Book Review: 'Saving Ivy' by Emily Reilly | Olivia J

"Most writers regard the truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are most economical in its use,"

-Mark Twain

It's strange, but I think I read indie author books faster sometimes. Or maybe it's because this one was a contemporary. 

But alas, this is yet another indie book review! I don't think I'll ever get tired of reading work from my peers.

Disclaimer: I received this book in exchange for an honest review. Thank you so much Emily, you should totally follow her on Instagram @emreilly!

Spoilers, duh. 

TW: Saving Ivy deals with heavy topics, including but not limited to: self-harm, abuse, rape, violence, and suicide. You need to go into this book with the right mindset. If you have suicidal tendencies, DO NOT read this book. 

The Bad

1. The Writing

This has two main points, so I shall break it up for ease. 

      a. Thoughts In Italics

Reilly's writing heavily employs a tactic where the literal thoughts that run through a character's head are included in the prose and then italicized. 

When used sparingly, they can be very effective. However, instead of using word choice, syntax, or dialogue to convey thoughts and emotions, Reilly relies on clipped words or phrases to express what the character is thinking or feeling. The overuse of it quickly begins to feel juvenile, and borders on telling instead of showing. 

      b. Development of Different POVs

Saving Ivy has at least four different point-of-views, but the story is mostly told through Ivy, Aunt Wiley, and Joseph's point of view.

As someone who mostly writes in first person dual or multiple perspective POVs, I feel that I can come from a place of experience and offer some critique but also advice. I've been writing with multiple perspectives since 2013 - that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but it does mean that I know what I'm talking about to some extent. 

The trick with writing multiple perspectives is voice. I mean, you as a writer and also the POV character should have their own distinct voice even if you're writing one POV. 

However, it's even more important that you develop strong character voices in a story with more than one POV characters. It just makes sense from a literal perspective: all humans think differently. We all use different syntax, we have different levels of vocabulary; what we say and how we say it varies greatly from person to person. 

In order to develop this, you have to consider so many things about the character: How old are they? What is their education level? What is their sense of humor like? What is their outlook on life? What region or part of the world are they from? All of these things influence a character's voice. 

The unfortunate problem is that Saving Ivy doesn't develop its POV character's voices. The writing style is virtually the same across Ivy, Aunt Wiley, and Joseph (although Joseph's voice is the most developed, I will give credit there).

The different POVs aren't confusing because you're not sure who's speaking - because the reader can deduce that from the content - they're confusing because everyone sounds so similar. It makes the writing flat and less engaging, as well as not allowing us to fully get into the POV character's head. Part of immersing the reader in the character is being able to see how that character thinks, perceives, and feels. Saving Ivy severely lacked the proper development of the three POVs in order to make them distinct and engaging. 

2. Lack of Complexity

Stories - and their levels of complexity - change in order to fit the target audience. Middle-grade books have more character depth, plot development, and tackle deeper issues than simple chapter books. Young Adult books take everything from MG and dig even deeper, and tailor the subject matter to fit the audience. Adult fiction is often the deepest and most complex of all fiction, mostly because adults are fully developed and can comprehend all of the subtlety, nuance, and complexity contained in adult fiction. Sure, there's some overlap, but as a general rule, there are specific ranges and levels for how complex an age-range of stories is. 

However, despite the content, Saving Ivy reads more like a middle-grade novel in terms of development and complexity. What makes YA so subversive is that it has the capability to be as complex as some adult fiction, while still catering to a younger demographic. What I mean by complexity is the ability to portray many different things in the context of one story, and the ability to interweave and connect multiple story threads while furthering the character arcs and plot. 

In Saving Ivy, there's not much going on. There's kind of just this one plotline of the interactions between Joseph, Wiley, and Ivy - and a few other small things thrown in. I feel like this has to do with the length of the book. Everything is kind of right on the surface. There's not much subtext, and the entirety of the plot, themes, and character development is right there in front of you. The story doesn't have many levels - each scene furthers one aspect of the plot. With some more character arcs and subplots thrown in, Saving Ivy would have had much more development and complexity. 


The Good

1. The Flashbacks (& some of the writing)

I'm a sucker for some good flashbacks - *cough* A Cactus In the Valley *cough* Lost. And the flashbacks in Saving Ivy were done so well and added so much to the story and the characters. They were short, but packed such an impactful and significant punch. It was like looking through a keyhole, but still able to see all that you needed without the flashbacks interrupting the story or dragging it down. There was more implied backstory, and I feel that this worked in favor of the narrative to balance out some of the heavier subject matter and depressing tone of the book. Reilly could have easily packed in the long sob-backstories, but she chose to make them short and sweet (in the colloquial sense of the last word). 

