SYNOPSIS
To start, there are two main characters. One is the protagonist and the other the antagonist. The protagonist’s behaviour was pretty predictable. However, the antagonist, who was first shown as a victim given the death of his twin brother, revealed his true colours slowly and steadily. Not to give just, let's just say that he had done some things regarding his brother's death. To sum it up, he has shown so many weird behaviours which led to many misunderstandings. “‘I should hate,’Said Simon's voice in its slow, lazy way, ‘to let you go without saying goodbye. I mean, I could just cut the rope and let you think, If you had time to think at all, that it had broken. But that wouldn't be any fun, would it?’ Brat could see Simon's shape against the sky. He seemed to be half-kneeling on the edge by the rope. Brat could touch him by putting out a hand. What a fool he had been! Simon had taken no chances. He hadn't even taken the chance of following Brat. He came first and waited.” Rather than a really descriptive passage, I do believe that this exact scene, which also has a picture, reveals the true intentions of Simon and the deep hatred he has for his dead brother. The Way he had already planned the cliff scene and how he was going to kill Brat (the impostor/main protagonist) was described perfectly for me. I always wanted to ask this question to certain authors. Why do they have to insert a messy love interest? By that, for instance in this book, Brat is taking the place of a supposed dead boy and the dead boy’s sister suddenly wants to get married to him by the end, although at the start she believed that he was her brother. I mean, in the end, he's not the real brother, so perhaps that could be an excuse, but the fact that later on they mention that the male lead is the family's cousin. it's just really unnecessary. In addition, the male lead expresses some love for The dead boy`s aunt and I don't know if it's platonic or real love. Honestly, I don't know how the author would respond. Perhaps for them, it's par for the course, but from my point of view, it just kind of ruins the story.
PERSONAL OPINION
I personally like the second protagonist, who was the antagonist. Although he had some bad morals and was probably a psychopath, I just liked how his character was written and developed through the story. Besides, intellectual people make the story more interesting and engaging. What I disliked most is probably the fast pace and also the missing gaps through the story. For example, I really hate the fact that they didn't tell us the status of the person who had proposed the scheme to the protagonist. Because in the end, that person was the mastermind behind all of the plan, so I would have liked a conclusion for them.
REVIEW by Mansuni Gurung
iruzkinik ez:
Argitaratu iruzkina