Scan barcode
emalloryr's review against another edition
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual assault
Moderate: Murder
ehost's review against another edition
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Sexual assault, Terminal illness, and Xenophobia
Moderate: Infertility, Chronic illness, Child death, Car accident, Adult/minor relationship, Murder, Grief, Gore, Death of parent, Child abuse, Fire/Fire injury, Ableism, and Mental illness
jensnow's review
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
Content Warnings
Moderate: Murder, Fire/Fire injury, Sexual assault, and Suicide
megan_martha_reads's review
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Warning: child abuse, death, suicide, sexual assault
This book read fast because it is a courtroom / family drama. But it’s really heavy. I felt sad and disturbed after finishing it, like you feel after watching law and order SUV or multiple episodes of criminal minds.
This book read fast because it is a courtroom / family drama. But it’s really heavy. I felt sad and disturbed after finishing it, like you feel after watching law and order SUV or multiple episodes of criminal minds.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Death of parent, Chronic illness, Death, Child death, Emotional abuse, Grief, Medical trauma, Murder, Sexual assault, Suicide, and Toxic relationship
moniipeters's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Chronic illness, Xenophobia, Blood, Body horror, Car accident, Cursing, Death, Emotional abuse, Fire/Fire injury, Infertility, Injury/Injury detail, Infidelity, Medical content, Medical trauma, Mental illness, Murder, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Self harm, Sexual assault, Sexual harassment, Suicide, Abandonment, Child abuse, Child death, Death of parent, Gaslighting, Gore, Grief, Sexual content, Suicide attempt, Toxic relationship, Ableism, Adult/minor relationship, Alcohol, Sexism, Violence, Sexual violence, Suicidal thoughts, and Terminal illness
msprufrock's review
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
I'm having a hard time deciding how to rate this novel. On the one hand, I do think it's well-written (in terms of description, use of language, writing style, etc) and a compelling story. I thought the trial scenes were mostly well-done, and I was guessing at the true guilty party until it was revealed, with each character's perspective bringing new facts and twists. All that's great - if there were no complicating factors, I'd rate this pretty highly.
However. Most of the story points are based on what seems to me to be a pretty ableist idea, that it's possible to "cure" autism. I'm not autistic, but I've listened and spoken to enough folks on the spectrum to know that it's not possible and not needed. Often, these treatments are harmful to autistic people. The only voices in the novel pointing this out are the protesters, who are pretty much always portrayed in a more villainous role.
I don't know. With that being so central to the plot, I'm uncomfortable giving it a high rating or recommending it.
However. Most of the story points are based on what seems to me to be a pretty ableist idea, that it's possible to "cure" autism. I'm not autistic, but I've listened and spoken to enough folks on the spectrum to know that it's not possible and not needed. Often, these treatments are harmful to autistic people. The only voices in the novel pointing this out are the protesters, who are pretty much always portrayed in a more villainous role.
I don't know. With that being so central to the plot, I'm uncomfortable giving it a high rating or recommending it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Ableism, Child death, Murder, Sexual assault, and Death
Moderate: Suicide
shainabriley's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Medical trauma, Murder, Fire/Fire injury, and Sexual assault
Minor: Suicide
bookishhl8275's review
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I loved the writing style, the character growth and the storyline was so interesting to me.
I’ve never read a legal thriller and this book opened me up into a world of books I thought I’d never read!
Highly recommend.
I’ve never read a legal thriller and this book opened me up into a world of books I thought I’d never read!
Highly recommend.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide, Murder, Death, Violence, Gore, Sexual assault, Child death, and Death of parent
sarahmarcotte's review
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
0.25
some thoughts
-I want to preface the review by saying I really really wanted to like this book, and I was deeply disappointed with what it actually turned out to be. I know that this review is extremely negative and focuses almost entirely on Kim's portrayal of autism, but I feel strongly that it's necessary to call this out for what it is: a one-sided narrative that centers the feelings of abusers over the rights of autistic children and pedals pseudo-science in its attempts to pathologize and demonize autism and other developmental disabilities. I'm a strong believer in acknowledging problematic aspects of art while maintaining the ability to explore its other more positive parts, but the ableism in this novel was so unrelenting and overwhelming, so central to its narrative, that I find it nearly impossible to do that here.