Now, based on the critiques I've made of Reilly's writing, it would be safe to assume that I think that Reilly is not a good writer. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. There were some passages and some lines in Saving Ivy that took my breath away, that forced me to reconsider things, and absolutely pulled me in with the unique descriptions. Reilly's moments of literary brilliance deserve just as much recognition. 

2.  Portrayal of Mental Illness

Now, before you all come at me with your pitchforks about last week's blog post, hear me out. I came into this book with the right expectations, and that greatly influenced my enjoyment and reception of Saving Ivy. 

Saving Ivy is not a happy book. It's very depressing, and I think it's important that you go into this book with that mindset. I suppose the title of 'Saving' Ivy is misleading, but that's neither here nor there. 

However, what Saving Ivy does right is that it shows how mental illness and strong emotions can warp someone's sense of reality and their ability to think clearly. That's why it's mental illness. So no, I don't berate or criticize Reilly for portraying Ivy's suicide as 'saving' her or as her finally finding peace, because for many people, they are deluded to believe that suicide is their only way out. They truly do believe that suicide will stop their pain. 

Reilly successfully portrayed the mind of a suicidal person, and how that kind of thinking can warp one's perception. I think that if you go into this book with the right mindset, and with this in mind, the suicide, as well as all of the other mental health topics discussed in the book, will not seem like a cop-out or as a harmful portrayal. 

Saving Ivy can be compared to works like Manchester by the Sea or Les Miserables - although these words are mammoths in comparison to Saving Ivy, they all are super depressing with somewhat hollow endings. And I feel that we need stories like this to balance out the tendency for all stories to end happily, or, rather, for all stories to have their conflicts tied up in a pretty bow. Because life doesn't work like that - sometimes bad things happen over and over and over and sometimes people die and sometimes conflicts never get resolved. I greatly commend Reilly for tackling this concept. 

~

Final Thoughts: While fundamentally flawed at points, Saving Ivy shows Reilly's literary prowess through her use of flashbacks and tackling of deeply emotional and less discussed topics. What holds the novel back are its lack of strong POV voices. Despite this, I enjoy the genre and subject matter of Saving Ivy, so for that I thoroughly enjoyed my time reading Reilly's work.  

Objective Rating: 6.5/10

Enjoyment Level: 7/10

~The WordShaker

"Inaccurate Portrayal of Mental Illness" - Debunking the Myth | Olivia J

"An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all," -Oscar Wilde

"(in)accurate portrayal of mental illness"

That phrase gets thrown around a hell of a lot these days. 

And I'm sick of people abusing it. 

Phrases like this get thrown around concerning shows like 13 Reasons Why, and basically any other form of art that involves a story. However, it is grossly and inherently problematic because it assumes something extraordinarily harmful about mental illness itself:  that mental illness is homogenous. 

I think that most of us can agree that 13 Reasons Why is not a good show. The writing is poor, the characters are inconsistent, and the depiction of suicide is harmful. 

Now before you all light your torches and call me a hypocrite, let me establish:  there is a wrong way to portray mental illness, but there is not one single way to portray mental illness. 

Let me explain. Portraying mental illness incorrectly involves assigning inaccurate or inconsistent symptoms to a mental illness, perpetuating harmful or incorrect stereotypes and stigma around mental illness, and not portraying mental illness as something that is treatable. Basically, the wrong way of portraying mental illness is spreading inaccurate information. Most other things are up for debate.

The tricky part is that many people - including myself - found 13 Reasons Why as a very harmful and inaccurate portrayal of mental illness (I'm looking at you, producers-entirely-ignoring-the-advice-from-a-psychiatric-board). It idealizes the fallout from suicide, spinning it out to be revenge instead of untreated mental illness. It blames suicide on everyone else instead of Hannah Baker. It never puts a quantifier on mental illness, and paints an utterly hopeless picture of the topics it explores. 

However, I've spoken with many people who have identified with the bullying and social aspects of 13 Reasons Why. And who am I to invalidate their feelings and experiences? Despite that the myrad of reasons why 13 Reasons Why falls flat on its face, bullying can contribute to mental illness, and if 13 Reasons Why resonated with someone - if someone saw themselves in 13 Reasons Why and they felt it was an accurate portrayal of their struggles with bullying and mental illness - then I have no right to tell them any differently. Because guess what?

There's no one single way to have a mental illness. 

