Hi! My name is Anna, "You'd really like me if you got to know me. I've known me for years and I love me."
Word count: about 81 300 words
Rating: You’re not worth bothering photoreceptors in my retinas.
Rating? 2 stars? 3 stars? Most parts were *.
I'm sorry, but HOW in the world does that sorry excuse of a book have such a hight rating? Or maybe you all are just high?
That book is an unfortunate rehash of what happened in the previous ones told from Will's point of view.
Now, I don't even have such a big problem with it. If I love a story a different POV is usually welcome (IF IT ADDS SOMETHING!). But the way it was executed... And the way sex is presented... NO! They act like they've lost their collective brains. Just left them on the side of the road as a part of some bizarre 'good luck love' ritual. ...the fuck? Are you shitting me? HOW can you take a semi-decent story like that and turn it into pig scratchings on a dirty towel? And more importantly WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ME? TO US?!
Was everything horrible in that book? NO. Did I enjoy parts of it? Certainly YES. A few parts were awesome! But as a rule you can't get full points for reheating stale bread. And if you add to it some rancid butter? Bleh!
An extensive collection of Will's inner monologues about his luv for Lake was TOO MUCH! And, as often happens, male POV can make you like him less. Will, god, I can't forgive his obsession with a girl. We could forgive Lake, because she's still in high school, she's acting like a teenager (she is one, so it's cool, it's appropriate), but Will is a grown responsible men. He's far too desperate, too emotional, too drawn to her for no apparent reason.
So how it is constructed? That book flashes between Will and Lake on their honeymoon(NOW) (in bed and not only) and their past(BEFORE). That's it. A whole 'story'. And the way they interact 'now' made me see red at times. So there. Just because I've liked previous ones doesn't mean you can just string me along.
Now I will rant about how SEX is presented in this semblance of a 'story'. It's magnificent in its awfulness.
a) Innocence myth. But of course she had to be a virgin in the first place! Let's perpetuate that belief! Otherwise she wouldn't be worthy of attention. And she kept her 'v' card till wedding. Isn't that hot? (NO IT'S NOT)
b) Losing virginity is not an awesome orgasmic experience. Did Colleen Hoover ever have sex? Even in the best cases it would be a little bit uncomfortable/awkward. The experience itself in most cases is not painful (unless you're tense and nervous), but orgasmic? NO. Just no. Ok. This is turning into sex-ed but the way they portray virginity loss in books is just false.
There also isn't enough new material, it doesn't add to a story. Look how Ilona Andrews handles it --> they publish short scenes written in different POV on their blog. No need to publish a book to go over SAME SHIT.