The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle

I apparently read this book over the course of seven days, but in reality I read it in two long sittings and a final 30 minute stint. And right up until that last 15%, the last 30 minutes, this book was a five star read for me.

To begin with, The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle is a mystery novel like none before it. Aiden Bishop lives the same day in eight different perspectives on repeat; challenged to solve the murder of Evelyn Hardcastle so he may earn his freedom from the loop. I think the mystery was well crafted as it was difficult to figure clues out as you went and prevented me from “solving” the book before the end. In fact, I didn't come close to it. I'm not sure anyone would. The reveal of different perspectives, their limitations and strengths, and their unique relationship to the cast of characters was an incredible strong point for me in this novel and has me ready to add this book to my favourites of the year.

However, I found the last 15% to be a significant decrease in quality. The twist was unexpected and could have been good, but as it was relegated to such a small portion of the book it came across as a rushed decision. I thought it read like the author decided he wanted a twist and wrote it into the book in the forty minutes before submission. I personally feel if the twist had been introduced more gradually, the book would have been a strong five star read. I recommend this book to anyone who is bored with the thrillers and mysteries they've read recently, because this was a shock to the system and deeply addicting.

I was going to give this 4 stars for compulsiveness of reading, but had to deduct for a couple significant problems:

1.) the constant irritation of poor writing/editing (uncounted dangling participles, and dumb stuff like “Sutcliffe and Pettigrew laughing uproariously with a drink in their hand.” Really? They have a single drink in their somehow common hand? Or “He frowns, smiling a little,” or the occasional slips from present tense narration. Come on, guys.)

2.) Turton wants you to know that fat people are so totally gross, y'all. GROSS! Don't get him started on old people - yech! (And yes arguably these are prejudices of the narrator, that Turton presents as a growth experience for him when he appreciates the hosts' good points. But it's over the top.)

3.) no spoilers, but the utter failure of the framing story when subjected to the slightest analysis. It's very, very clear that Turton thought “wouldn't it be cool to write an Agatha Christie/Quantum Leap/Memento mashup?” and then struggled to come up with a justification for why Aiden is in that position. I can't even call it Fridge Logic because it bothered me even as I was reading - the minute you think about the supposed explanation of this setup, you hit a bunch of unanswered, “But why would he . . . ?” “HOW did they . . .?” “Wait, how does X indicate Y?” type questions.

THAT SAID, go ahead and read this with the expectation that it's a fun ride, it doesn't have a real satisfying meta-explanation, but Turton did a lot of amazing work weaving and keeping track of threads, crafting characters, and making you desperate to know what happens next.

I'm really not sure what to think about this book. I mean, I really liked it, but I'm definitely going to have to read it again. There were so many chapters I had to rewind multiple times when I just gave up and kept going. I figured that the pieces would fall into place eventually. I've decided to buy the book and comb through it and highlight everything, and maybe I can understand it better