Book Reviews by a Chick Who Reads Everything
I read every kind of book from the absolute serious to the downright silly.
Hi Everybody!
I launched the Adapt Me Podcast this week! It’s available on Spotify and Amazon Music as of now. It’ll be on more in the coming future. I plan on releasing episodes on a monthly basis.
If you want to be a guest, feel free to email me here!
One of the movies I was looking forward to seeing last year was The Housemaid starring Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried.That was the whole reason why I read the book of the same name by Freida McFadden. I was curious to see how the film would translate the novel’s twists and turns. And reader, it did despite one major issue.
The movie is mostly faithful to the source material. There are some minor changes. For example, Andrew makes a big deal out of the chinaware that his family has owned for many years. This is not in the book, but it plays an important role in the second half. The main difference is the flick adds a ton of gore. There’s far more blood and horror in the movie than there is in the novel.
I love the design of the Winchester’s McMansion. It’s pristine, but it also makes people feel trapped, which is fitting for the story. This is especially true with the spiraling staircase. Even Nina mentions that the home was something out of the Guggenheim Museum.
The performances are mostly fantastic. Millie, Nina, and Andrew and their interactions are the glue to making the story work. One needs actors that understand the plot’s seriousness and insanity. For the most part, the actors in this adaptation do. Brandon Sklenar (best known for his work in the television show 1923 and the movie version of It Ends With Us) plays Andrew. He’s perfectly cast in the role since he looks like a very nice prince. What Sklenar is called to do, he excels.
Sydney my-jeans-are-blue Sweeney takes on the role of Millie the titular housemaid. If you are reading this, you probably know who she is. If not, she’s an actress who’s known for her body, her work in the television show Euphoria, and the controversial American Eagle ads. I’m not crazy about her as a person. She always looks dead behind the eyes and relies too much on her physical appearance for attention. Even if she didn’t make as much noise as she did in 2025, I would feel the same way. As for her performance, Sweeney has little to no reactions to things, especially in the first half. However, she comes alive in the second part. She was intense and funny. In fact, she has favorite moment in the entire film, where after Millie gets covered in blood, she goes, “F***! I need a sandwich.”
If Sweeney had brought energy to the first part, then it would have been a great performance. But as it is, it’s good.
Then, there’s Amanda Seyfried, and she put on the best performance. She plays Nina, and she understood the assignment. Seyfried takes on the worst and best parts of the character with gusto. She’s a pretty actress, but I admire how far she goes to make herself look deranged. While she doesn’t put on a fat suit, Seyfried looks dangerously thin and lets all of her emotions out in the ugliest way possible. Even though they can be hard to watch, these were the most entertaining parts. At one point, she emerges with a busted lip and blush applied to different parts of her cheeks. I honestly couldn’t believe that this was the same actress who played the dumb Karen in Mean Girls and Sophie in the Mamma Mia movies. If anything this movie is worth watching mainly because of Seyfried.
As I mentioned earlier, there was one major issue I had with the flick. It does more telling than showing. Throughout the movie, director Paul Feig adds voiceovers for important bits that take lines from the book, so viewers can hear the character’s inner voice. This worked for the most part. There were two bits that bothered me. First was during the second half, where Nina’s backstory is revealed. Much is told through voiceover and flashbacks, but there were certain things that I wanted to see instead of hear. The other is in the opening scene, in which Millie puts on her glasses right as she enters through the gate to the Winchester home. After her job interview, Millie tells the audience that she doesn’t wear them, and I was like, “I know. We just saw that.”
That voiceover would have worked better if the viewers were introduced with Millie with the spectacles already on.
Finally, watching this movie made me realize that the story is best consumed mainly once. It’s so predictable that I was noting certain things being said that I initially didn’t pick up on in the book. It made me a little antsy. Granted, the novel had plenty of obvious things happening too, but it was my first time engaging with The Housemaid. However, the second halves of both of the book and the movie are worth looking at even more because of how unpredictable they are.