-Autism cannot be cured, nor should we attempt to find a cure. Autistic people are normal and complete the way that they are. So much of the strife in this book is caused by Elizabeth's inability to accept Henry for who he is, the way she's constantly embarrassed and ashamed by the simple fact of his existence. Overall, nearly every character believes that developmental/neurological disabilities are tragedies, that the natural response to having a disabled child is grief and despair, and that disabled children are burdens. I had had a sliver of hope when the novel began that this would simply be a discussion of how caretakers of disabled people become overextended and burned out because resources to make care easier and more manageable are underfunded, unaffordable, and/or unavailable, but instead, the blame was shifted onto vulnerable children who existed only as plot devices to be acted upon or talked about. They had no agency and no characterization outside of their disability.
-The biggest complaint that I have about this book and the reason I rated it as low as I possibly could was that it spreads unchallenged, harmful misinformation about autism and its treatment. Several characters make passing, unchallenged claims that vaccines cause autism. In one instance, this is in the context of the defense attorney presenting scientific evidence, which is particularly egregious because instead of the prosecution rebutting with the wealth of evidence showing that there is no connection between autism and vaccines, they accept this evidence and carry on with the case, making it appear to the reader as though these studies are reliable. Similar issues occurred with the discussion of experimental treatments to cure autism. In her attempt to demonstrate that Elizabeth is a caring and responsible mother, her defense lawyer shows that she has been devoted to taking Henry to multiple therapies to cure his autism. Amongst these therapies are IV chelation therapy, which is FDA approved for the treatment of mercury poisoning and inappropriately used as an autism treatment under the assumption that autism is caused by mercury poisoning from vaccines, and MMS 'treatment', which is a non FDA approved poison made from hydrochloric acid and a bleach-based water purification solution consumed in concentrations much higher than is safe for human consumption. Her lawyer presents flimsy 'scientific' evidence purporting the efficacy and safety of these treatments, which the expert witness validates. In the prosecutor's rebuttal, again instead of presenting opposing evidence showing that these treatments are dangerous, potentially lethal, and completely ineffective, they instead compare these treatments to chemotherapy and say that because Elizabeth had 'cured' Henry's autism with her special diet, that her use of these treatments is medical abuse in the same way that giving chemotherapy to a child whose cancer is in remission is medical abuse. The clear implication in this rebuttal is that these 'treatments' are medically appropriate if a person is sufficiently autistic (whatever that means). This is untrue and dangerous. There is no medical justification for these treatments. It is deeply, deeply ignorant and irresponsible to spread this misinformation, misinformation that kills vulnerable children, and I can see no reason for it other than that Kim must believe in these treatments and is willfully suggesting that they are effective. I find this so offensively irresponsible that I struggle to praise anything else that this novel might have done well or to recommend it to others.
-I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but it sort of baffles me that none of the characters have in-home caretakers for their children or even hire help for household chores. If they can spend thousands of dollars on HBOT treatments alone (one session costs $100, so they're spending literally $200 A DAY on the chance that an untested and potentially dangerous treatment might cure autism) and Elizabeth apparently has an estate large enough to start an entire care center for autistic children after her death then they can certainly hire a caretaker to help them and relieve some of the stressors causing them to feel this kind of despair and resentment towards their children (especially since most insurance plans cover some amount of home care). It just seems as though they'd rather stick their heads in the sand and piss away time, money, and energy on snake oil treatments rather than face reality and learn to accept their children.