From depression, anxiety, and trauma, to schizophrenia, disassociative identity disorder, and eating/substance abuse disorders, everyone experiences mental illness differently. My PTSD doesn't look like your PTSD. My friend's depression doesn't look like my family member's depression. Portrayals and/or content that one person finds harmful or triggering may not bother or affect another. 

To claim that your experience of mental illness is the correct or only experience and that your experience of mental illness ought to be the only one portrayed in media is unbelievably selfish and insensitive to the millions of other people who experience mental illness differently than you.

Truthfully, this is partially a call-out post to myself, because I've claimed that 13 Reasons Why isn't an accurate portrayal of mental illness, because it's not. For me. However, I'm retracting that statement to some degree because I know it resonates with some people, and I don't want to invalidate them. I'm not perfect, and I continue to evolve and grow as an artist, a consumer, and a critic. 

However, next time you're tempted to call a piece of media an 'inaccurate portrayal of mental illness', consider whether it is literally a factually incorrect and harmful portrayal, or whether it just doesn't align with your experiences and therefore you personally can't relate to it. 

Because nine times out of ten, there's someone out there who can relate to it, and they shouldn't be robbed of the experience of being profoundly impacted and deeply understood by storytelling. Nobody should. 

~The WordShaker

On College | Olivia J

"Nothing is so healing as the realization that he has come upon the right word," -Catherine Drinker Bowen

So. My first (full) semester of college starts in a little over a week. I would say that I'm scared, but I'm not. It's just community college.

I'm much more apprehensive about going to SCAD because it's just become so real. And along with that realization, the idea that that 'living in a cramped apartment eating Ramen noodles 24/7' has become even more real. College, am I right? *cries in student debt*

I really am looking forward to community college. For the first time in six years, I'm going to school again with my best friend. One of my college professors is also a self-published author. 

SCAD is less of a dream, and more of a reality. But the problem is that reality still seems so unattainable. My world is now just a ticking time bomb, both here in my home state and as a student, safely cushioned in the world of classrooms. 

For the first time, I'm reconsidering my life. Is this really what I want to do? Is all of this really worth it?

Fortunately, these answers have all been 'yes', but is 'yes' enough? Is drive enough to push me through the intense curriculum? Is passion enough to pay tens of thousands of dollars? Is writing worth this one life I have? Will I regret not getting a more 'sensible' degree?

To these other questions though, all I have to rely on is faith. The faith that God has taken me this far, and that he'll continue to take me even further. Believing until I see it, and believing even when I don't see it for a long, long time. 

I'm not sure this post has a point, other than to update you all on where I am. Also to remind you that faith can carry you through the most insane and unbelievable of circumstances. He is forever faithful. 

~The WordShaker

Book Review: 'Fireflies Glow Only In The Dark' by Ruth Morse | Olivia J

"A real book is not one that is read, but one that reads us," - W. H. Auden

I don't think there will be a time where I won't be in love with the cover of Fireflies Glow Only In the Dark. Life goals on the cover, right there. 

I discovered Ruth Morse through Instagram, and when I saw that she was publishing a YA contemporary, I had to get my hands on it. I feel like there aren't many self-published authors who are writing contemporary stories, so I had to support a fellow author!

follow me on Instagram @olivia.j.the.wordshaker

This book seemed like a perfect fit for me - and for the most part, it was. But alas, there is no book without flaw. Without further ado, let us dissect . . . 

The Bad

1. Character/Theme Development

I think this is my biggest flaw with FGOITD. Neither Lana nor Max felt fully fleshed out. Sure, they had personalities and we knew a little bit about their backstories, but not enough for me to get a full picture of who this character was, and why. 

First, Lana. Despite her nightmares, she seems to be relatively unaffected by her dysfunctional family, which is virtually impossible. The problem is that we know very little about Lana or her life. We know a little about her family - about Jax and how her parents fight. We know about her friendship with Mel . . . and that's about it. What else has happened in Lana's life that has impacted who she is now? What was her school experience like? What about her other friends? 

This severe lack of knowledge of Lana's past leads to an undefined character, and it all comes down to the question of: "How does Lana's past impact who she is today, and how does that impact her choices?" We don't know nearly enough about who Lana is to answer that question. Sure, one could argue that that's the point: Lana doesn't know who she is. However, the thing about people is that we are just the sum of what has happened to us until we grasp ahold of who we want to be and therefore form our own identity. This concept was not expanded upon in FGOITD.

Max is nearly the same way. All we really know about his past is that his dad is an alcoholic, that he ran away, and a sliver of his interaction with Jack and Lily. How was Max's childhood? What kind of person was he in high school? And because we knew so very little about Max and Lana's pasts, it was hard to connect with their journey and their romance. 