The Housemaid movie adheres to the suspenseful spirit of the book. It’s predictable in the first half, but oh so gutsy in the second. The best part of the film are the performances, especially Amanda Seyfried’s. I would recommend to those who love psychological thrillers, Sydney Sweeney, Amanda Seyfried, and the novel by Freida McFadden. Check it out while it’s still in movie theaters.
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Full disclosure: I was given an ARC of this book from SparkPoint Studio in exchange for an honest review.
During the daytime, I’m an archivist. I help people find research material for their projects, especially about their ancestors. There are some people who have discovered so much about their families that they have written genealogy books based on what they know about their dead relatives. They are usually nonfiction as they focus on retelling the facts in a narrative format. However, there are some that are told as historical fiction novels. Author Sandra Freels found so much about her ancestors that she wrote a fictionalized tale based on the resources she came across called Anneke Jans in the New World. While it’s an inspiring tale, I wish the story and characters were more fleshed out.
Anneke Jans in the New World is about a spirited young mother who faces the unknowns of seventeenth-century New Amsterdam after leaving the Old World. It’s 1630, and Anneke Jans has just arrived in the New Netherland colony with her husband, Roelof, and two young daughters to create a new life for herself and her family. She is among the few women in the colony. In order to survive, she has to make her own rules. When Roelof dies, she marries Everardus Bogardus – the lively minister of the Dutch Reformed Church. With this marriage, she joins the colony’s elite. However, when the colony’s new director provokes war on the region’s Native Americans and her new husband emerges as the head of the anti-war opposition, she finds herself in the middle of political turmoil. As more difficulties grow, Anneke must rely on her wits to protect herself and her growing family.
I knew nothing about Anneke Jans before coming across this book. I did a little research on her, and it turns out that she’s known as the “Mother of New Amsterdam” because of her resilience, especially how she stood her ground over long-running legal disputes over her farm in that area. Her descendants kept the fight going centuries after her death, when the English took it over and transformed it into New York, and when the land became prime real estate in Manhattan. Freels claims that Anneke is one of her ancestors. She clearly had a lot to work with.
Making Anneke’s story into historical fiction was a big gamble since she is relatively unknown outside of New York State history, but Freels bit off more than she could chew. At nearly 200 pages, the narrative feels rushed. Plotlines are introduced and resolved very quickly. In addition, there’s little time for characters to sit with their emotions and reactions to various things. The closest that readers get with the latter is when Anneke finds out that her second husband died while at sea. The beauty of historical fiction is imagining how famous people felt behind closed doors and their reasonings for why they do certain things that would impact history. The writing belongs more in a textbook than in a novel because of how stilted it can be. Freels previously authored three textbooks, so that checks out. She needed to loosen up and explore more of the characters’ mindsets to succeed in the storytelling department.
As much as I complain about this book, there were things that I enjoyed when I took a step back and saw the bigger picture. I learned a lot about the New Netherland colony. It was fascinating to see how the people worked with each other and with the indigenous community as well as how those relationships changed over time. I kept going to see how Anneke Jans herself evolved over the years being in the New World. She starts off as a quiet and timid wife who didn’t know much about working the land. Over time, she learns how to utilize the property and trade with others in the most effective ways. Society pressured her to remarry after her second husband’s death, yet she remained resolved and wanted to make her own money and become the owner of her land as a widow. Since New York is celebrating its 400th anniversary soon, I hope people get to talk about her, for she’s a fascinating character.
Anneke Jans in the New World by Sandra Freels is a fine novel. It’s nice to know that a historical fiction book about Anneke Jans was written by one of her descendants. I learned so much about the environment at the time and the titular character. On the other hand, the writing needed more work. I felt like I was reading a textbook most of the time with how plots are introduced and resolved swiftly, and it rarely stopped to let characters’ emotions sink in. I would only recommend it to those who are looking to write stories about their ancestors. While it’s not perfect, Freels should feel proud for creating a historical fiction novel about her famous ancestor.
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Hi Everybody!