-Overall, I took issue with the way that motherhood was portrayed throughout the novel. Elizabeth says that while her obsessive and controlling behavior focused specifically on Henry's autism, if he hadn't been autistic, then she would have just obsessed over something else, and this is accepted as a normal aspect of motherhood. These (privileged) mothers constantly choose to martyr themselves, desperate for someone to congratulate them for how much they care and how much they do, all while feeling deeply resentful towards their children for prohibiting them from living independent lives and having identities outside of their role as a parent. Anyone who critiques their behavior for any reason is told that they don't understand a mother's love and they have no idea what they're talking about. It's toxic to suggest total self-sacrifice is a healthy or normal expression of love. Mothers need and deserve time and care for themselves just as much as any other person, and their children need and deserve a healthy, emotionally regulated parent who doesn't resent them or feel that their life is a burden.
-The language used in this book was appalling. It is vile and hateful to discuss autistic children by referring to them as "lifeless machines," "lab rats," and "trained monkeys." Let's also refrain from extended debates about the relative worth of disabled children's lives based on how neurotypical they can act. Personally, I think "all children equally deserve to live" is a pretty low ethical bar to stumble over.
- Elizabeth is unequivocally a child abuser. Scratching and pinching a child to the point of breaking skin is abuse. Subjecting your child to dangerous and unnecessary medical treatments is abuse. Constantly telling your child that they're annoying, unlikable, and unwanted is abuse. Abuse is still abuse even when you feel bad afterwards. Abuse is still abuse when an abuser loves their victim. What the fuck was up with the constant attempts to muddy the waters here? It was also incredibly bizarre that Kim likened Elizabeth's abuse to alcoholism and implied that her problem was that she couldn't control herself, as if physically harming and verbally harassing your child is ok if you only do it a little bit. In court, Elizabeth's lawyer says that she frequently tells her teenage daughter that she's mean, unpleasant, and unlikable and everyone in the courtroom laughs like this is a normal way to treat a child. Obviously it's difficult to raise a child, especially when your child is acting out, but cruel words and hurtful actions are inappropriate and children deserve better.
- On a related note, if you become aware that a mother is routinely orally administering a bleach solution to their child, causing them to suffer high fevers, you should immediately call CPS because that is child endangerment and that is a crime, and it's weird that this novel made it seem like trying to save a child from potentially lethal medical abuse is a crazy bitch move that only crazy bitches would do.
-The complete lack of an autistic person's perspective (or even the perspective of someone who doesn't think you can cure autism???) is so inappropriate. I don't like to make assumptions about authors based on the content they write, but this book really makes me believe that Angie Kim either doesn't believe that autistic people have feelings or interior lives, or at least doesn't think they're worth mentioning. I'm further put off by Kim's repeated comments that she's connected with families of autistic children and loves hearing from families of autistic children about her book, never that she's close with autistic people or likes to hear from autistic people themselves. The positive reviews of this book make a fuss about how the novel has so many complex characters and explores the nuances of important issues, but I read a book filled with one-sided perspectives from characters who refused to take responsibility for their actions or really acknowledge how they've hurt the people around them.
-The only people in this novel who seem to believe that autistic people have intrinsic worth are portrayed as militant, conniving harpies trying to ruin the lives of innocent mothers who just want the best for their children. Compared with the narrative's sympathetic treatment of the liars, cheaters, child abusers, sex criminals, arsonists, murderers, etc. that populate this setting, you'd almost forget that the protesters literally did nothing wrong. They didn't interfere with the power lines at the HBOT chambers and they didn't set the fire that everyone keeps trying to pin on them. The extent of their "wrongdoing" is hurting the feelings of these mothers by saying things that were true. I'm legitimately at a loss for words how this novel can excuse all kinds of abuse, manipulation, and ignorance but apparently draws the line at being a little annoying and rude.
-This novel had so many twists and turns I just didn't care about by the end of it. There's only so many times a character can lie about the same thing before I just lose interest in trying to keep track. By the end they were all so totally unlikable that I didn't care at all what happened to them.