This also comes down to the fact that FGOITD doesn't go deep enough into its characters to make the themes and relationships impactful. What makes these coming-of-age contemporary stories so good is that they are often a deep dive into the characters and their backstories, and how they overcome and accept their past in order to face the future. Way too much time is spent on the romance and other regular-life things than on the actual coming-of-age aspects that could have been explored. Many very interesting themes were touched on, but not fleshed out to their fullest potential. How does Lana finally move past her self-hatred and blaming herself for her brother's death? How does her family come back together after Lana's revelations? However, FGOITD seemed more interested in describing the romance and the alt-rock scene of Lana, Max, and Mel. 

2. Personal Nitpicks

FGOITD has a lot more romance than I was originally led to believe. Based on the synopsis - which you can read here - it sounds like I was promised a journey of self-discovery and catharsis, with probably a romance side plot. However, I got a lot more romance than I signed up for. Now, romance isn't bad, it's just not what I was expecting/looking forward to when reading this book. Maybe that's my fault, or maybe the synopsis was misleading. 

But really, I think that it stems from my burning hatred of the trope 'book advertizes growth and change but it's really just a romance where said significant other comes in and changes the main characters life'. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't all that FGOITD does, but it's a significant part of it. I even thought that the romance was pretty realistic and sweet at times. I think they said 'I love you' too quickly, but bygones....

Don't get me wrong again, because I'm fully aware that people can come into your life and help you, change you, and make you realize things about yourself and about life - because there have been people in my life who have done just that. My problem with this idea arises when this significant other cures all of said character's problems - their crops are flourishing, their grades are higher, the sun shines brighter, and their mental health is cured. That's just so unrealistic - and problematic because it furthers the cultural idea that once you find love, your life will be wonderful and perfect. Now, FGOITD doesn't take it to the extreme, but I saw some of this trope throughout the novel, which I didn't like. 


Alas, now that that's out of the way, the rest of this review should be a breeze. 

The Good

1. The Writing Style

While not anything groundbreaking, I did enjoy Morse's writing style. At times it was profound and moving, and other times the descriptions pulled me right into the scene while not being too overbearing. 

Back to the 'profound and moving' bit. I know some people hate this kind of writing, but I love the 'philosophical musings' type of writing, and FGOITD had a significant amount of that in it. I live for prose/dialogue that points out universal truths/reveals something new about the human experience. Cue favorite quotes here:

"People come to the most unbearable places when they can no longer bear themselves," -page 19

"It sucks loving someone who reminds you of your unfulfilled happiness," -page 27

"Tragedy isn't unique, nor is happiness or any other feeling," -page 28

"It's funny how nothing prevents me from being anywhere at all. And that's what bothers me," -page 85

"I wished that at least for a moment, I could see the world through his eyes," -page 110

2. The End

The end of FGOITD really redeemed the novel for me, as many books often do. For the most part, I felt the middle sagged. Plot threads meandered and themes floundered, and other than the relationship progression between Max and Lana, not much else happened. However, the climax, the falling action, and the resolution of FGOITD saved it for me, since it was emotional, there were lots of character breakthroughs that happened, and the purpose of the story became clear. My only nitpick about the end is that certain things seemed to wrap up just a bit too nicely. However, despite that, the end really solidified my positive feelings about FGOITD. 

3. Personal Preferences

I have been - and probably always will be - a massive sucker for contemporary stories about life, finding yourself, mental health, family, and love - and FGOITD was just that. For that alone, I have to say that I enjoyed it. 

I also liked that while Lana had obvious problems and was definitely depressed, she didn't always act depressed or mopey. I loved that Morse deconstructed this stigma: that people with mental illness/trauma/problems have to act sad or anxious all of the time, because in reality, we hide how we're truly feeling. And just because someone has a mental illness, doesn't mean that they can't be happy sometimes or that they can't have fun. Hats off to accurate portrayals of mental illness and deconstructing the stigma!

This was one of the few times that I liked it when the main character was a writer/reader. Most of the time, I don't really like this trope because it makes the main character feel like a self-insert, but the way that Morse describes Lana writing were some of my favorite passages in the book. 

Final Thoughts

While Fireflies Glow Only In the Dark is a solid novel in my favorite genre, it suffers from half-formed character development, which therefore makes the themes and plot less impactful. What saves it is the profound writing, the end, and my sheer enjoyment for these kinds of stories. 

Objective Rating: 7/10
Enjoyment Level: 8.5/10

~

Thank you all for joining me once again on the 'Olivia goes on a spree of reviewing books and then won't review books for another 3 months' blog. It's one hell of a journey. 

~The WordShaker