Grab your hand-drawn maps and hamburger legs because returning guest Carl Malek and I talk about the 2008 movie version The Ruins in the latest installment of “His/Her Reviews” on the Adapt Me Podcast. We discuss the positives, negatives, and everything that freaked us out. Check it out at this link.
In the meantime, you can see my review of The Ruins the movie here.
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Hi Everybody!!
Today is the last Monday of the year! You know what that means? It’s the 6th annual year-end countdown of books* I reviewed in 2025!
*This also includes movies.
For those who don’t know. I’ll pick 6 titles for this list – 3 for the best and 3 for the worst! Now, I have only one question for you!
I sure am! Let’s get started with the Best Books of 2025
This year was interesting to say the least. There weren’t as many as 5-star books that I read. After 7 years of reviewing books, I’ve been looking at titles that I come across with a more critical eye. Nevertheless, I had an easy time choosing my top 3 this year because they were all well-written in their own unique ways. Let me show you.
3. Women in Politics Breaking Down the Barriers to Achieve True Representation by Mary Chung Hayashi
I’m going be very honest. I had a tough 2025 because of the political landscape. I was afraid of what was going to happen because I felt powerless to do something about it. However, this year, I realized could make a difference through education. Part of that shift in thinking was brought on by Women in Politics: Breaking Down the Barriers to Achieve True Representation by Mary Chung Hayashi. The book does a fantastic job with explaining what drives women to get into politics, the realistic barriers, and how gender equality can be achieved in a clear and concise manner and under 200 pages. The best part is Hayashi’s own story of how she became a politician after her sister’s death. She brings it home as to why female representation is important. Even though I never plan on running for political office, this book will definitely inspire others to do that regardless of gender, especially to combat sexism in the political world.
2. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
In the past, I’ve put banned books on my best list. If they are that good, I’ll put in on here. The Bluest Eye – the 1970 debut novel by Toni Morrison – is no different. It has been on several banned book lists over the years. Its depictions of racism and sexual assault are hard to get through, but not every novel is meant to comfort readers. Sometimes, they confront a reality that certain people don’t want to see. This novel falls into that category as it tackles society’s obsession with white beauty standards and how it impacts the black community. But, that’s not the main reason why The Bluest Eye is on the list. It’s the way Morrison tells the story of a little black girl who wants blue eyes. The prose is gorgeously dreamlike and devastating with so many quotable lines as my guest Amy Thomasson and I talked about in the Adapt Me Podcast episode on it. Every character also gets a backstory, no matter how big or small. Morrison knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote this ambitious novel. This marked the beginning of an iconic writing career.
1. Guidance from the Universe: Hopeful Messages for Everyday Challenges by Jill Amy Sager
Women in Politics wasn’t the only book to offer me hope this year. Guidance from the Universe: Hopeful Messages for Everyday Challenges by Jill Amy Sager did that in its own way. In this memoir, Sager demonstrates how she achieved enlightenment and self-acceptance through Tarot readings. While I knew very little about Tarot cards prior to reading this book, I learned so much about how it guides people through various challenges. Sager also encourages readers to make it an active read by including a set of questions that assists readers in their own spiritual journey at the end of each chapter. What truly made this a special book to me was how the author was open and honest about her struggles with a physical disability and her mother. I felt that I was being seen. This memoir was so good that I ordered a copy of it for a friend who too was having a tough year because she loves Tarot cards. As of now, this is my favorite self-help book. I’m going to re-read it as much as I can.
Before, we get the worst list, I want to mention that this is similar situation that I encountered in 2024, in which the titles were not bad. They happened to be the weakest of the ones that I looked at this year.
Now that we got that out of the way, it’s now time to get to the Top 3 Worst Books of 2025!