-The writing constantly used metaphors comparing various characters to mothers scolding, punishing, or being condescending towards disobedient children and toddlers. I don't really know what to make of this, but in the context of everything else happening, it seems extremely odd that the parent-child relationship is repeatedly being referred to as a power struggle.
-I think one of the more complicated aspects of this novel is the discussion about how the mothers sometimes had fantasies about the death of their child. So, people have bad, inappropriate, or otherwise disturbing thoughts from time to time. Thoughts are not actions. Having bad thoughts doesn't make you a bad person. But the way the novel attempts to just normalize repeated fantasies of losing a child without any indication that professional help exists and is available makes it seem as though people should just suffer through this experience. It doesn't make you a bad person to struggle with dark thoughts, but it is doing disservice to you and your child to ignore your mental health. I also think that there's a world of difference between having fleeting thoughts about your child dying in moments of frustration and having those feelings escalate into physical and emotional abuse. Elizabeth and Teresa's experience of these feelings are not the same, because Elizabeth not only has thoughts about Henry's death but also repeatedly and willingly puts his life in danger.
-I greatly disliked how Matt had more POV chapters than Mary did, and his crime against her was only clearly portrayed as violence at the end of the novel. I also found it inappropriate that in Mary's POV, blame was still somewhat cast on her because she was wearing a pretty dress, drank with Matt, and wanted him to kiss her. I don't recall any character clearly placing the blame on Matt or stating that no matter how Mary dressed or acted, it was entirely his responsibility to control his actions. I also found it strange that the novel seemed to lead us to think that Matt following Mary around trying to apologize was an act of repentance when actually it is stalking, a different, separate crime.
- I felt as though Janine's involvement in Matt's abuse of Mary was mishandled. Although Janine is in the dark throughout the novel, it's pretty easy to put two and two together with the evidence of their relationship that she discovers. She has an assumption that Matt is attracted to Mary, but rather than feel disgusted with Matt for pursuing an abusive relationship with a minor, she's more concerned that it's because Matt might have a fetish for Asian women, and becomes violently upset with Mary for seducing him. I appreciate that this sort of jealousy happens in real life, but taken in consideration with all the other ways that Matt gets off the hook, it would have been nice if Janine felt he was even partially responsible. I also felt as though Matt's POV suggested that Janine was responsible for his actions more than was necessary. I appreciate that Matt was frustrated in his marriage and that abusers are wont to cast blame on anyone but themselves, but the way that Janine was constantly portrayed as argumentative and uptight felt as though the narrative was confirming those feelings, rather than showing that Matt's feelings were an unfair distortion of her actions. It felt like an unbalanced depiction of an incompatible marriage where one partner is a type-A, emotionally unavailable, job oriented woman and the other is a lying, self-pitying, disaffected rapist hellbent on sabotaging his relationship.
- I think the reveal that Mary started the fire on a whim was the worst of all possible options. It completely deflated the intrigue that had been built up for the rest of the book. I also found it frustrating that Mary ends up serving multiple years in prison while Matt only receives probation for obstruction of justice regardless of the fact that Mary only burned down the HBOT chamber as a direct result of being raped and stalked by Matt and then harassed by his wife. I understand that this is an attempt at realism, but it felt unsatisfying and incongruous with the overall theme of taking responsibility for your actions, and it also felt unbelievable that Matt wouldn't have been prosecuted for sexual assault of a minor in the midst of all the other legal action. Beyond the lack of legal repercussions for his actions, the only consequence Matt faces is Young's somewhat lukewarm disapproval that lasts for all but a sentence or two in the epilogue. Young makes a big point of holding Mary accountable but neither Elizabeth nor Matt suffer nearly the same amount of judgement or punishment for their deliberate crimes against children.
- I didn't like the way that Elizabeth's suicide is portrayed as making amends for her abuse against Henry. In reality, suicide is always a tragic, senseless loss, and death (by any means) is not an atonement for the actions one takes in life. Instead of implying that Elizabeth can only make up for her wrongdoings through the establishment of a charitable cause after her death, I feel that the novel would have been stronger if Mary had come forward to take the blame for the explosion because of her own sense of duty rather than a sense of guilt about Elizabeth's suicide, and Elizabeth had committed to transforming herself and doing good for her community. This would have strengthened the themes of taking responsibility and making amends, which actually just feels like a random and unfair punishment dished out to the person least responsible for the whole disaster in the novel's real conclusion.
I love a book with some fucked up characters. I love to read about people fucking up in creative, stupid ways. I love to see people be flawed and continue existing in the world as complicated beings. I try not to categorize entire people as good or bad. But as much as I don't believe in condemning people, there are actions that we must firmly and completely condemn. This novel goes to great lengths to avoid that. Elizabeth is completely in the wrong for abusing her child, and while there are passing remarks about how difficult this must have been for Henry, and Elizabeth's guilt ultimately drives her to suicide, the overall narrative verdict on her actions were that they were a misguided expression of her love. Excusing her actions in that way is not having empathy for a person who made awful choices and holding faith that they can change into a better person--it is simply abuse apologism. Henry's perspective, his feelings, and his experiences are completely erased from this story in favor of centering his abuser. If you read this book with no prior knowledge about these issues, you would walk away thinking that autism is tragic disease that can be cured through extremely restrictive regiments and dangerous, potentially lethal pseudo-scientific 'treatments'. It is dangerous to make those claims and irresponsible to disseminate them.
-I want to preface the review by saying I really really wanted to like this book, and I was deeply disappointed with what it actually turned out to be. I know that this review is extremely negative and focuses almost entirely on Kim's portrayal of autism, but I feel strongly that it's necessary to call this out for what it is: a one-sided narrative that centers the feelings of abusers over the rights of autistic children and pedals pseudo-science in its attempts to pathologize and demonize autism and other developmental disabilities. I'm a strong believer in acknowledging problematic aspects of art while maintaining the ability to explore its other more positive parts, but the ableism in this novel was so unrelenting and overwhelming, so central to its narrative, that I find it nearly impossible to do that here.
-Autism cannot be cured, nor should we attempt to find a cure. Autistic people are normal and complete the way that they are. So much of the strife in this book is caused by Elizabeth's inability to accept Henry for who he is, the way she's constantly embarrassed and ashamed by the simple fact of his existence. Overall, nearly every character believes that developmental/neurological disabilities are tragedies, that the natural response to having a disabled child is grief and despair, and that disabled children are burdens. I had had a sliver of hope when the novel began that this would simply be a discussion of how caretakers of disabled people become overextended and burned out because resources to make care easier and more manageable are underfunded, unaffordable, and/or unavailable, but instead, the blame was shifted onto vulnerable children who existed only as plot devices to be acted upon or talked about. They had no agency and no characterization outside of their disability.
-The biggest complaint that I have about this book and the reason I rated it as low as I possibly could was that it spreads unchallenged, harmful misinformation about autism and its treatment. Several characters make passing, unchallenged claims that vaccines cause autism. In one instance, this is in the context of the defense attorney presenting scientific evidence, which is particularly egregious because instead of the prosecution rebutting with the wealth of evidence showing that there is no connection between autism and vaccines, they accept this evidence and carry on with the case, making it appear to the reader as though these studies are reliable. Similar issues occurred with the discussion of experimental treatments to cure autism.
-I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but it sort of baffles me that none of the characters have in-home caretakers for their children or even hire help for household chores. If they can spend thousands of dollars on HBOT treatments alone (one session costs $100, so they're spending literally $200 A DAY on the chance that an untested and potentially dangerous treatment might cure autism)
-Overall, I took issue with the way that motherhood was portrayed throughout the novel. Elizabeth says that while her obsessive and controlling behavior focused specifically on Henry's autism, if he hadn't been autistic, then she would have just obsessed over something else, and this is accepted as a normal aspect of motherhood. These (privileged) mothers constantly choose to martyr themselves, desperate for someone to congratulate them for how much they care and how much they do, all while feeling deeply resentful towards their children for prohibiting them from living independent lives and having identities outside of their role as a parent. Anyone who critiques their behavior for any reason is told that they don't understand a mother's love and they have no idea what they're talking about. It's toxic to suggest total self-sacrifice is a healthy or normal expression of love. Mothers need and deserve time and care for themselves just as much as any other person, and their children need and deserve a healthy, emotionally regulated parent who doesn't resent them or feel that their life is a burden.
