Vanshika

reread in the honor of the movie coming out.

I liked thow this story was told but the ending was massively dissatisfying. Ending is kind of a big part for thrillers no. It fails to answer some really important question and does so not because the authors wanted an ending open to interpretation but they just couldn't tie up all the loose threads neatly. The readability of book this suggested that when i get to the ending i would be excited about all the reveals and all the intresting questions that the author is asking will be answered in a spectacular way but insted what happened was that the author answered all the least intresting questions & left all the intresting ones unanswered.

As someone who has not read a lot of true crime, i do not how this book stands against the rest in the genre so i am not sure how to rate it. Three star rating because I just remember how chaotic I felt the structure was. This book does what a lot of non-fiction does. It jumps back and forward through time. Now, with standard non-Fiction, this can make the book tedious or complicated, but overall, I can keep up with the events of the story. With true crime, it is a bit harder, as there are a myriad of dates, locations, victims, investigators, etc., that we are keeping tracking of on top of the timeline. I constantly found myself getting out of the flow state of reading because it was quite difficult to keep track of all the key pieces of information provided in this book, simply because of the scattered way in which it was pieced together. Which brings me to the overall structure of this book which bounced all over the place. In fact, I would say there was very little structure overall to the book, which made it hard to follow but i was still able to connect with it. Looking forward to searching about more true crimes which could be 5 star reads.

Wanted to reread this one because i thought i might be able to appreciate it more since i am a full grown up now and all but my opinion remains unchanged. I still didn't like reading about characters whose main traits are self-sabotaging behaviours, shrugging every three sentences, and saying “I don't know” 24*7. None of the side chracters were fleshed out at all. just archetypes. three stars are for Rooney's style of writing. Zero stars for creating a relationship where there is miscommunication just for the sake of drama.

This was a perfect introduction to Dostoyevsky. I was touched by how bittersweet and tender White Nights is. This beautiful but heartbreaking story will hold a special place in my heart.
It's extraordinary the way Dostoyevsky could make me feel so much identification with his characters even when they are a century and a half away.
So many people in the world can totally relate to the Dreamer character... And the way Nastenka treats him, well, it mirrors what happens in real life too... Fairy tale endings don't exist.
Also, Dostoevsky's solitary, unattached dreamer willfully retreated from engagement with others and the world, while Nastenka is literally “pinned” to her grandmother's skirt and strict guardianship. Her narrative is one of development and action.
Even the narrator's final words were
“As if I would recall my resentment, Nastenka! Or would cast a dark cloud across your bright untroubled happiness, or would inflict misery on your heart with my bitter reproaches, stinging it with hidden pangs, making it beat anxiously in your moment of bliss? That I would crush even one of those tender blossoms which you wove into your dark curls as you approached the altar with him . . . oh, never, never! May your sky always be bright, and your sweet smile always be radiant and serene, yes, and may you be blessed for the moment of bliss and happiness you gave to another lonely, grateful heart! My God! One whole moment of bliss! Is that not sufficient for a man's entire life?”