3. Six Days in Detox by Dianne Corbeau
Six Days in Detox by Dianne Corbeau is not a bad memoir. In fact, it has the potential to be great. It’s a harrowing tale about one woman’s relapse and time in a mental institution with some of the most awful people on Earth. The memoir also looks at an addict’s mindset with great empathy. Yet, why is it on the worst list? Well, there are two things that prevent it from being great. The first is that it’s extremely repetitive. Corbeau reiterates certain pieces of information to the point that it got annoying because it was less than 150 pages. In addition, the memoir contains some of the most egregious editing errors I’ve ever seen. One would need to read the book to find those out. If the editor looked over this memoir one or two more times, this wouldn’t be on the worst list.
2. The Pale Flesh of Wood by Elizabeth A. Tucker
The Pale Flesh of Wood by Elizabeth A. Tucker is a fine novel. Its main character and her conflict are interesting, and there are a lot of nice tree-lace metaphors about life. Sadly, my biggest gripe is the framework. The way the novel’s blurb had it made me think it was going to show several family members’ reactions to the father’s unexpected death. It didn’t. It was mainly about daughter Lyla and how she copes. That’s not the main problem I have with it. It tells the story in a chronological order, and it takes a third of the book before the death even occurs. It also loudly hints at it, and I was like, “We know what’s going to happen!”
It would’ve benefited from a different structure whether it being a flashback, or something similar to that in Everything I Never Told You by Celeste Ng. Bringing up that novel makes me more even disappointed in The Pale Flesh of Wood because that scenario was done much better in the former.
1. A Palindrome: A Universal Theme of Life, Growth, Maturity, and Agedness by Robert C. Jones
I’ve read a lot of titles by Robert C. Jones. He writes in a sentimental way similar to what a lot of older writers tend to do when looking back on their lives, and I give him credit for a unique framing device of analyzing his name Bob. However, A Palindrome: A Universal Theme of Life, Growth, Maturity, and Agedness is not one of his best. Compared to his previous memoir A Life Well Bred, A Life Well Led, it’s not as interesting nor cohesive. Moreover, the whole palindrome framework doesn’t get a whole lot of attention. It doesn’t help that it uses some of the same poems from its predecessor. On top of that, there was a section that I was straight up confused about. I didn’t know why it was there to begin with. There are better memoirs than this one.
And that was the Top 3 Best and Worst Books of 2025! I hope all of you enjoyed it. I look forward to having plenty of new reviews for 2026! See you next year!
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Hi Everybody,
I wanted to let you all know that I was interviewed for VoyageMichigan Magazine recently for a second time! For those who don’t know, they focus on promoting small businesses, independent artists and entrepreneurs, and local institutions in Michigan. It was an amazing experience sharing my personal story along with what I think about life, my legacy, and so much more.
Check it out here: https://voyagemichigan.com/interview/an-inspired-chat-with-emily-malek-of-sterling-heights-highlight/
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Content warning: this review mentions physical violence.
Welcome to Part 2 of looking at various adaptations of Wuthering Heights and seeing if they can capture the spirit of the book by Emily Brontë. Today, I’ll be analyzing the 1950 teleplay made by Studio One starring Charleton Heston as Heathcliff.
Now, you’re probably wondering what a teleplay is. A teleplay is a play made for television. Studio One – an anthology drama television series – did these pseudo proshots from 1948 to 1958. They put on original work like 12 Angry Men and adapted stories like 1984 and Wuthering Heights, and they were sponsored by the manufacturing company Westinghouse (note: it was interesting to see how that company was promoting products like colored televisions in 1950). Their episodes would run for roughly an hour (commercials included), which means that this adaptation of Wuthering Heights is even more constrained than the earlier version.
It’s not the adaptation’s fault. When this version aired on October 30, 1950 during Studio One’s third season, they were operating with a limited budget. Not only is the second half omitted (again), but the story is also reduced to the bare bones. The plot is moved forward mainly through dialogue between various characters. In addition, the sets are not as vast as the ones in the 1939 adaptation. This is especially true with the Moors, for it was clearly a backdrop. The sets depicted estates fared better. Wuthering Heights looked impoverished, and Thrushcross Grange appeared well off. The teleplay conveys them well despite the constraints. Additionally, while I complemented the romantic score in the 1939 version, the soundtrack to this one is more restricted. It mainly consists of the 16th-century tune “Greensleeves” whenever Heathcliff and Catherine have their romantic moments and ominous music when the former returns and does something cruel. In fact, “Greensleeves” comes on so much that some people might want to play a drinking game. Don’t worry, you’ll live.
A lot of what I said about the 1939 adaptation applies here. By cutting out the second half, it changes the tone from a gothic horror to a tragic romance. At the same time, it does a few things differently. For one thing, it puts a bit more focus on Hindley. Why? I’m not entirely sure since he’s a boo-hiss character in the story. In this version, Richard Waring plays him as a sad and pathetic drunk. It was effective enough. It made me feel sorry for a split second until I remembered how awful he was to Heathcliff. I also enjoyed how the teleplay shows how he gets his comeuppance by having him lose the Wuthering Heights estate and the rest of his money to Heathcliff in a game of dice.
There were two other things I noticed too. One that I noted was how Joseph – one of the servants – mentions how Heathcliff digs up Catherine’s grave at the end. Another was that the flashback is brought on not by Nelly telling Mr. Lockwood the story, but by Heathcliff remembering after he hears Catherine’s voice. Additionally, despite their limited budget, they put on some interesting visual effects. The most effective was when Catherine is brushing her hair in her bedroom at Thrushcross Grange and sees Heathcliff in the mirror. It’s a cool visual reminder of the famous line from the book. Finally, the teleplay is willing to show the physical violence committed by Heathcliff. He puts his hand on Catherine’s throat while at Thrushcross Grange and slaps Isabella after they are married. I’m not sure if all of these changes work, yet I admire this adaptation is a bit more daring than its earlier work.
The last thing to discuss is the acting. Many of the actors ham it up, which puts the adaptation into soap opera territory. It’s like director Paul Nickell told them to project to everyone no matter where they were. Waring is over the top as Hindley. May Sinclair plays Catherine, and she chews up the scenery, especially during her death scene. The other people who don’t play to the raptures are Lloyd Bochner, who plays Edgar as one should, and Una O’Connor, an actress best known for her histrionics in 1933’s The Invisible Man and The Bride of Frankenstein, portrays Nelly. While this acting works in a theatrical play, it doesn’t fully work for television, and it might bother some viewers.
Of course, I can’t finish this review without mentioning Charleton Heston. Heston is best known for his roles in The Ten Commandments, The Planet of the Apes, and his Oscar-winning performance in Ben-Hur. This version of Wuthering Heights was at the very early part of his career. Did it foreshadow his greatness? Well, not really. Heston is miscast in the role, and I’m not just saying that because he’s a fair-haired white man playing a racially ambiguous character. He broods from the moment he pops on screen until his last scene. While this was effective in the second half, he could have lightened up in the first part. Even Olivier didn’t mope all the time in the 1939 version. Heston leans too much into Heathcliff’s negative traits. He did this too in one of his earliest movie roles as Brad the circus owner in 1952’s The Greatest Show on Earth. With that being said, I still praise him for how far he’s willing to go to demonstrate Heathcliff’s cruelty.
The Wuthering Heights 1950 teleplay is a truncated version of the story with mixed results. It shares similar problems to the 1939 adaptation, but it doesn’t have the striking imagery like its predecessor. I understand its budget limitations and can tolerate its over-the-top acting, but some might not. However, what it does differently works for the most part. Even though it doesn’t fully capture the spirit of the book, it’s still a fine version that I would recommend to people watching every adaptation of Wuthering Heights and diehard Charleton Heston fans.
Now, let’s see how this one fits into the ranking.
We’ll see how this ranking evolves after I see all the others.
Stay tuned next month/year when I review the 1958 teleplay with Richard Burton!
Stay tuned for next week when I reveal my Top 3 Best and Worst Books* of 2025! See you then. In the meantime, Merry Christmas!
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also, feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Content warning: this review contains spoilers.
I recently watched the 2008 movie version of The Ruins with my husband for our latest episode of His/Her Reviews on the Adapt Me Podcast. In it, he and I talk about adaptations of books we just watched. We discussed The Ruins based on the 2006 novel of the same name by Scott Smith in our most recent episode. While the book is better, the movie effectively captures its spirit with its gore and understanding of its schlocky-horror plot.
On the surface, the film is faithful to the novel. It retains the basic story of two American couples trapped in a Mexican jungle. However, there are some detailed changes that improve the film. This is due to The Ruins author Scott Smith, who wrote the screenplay. He did the same thing with his previous novel A Simple Plan, which garnered him an Oscar nomination in 1999.
One of the main alterations involves the Greeks themselves, particularly Dimitri. They are not as part of the story as they are in the book. I didn’t mind this at all because the Greeks were almost pointless. Dimitri (Pablo in the novel) only comes because he’s the one who draws the map of the jungle the main cast goes to. Throughout the book, Dimitri is laid up after falling into a hole, injuring himself, and becoming the first victim to the plants. He spends more of the time dying. In the movie, he’s killed by the Mayans after Amy frightens them by shooting pictures. Matthias – the German tourist whose brother goes missing – takes his place as the injured man.
Another is that Stacy and Amy switched personalities. In the book, Amy is “the prissy girl,” and Stacy is “the sl**.” It’s the reverse in the flick. Even though it was weird once I realized this change, I actually understood it, especially when it comes to Amy. She is dating Jeff, who is the smartest person and designated leader in the group. This creates a conflict as he tries to come up with plans to get out of the ruins while she messes them up. It’s a similar relationship to what Moe and the third Stooge have in the Three Stooges.
One other change is that the main characters aren’t as stupid as they are in the book. They figure out some things like why the Mayans are surrounding them and keeping them on top of the ruins. In addition, they are more sensible as in they don’t do the things that occurred in the book (see my review of the novel for reference). I get why this alteration was made. Have them too stupid, and viewers won’t root for them. In the novel, Smith portrayed them as dumb and annoying, but I still rooted for them to a degree. For the flick, he made them a bit smarter, so they can be more likeable, thus more rootable.
However, there were some changes that I didn’t agree on. One was that Stacy was the first American person to be injured and infected with the vine. In the novel, it was Eric. I’m not sure why Smith altered this. This especially true of how the plant gets into her body was executed awkwardly. The second was the lack of character development. There was time spent on character work in the book, but whatever that was present was deleted for the movie. To be fair, I kind of got bored when it was just the characters trying to figure out how to survive.
Of course, like I mentioned in the book review, this takes a back seat to emphasize the insanity of the plot. And, everyone who worked on the film, including director Carter Smith, understood this. At about 90 minutes, it’s a brisk movie with plenty of scares. The acting is good for this kind of horror movie, where everyone is desperate and terrified. There’s mainly one set with the Mexican jungle, but it looks convincing even though it was shot in Australia.
Just like the novel, the best part is the monster. The plants are a combination of CGI and practical effects. They were well done, especially how they pulse once they’re inside their hosts. Also, the film doesn’t spare on the gore. Scenes like Matthias getting his legs amputated and Stacy cutting herself made me squeamish to the nth degree because of how bloody and horrific they were. It was one thing reading about them. Seeing them on screen added a new level of terror. In case anyone was wondering, we saw the unrated version.
The Ruins movie is a good adaptation of the book by Scott Smith. While I prefer horror movies with more character development, I was still engaged with it, even when I was squeamish and terrified. The biggest asset the film has is that it truly understands the core of the story: a group of dumb people attempting to escape a Mexican jungle. Every decision was made to serve how bonkers the story is. The monster is horrific, and the flick goes all out with the gore. I would recommend it to fans of horror movies set in exotic locations and that contain lots of carnage. Stay tuned for the His/Her Reviews episode discussing The Ruins on the Adapt Me Podcast! Keep an eye out for the link.