-The language used in this book was appalling. It is vile and hateful to discuss autistic children by referring to them as "lifeless machines," "lab rats," and "trained monkeys." Let's also refrain from extended debates about the relative worth of disabled children's lives based on how neurotypical they can act. Personally, I think "all children equally deserve to live" is a pretty low ethical bar to stumble over.
-
-
-The complete lack of an autistic person's perspective (or even the perspective of someone who doesn't think you can cure autism???) is so inappropriate. I don't like to make assumptions about authors based on the content they write, but this book really makes me believe that Angie Kim either doesn't believe that autistic people have feelings or interior lives, or at least doesn't think they're worth mentioning. I'm further put off by Kim's repeated comments that she's connected with families of autistic children and loves hearing from families of autistic children about her book, never that she's close with autistic people or likes to hear from autistic people themselves. The positive reviews of this book make a fuss about how the novel has so many complex characters and explores the nuances of important issues, but I read a book filled with one-sided perspectives from characters who refused to take responsibility for their actions or really acknowledge how they've hurt the people around them.
-The only people in this novel who seem to believe that autistic people have intrinsic worth are portrayed as militant, conniving harpies trying to ruin the lives of innocent mothers who just want the best for their children.
-This novel had so many twists and turns I just didn't care about by the end of it. There's only so many times a character can lie about the same thing before I just lose interest in trying to keep track. By the end they were all so totally unlikable that I didn't care at all what happened to them.
-The writing constantly used metaphors comparing various characters to mothers scolding, punishing, or being condescending towards disobedient children and toddlers. I don't really know what to make of this, but in the context of everything else happening, it seems extremely odd that the parent-child relationship is repeatedly being referred to as a power struggle.
-I think one of the more complicated aspects of this novel is the discussion about how the mothers sometimes had fantasies about the death of their child. So, people have bad, inappropriate, or otherwise disturbing thoughts from time to time. Thoughts are not actions. Having bad thoughts doesn't make you a bad person. But the way the novel attempts to just normalize repeated fantasies of losing a child without any indication that professional help exists and is available makes it seem as though people should just suffer through this experience. It doesn't make you a bad person to struggle with dark thoughts, but it is doing disservice to you and your child to ignore your mental health.
-I greatly disliked how Matt had more POV chapters than Mary did, and his crime against her was only clearly portrayed as violence at the end of the novel. I also found it inappropriate that in Mary's POV, blame was still somewhat cast on her
-
-
-
I love a book with some fucked up characters. I love to read about people fucking up in creative, stupid ways. I love to see people be flawed and continue existing in the world as complicated beings. I try not to categorize entire people as good or bad. But as much as I don't believe in condemning people, there are actions that we must firmly and completely condemn. This novel goes to great lengths to avoid that. Elizabeth is completely in the wrong for abusing her child, and while there are passing remarks about how difficult this must have been for Henry,
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual assault, Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Child death, Ableism, Suicide, and Murder
betsygrace's review
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
This was very popular and it’s been on my shelf for ages, so I finally decided to read it. I think it was overhyped. It’s a legal thriller, but there is this weird stigmatization of autism that I don’t like.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Adult/minor relationship, Chronic illness, Emotional abuse, Medical content, Sexual violence, Toxic friendship, Bullying, Blood, Child abuse, Medical trauma, Murder, Sexual content, Child death, Classism, Confinement, Injury/Injury detail, Toxic relationship, and Violence