Book Review: Suited by Jo Anderton

writer, poet, narrator, artist

Book Review: Suited by Jo Anderton

Imagine buying a kitchen cupboard. Shiny, new, and just the style you love.

So you whip out your wallet and buy the thing. Upon delivery, you discover that the doors won’t open properly. The hinges squeal like a stuck pig at the slightest hint of movement.

No matter how practical it is on the inside, how gorgeous on the outside, the shrieks of the hinges make goosebumps rise on the back of your neck every single time.

Annoying, right?

That’s how I felt after the first chapter of this book.

I read and reviewed the first installment of the series, Debris, as well. Just like this one, it was riddled with grammatical errors and imprecision.

There were times when the flaws were so glaring they completely pulled me out of the story.

However, the story was so magical, it drew me right back in again each and every time.

I noted it in my review, mentioning that–flawed as book one was–I still planned to buy the sequel.

So about a week ago, I did just that and dug in right away. Upon finishing the first three pages, I came to the conclusion that both Anderton and the people responsible for the editing process and proofreading of Suited had done the work the same disservice as its predecessor, Debris.

After reading two novels that play out within one single city, I still have no clue how that city’s name is supposed to be spelled. If the author can’t make up her mind, how are her readers expected to figure it out?

Is it Movoc-under-Keeper or Movocunderkeeper? Anderton can’t seem to make up her mind, sometimes even providing hybrid versions with Movoc-underkeeper and Movocunder-Keeper.

In one place, she even fails to keep the naming consistent when the city’s name is mentioned twice with only one line in between.

Furthermore, the wording is often imprecise. At times, her sentences are so convoluted that I have no clue what they’re supposed to say and I end up making an educated guess based on context.

Misspelled names–and other slip-ups that should have been caught in editing–are sprinkled all over the book, annoying me more and more.

Still, I kept reading. I’m the kind of reader that needs to know what happens in the end. To the people in the book.

Even there, I was left frustrated, with an ending that felt very much like a cliffhanger–raising more questions than it provides resolutions.

All in all, I don’t think I’ll be reading more of Anderton’s work.

If you’ve read this book and disagree with me, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.



Follow me on social media to stay tuned for more!


One Response

  1. R. Jean Bell says:

    Sounds like you’re far more forgiving than I would have been of all this.

A penny for your thoughts...

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial