Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lenny3 's review for:
I want to preface this by stating that true-crime memoirs or accounts, especially those involving kidnapping or woman who make it through horrific circumstances, are my jam. (Yes, I am aware how problematic this part of my wheel-house is, and therefor do try to stick to own-voices accounts where possible – I am all about the survivor controlling the narrative and supporting their right to choose). I also went into this knowing that for the time-frame, it was likely that the people and their families involved in this story were no longer around to tell it themselves. With that caveat in mind, know that I went into this novel expecting a detailed, “suspenseful crime narrative”, juxtaposed with Nabokov’s infamous work.
That is not what this book is.
The details, nuances and overall knowledge of what happened to Sally Horner just did not exist within the pages of this book. What we got instead was a 300 comparison piece that would have read better as a mid-length Wikipedia page, journal article or ‘think-piece’. There just simply was not enough meat to flesh this out into a compelling work of non-fiction.
With a heavy reliance on speculation and vague attestation, Sally’s story is not justly told. You get no sense of her as person, there is no basis to build empathy and the reader is not given the tools to understand what this child encountered and how/why it could it had the longevity it did.
What we got instead was unnecessary detail about Nabokov – his life, his timeline and far too many mundane details of how Lolita came to be.
I did not need a chapter speculating to exactly when Nabokov learned of Sally Horner. That. Tells. Me. Nothing.
I did not need details of his unrelated road-trip and butterfly-centered expeditions.
I did not need explicit details about other articles that have made comparisons between the book and the kidnapping – these are reference materials, not points of relevance within the narrative attempting to be unfolded.
Finally, to be frank, I feel the connection between the novel and the historical event being detailed is just not strong enough. I feel the similarities are thin and superficial, at best. There was nothing here to satisfactorily establish causation or connection, and it did not do Sally or Lolita justice.
That is not what this book is.
The details, nuances and overall knowledge of what happened to Sally Horner just did not exist within the pages of this book. What we got instead was a 300 comparison piece that would have read better as a mid-length Wikipedia page, journal article or ‘think-piece’. There just simply was not enough meat to flesh this out into a compelling work of non-fiction.
With a heavy reliance on speculation and vague attestation, Sally’s story is not justly told. You get no sense of her as person, there is no basis to build empathy and the reader is not given the tools to understand what this child encountered and how/why it could it had the longevity it did.
What we got instead was unnecessary detail about Nabokov – his life, his timeline and far too many mundane details of how Lolita came to be.
I did not need a chapter speculating to exactly when Nabokov learned of Sally Horner. That. Tells. Me. Nothing.
I did not need details of his unrelated road-trip and butterfly-centered expeditions.
I did not need explicit details about other articles that have made comparisons between the book and the kidnapping – these are reference materials, not points of relevance within the narrative attempting to be unfolded.
Finally, to be frank, I feel the connection between the novel and the historical event being detailed is just not strong enough. I feel the similarities are thin and superficial, at best. There was nothing here to satisfactorily establish causation or connection, and it did not do Sally or Lolita justice.