, 3-1, 2-1, 1-1) to be bothersome because they "already know how to do this."

I'm not going to say it's bad, but it's definitely just... very simplistic, even by the standards of children's books.

Leveled readers are books that are generally designed for new readers and English learners, which supposedly build language skills by making sure a book 'fits' a level. Personally, I find these leveled readers suspect, as they don't so much build independent readers but create stories that are generally dull for the sake of "being easy" and "using appropriate vocabulary."

This book reads like that, though it doesn't look like a traditional leveled reader because of the art. I've tried using this book with a range of young students, and they all say things that indicate to me that the book is 'speaking down' to them rather than treating them like actual readers. For example, a few kids who like repetition in books (and think it's fun because they can sing it like a song) find the repetition of asking them to do simple maths problems (4-1, 3-1, 2-1, 1-1) to be bothersome because they "already know how to do this."

I'm not going to say it's bad, but it's definitely just... very simplistic, even by the standards of children's books.

I'm just going to focus on the thing that I find obnoxious: I don't like when people trick others into eating foods they openly state that they don't like. I actually think that indicates a form of abuse that we see as being acceptable, and I label it as abuse because it's explicitly ignoring the body autonomy that we should all have. Children, like all people, should have a right to determine what they eat and do not eat. Tricking them into eating things because you call them by another name is just... I'm not a fan.

There are numerous reasons a person would choose to not eat something. Some people find certain textures appalling, while others can't handle certain tastes. Others just aren't ready to try certain foods, opting not to eat them at that moment. And those aren't even all the reasons that people don't like and choose to not eat certain foods.

Showing that there are no consequences (and, in fact, that you can impact someone in a 'positive' manner) by tricking them into eating food is... kind of abhorrent. It teaches kids that this is okay and that they should be able to do so. It teaches kids that they know what's best for everyone, that they should be able to make decisions for and coerce them.

This book seems initially harmless and is trying to play on the jokey tone that happens when you try to work with younger kids, but it's... just not a good look. We shouldn't be teaching kids to overstep boundaries, even if we find those boundaries to be absurd. If their sister doesn't like tomatoes, they shouldn't try to convince her to eat them; they should let her decide to eat them on her own. There may be a number of reasons why she's not eating them, and tricking her into doing it just shows they don't respect her, her boundaries, or her needs.

But that's not the lesson the protagonist learns. (And there's not even a lesson of teaching kids about healthy foods! Which could've been a better story, too.)

I hated this book from the introduction, and I hate how much of it glosses over the shared work of other people. This is a persistent theme, especially from books for kids that are developed for the US market. Individualism reigns supreme, to the point where we get New Great Person Theory instead of genuine feminism. It's so annoying.

This is even true of Marie Curie's (very short) story, which glosses over the fact that her husband did fight for her recognition. This is something that is directly contradictory to many women in science during and after the Industrial Revolution, like Mileva Einstein-Marie (who was just as brilliant as Albert... but he never ensured her work was acknowledged). This doesn't even negate the feminist slant the book pretends to have; it very literally would highlight that part of the reason we know about Marie Curie's contributions is because someone else saw and fought that injustice with her (and that person was, surprisingly, her own husband).

Others that get factors glossed over include people like Peggy Guggenheim. It's mentioned that she was born into a wealthy and known family, but it's also written in a way that makes it sound like she would've had the same uphill struggle that others would've had. It's also very strange because her contribution is "saving artwork from the Nazis" because she had a lot of money, though the book doesn't even really do much beyond say that they "disliked anything representing modern sensibilities." It's like there's a reason why... that gets skimmed over.

Another thing is that this says "from around the world," but it's worth pointing out that many of the stories are either about people from the US or people who immigrated to the US. Like, it's noticeable to a fault (out of 35 total stories, half of them involve someone who matches that description), which feels like an implication that many of these people need to immigrate to the US to be successful. The same is true in the "more dreamers" who don't get full-page stories (just tiny blurbs).