My opinion: I have conflicting feelings about this book. On the one hand: there are sections of this that are just beautiful. One section I remember from my first reading of this was the one with the "I'm slipping" line -- it's a very powerful, vulnerable two words in the story. I wish we got more of this, where the story almost lets its guard down. I like the experimenting with the form, but the narrative seemed entirely invested in that form and less in the actual story. I think I liked the more meta elements of this, too: an author having a conversations with themselves, trying to figure out what to include, what's important, what the subtext in their writing is. I love the idea that truth is flexible, that it changes from person to person, and that there can be multiple, contradicting truths all at once. Truth is complex, and I like that this book took that on.

On the other hand: I couldn't tell if this is criticizing the biases journalists or readers. I know there is that whole section where the reader chooses their own story and ending, but there is also not one positive depiction of a journalist. I am a journalist, though, and the news story sections rubbed me the wrong way whether or not they criticisms were for us. (I had a very, very long rant here and then took it out, so just imagine that very long rant about how people who have not worked as a journalist/are not particularly familiar with the field should not be making criticisms about news media because it can often be inaccurate, and how the press itself is often sensationalized in pop culture depictions, as I see it here.) The point: none of these news stories read like news stories -- they read more like blogs -- but the criticisms are geared toward news stories anyway. But! I can't tell what it's getting at! Because its form is very flexible and I'm getting mixed messages. I guess the point is to choose, but there is that reading that I dislike and disagree with very much. It's a narrative that shouldn't exist -- not because you can't criticize the media, but because these aren't legitimate criticisms. I told myself I had to read the book again to make sure this was a valid reading, but the truth is that I still can't tell. Very slippery. Very flexible. Will attempt understanding this again, when I learn to read.