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Last year, the Adapt Me Podcast began a series called His/Her Reviews. In it, my husband comes on, and we talk about a movie or television show that’s based on a book. Our first episode in that series was the 2024 film Nightbitch. Our next one is the 2008 flick The Ruins based on the 2006 novel of the same name by Scott Smith. Today, I wanted to take a look at the book to see what it was all about. It’s truly horrific and will suck you in as long as you accept its premise.
The Ruins is about two American couples trapped in a Mexican jungle. A group of friends are on vacation, relaxing on the beach, getting drunk at night, and friending fellow tourists. When the brother of one of those friends goes missing, they venture into the jungle to look for him. What started out as a fun day-trip slowly spirals into the most horrific nightmare when they find an ancient ruins site…and the terrifying presence that lurks there.
To truly enjoy this book, readers must accept one thing: the main characters are idiots. When I read this, I was thinking, “Why would anyone go into the jungle to find a relative of someone they just met? I would never do that.”
However, after a conversation with my supervisor who loves horror (particularly the kind that one doesn’t have to think about), I realized that their stupidity is the point. All horror is based on dumb decisions whether that is hiding behind a row of chainsaws or going into a jungle in a foreign country. It also made me think of a script analysis class I took while in college. In it, my professor described multiple plot archetypes like the hero’s journey or coming of age. The one I remember the most was the story where people mess up no matter how hard they try. My professor labeled it as the Three Stooges plot. The Ruins is that. It’s about four people along with a German and a Greek tourist making one stupid choice after another.
How dumb are these characters? Well, they drink tequila as their food and water supply are low. One of them actually uses the water to clean off the urine on her foot after she accidentally pees on herself. Yes, they are those kinds of idiots.
Another thing, the four main protagonists are not exactly fleshed out (even though one of them is given more of a backstory than the others). The book itself describes them as follows: Jeff is “the boy scout,” Amy is “the prissy girl,” Eric is “the funny guy,” and Stacy is “the sl**.” At the same time, character work takes a back seat to how insane the plot is. One is reading the book to see if these stock characters survive. While I knew how flawed each of them were, I was sort of rooting for them to live and get out of the jungle. One will have to read the novel to find out the outcome.
What was the most interesting thing about The Ruins was the monster itself. It’s a plant. Specifically, it’s the vines that threaten to wrap the characters’ necks and enter into their bodies. The descriptions of how it torments the main cast physically, mentally, and emotionally are unreal. Smith leans into the gory bits that make the story truly horrific. There were many times I felt squeamish and astounded in my car whenever those sections occurred.
Patrick Wilson narrates the audiobook. Wilson has appeared on stage, film, and television. His best known works include the musicals The Full Monty and Oklahoma; the 2004 movie version of The Phantom of the Opera as Raoul; the Angels in America miniseries; and the Insidious, The Conjuring, and Aquaman film series. He’s one of the better-known audiobook narrators I’ve looked at on this website. Wilson does a decent job. There are times that he’s simply reading the novel like he’s doing it for a paycheck. His vocal distinctions among the four main leads aren’t that different from each other, even Jeff and Eric sound very similar. The girls’ voices are basically what if a man was voicing them. As Matthias – the German tourist whose brother goes missing, Wilson’s accent is fine. I’ve heard worse German dialects in other media. He’s at his best when the monster steps in and the group is wondering how they are going to survive. He really raises the stakes with his vocal performance.
The Ruins by Scott Smith is a good horrific novel. In many ways, it’s aware of its faults, especially how flawed the main cast is in both development and how stupid they truly are. At the same time, it was fascinating to read about how these idiots attempt to get themselves out of a Mexican jungle in a similar way one turns in to see how the Three Stooges find a way out of a jam. I would recommend it to readers that love horror and don’t want to think while reading. Stay tuned for next week when I post my review of the movie version and later for the Adapt Me Podcast episode on it!
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Freida McFadden has been a popular psychological thriller author for the last 5 years. She’s best known for “The Housemaid” series. Given that a movie version of the first book The Housemaid is going to be released in theaters on December 19th, this will be a good time to look at where it all started. I read that novel for book club, and it certainly lives up to the hype by taking a typical fairy tale situation and turning it on its head.
The Housemaid is about a woman with a secretive past who gets hired by a wealthy family to clean their house. Millie keeps the Winchesters’ house tidy, collects their daughter from school, and cooks a nice meal before eating alone in the attic. She tries to ignore how much Nina – the matriarch – makes a mess just to watch her clean it up. On top of that, Nina’s handsome husband Andrew seems more broken each day. Millie imagines what life would be like if she was in her place. She wears one of Nina’s dresses just once just to see what it’s like. Millie is punished before she realizes that the door to her room only locks from the outside. However, the Winchesters don’t know what she is capable of.
This is the kind of novel one reads by the pool. It’s easy to get through. It’s predictable in the first half, but the twist will certainly have readers rethinking certain parts. Some of my book club members mentioned that it had similarities to Hidden Pictures by Jason Rekulak, and I certainly see that. Both contain women in dire situations who are hired to work for a wealthy family and try to figure out why weird stuff keeps happening. At the same time, there were enough differences between the two. My review of Hidden Pictures will be posted soon.
The characters were compelling enough. I was immediately rooting for Millie from the first page. She spent time in prison and wants to start a new life. Getting the housemaid job is a start. However, Nina makes her life a living nightmare by trashing the home and giving her contradictory instructions. At first, I didn’t like Nina for obvious reasons, but the second half explores her backstory. It made me like her immensely. As for Andrew, he’s a very nice prince. Let’s leave it at that.
When I mentioned that The Housemaid feels like a fairy tale turned on its head, I mainly refer to the musical Into the Woods. For those who don’t know, it’s a show that involves a handful of well-known fairy tale characters (Cinderella, Jack, Rapunzel, and Little Red Riding Hood) as they try to achieve their dreams. The first act plays out as expected, but the second half explores what happens after “happily ever after.”
That’s how I felt while reading The Housemaid. A beautiful, but downtrodden woman gets a job cleaning up a home in a wealthy suburb. Then, the fat and ugly matriarch treats the maid cruelly, but her handsome husband takes pity on her and tries to help. If that doesn’t sound like a Cinderella retelling, I don’t know what is.
Speaking of Cinderella, I was triggered by Millie being in her room in the attic. It reminded me of when the stepmother locks Cinderella up there in the Disney animated version. I was scared for Millie because I wanted her to be alright. McFadden plays with expectations during the scenes in which she is up there very well, especially in the beginning. From the blurb, readers know that the titular character is going to end up locked in the attic, yet the author keeps them guessing as to when.
McFadden reminds me of Lisa Jewell in the way they play with suspense. They know readers will be afraid of what’s going to happen, and they lean into that. In other words, they go, “Yep, it’s exactly what you think it’s going to occur and so much worse.”
For example, the first time Millie thinks that the door has been shut, it got me thinking that she was locked in there for good.
The Housemaid by Freida McFadden is what happens when one combines Cinderella and the show Dexter. It may be an easy read, but it packs so much. The characters are interesting in their own ways, and the twist will make people rethink what they just looked at. I would recommend it to readers who love psychological thrillers and love authors like Lisa Jewell and Ruth Ware. It truly is a fairy tale turned on its head.
Before I go, I want to let you know that I plan on seeing the movie version of The Housemaid starring Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried very soon. Stay tuned for that review!
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Hi Everybody!
The latest episode of the Adapt Me Podcast is up right now. In it, guest Dr. Deb Miller and I discuss how we would adapt her book Forget the Fairy Tale and Find Your Happiness as a Broadway show. We talk about how it has already been adapted for the International Memoir Writers Association’s Memoir Showcase. We also had time to discuss the trailer to the “Moana” live-action remake. Check it out at this link!
In the meantime, I have a review of the book itself, so check that out too!
Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!
Book Reviews by a Chick Who Reads Everything