"Pretty Is," by Maggie Mitchell, is a hot mess of a book that reads like it was written by someone with no actual experience with how actual people actually act. It also hates women just enough, in just enough socially acceptable ways, that I checked to see if this was written by a man using a female pseudonym. Apparently not.
"Pretty Is" follows two women who were abducted when they were twelve and held in a cabin, where they were dressed in simple dresses and played cards and read library books and ate crap food and were only allowed out at night, guarded by a man with a gun who alternately charmed and menaced them. Of course, both girls fell in love with him, and after their return to their parents have remained obsessed with him and have shaped their lives according to what he wanted them to do.
I should mention that he abducted them by driving up next to them in his car and inviting them to get in. Which they did. For reasons. What reasons? It's unclear, really. They weren't being abused at home and trying to escape. They weren't starving or cold or abandoned. One had a shitty stepmom and a father she loved, one had distant parents. That's it. And they just get into a car and cooperate with their kidnapper and never try to escape. Why? Because reasons! Because, as television without pity would say, It's In The Script!
Their captor, of course, doesn't hurt them in any way. He doesn't tie them up or hit them or threaten them or molest them or even lock them up for very long. When they violate rules he's established nothing happens to them. He tells them all girls/women "are corrupt" and the narrative supports that, with every female character being a slut and/or adulterer; an alcoholic; a catty bitch; etc. A woman who heads up a rape counseling center blames female college students for being raped because they go to frat parties in lingerie and togas. Ha haaaaa fun. Women are just so corrupt and evil. Anyway, whenever the kidnapper is mentioned, it's like there's a flashing #NotAllKidnappers hashtag. He's not like those OTHER kidnappers! He's a GOOD one! For reasons!!! There's a few brief moments when he loses his temper and we see the girls trying to placate him, and those brief moments feel edgy and real, but they are extremely fleeting and really don't explain why they go along with him, why they stay, why they don't care about their homes and families.
The central character, who is a college professor who is publishing a book about kidnappings in Victorian literature (which makes sense given her past) also published a thriller based on her experience. She keeps this hidden because it's "shameful" which doesn't make sense. Many of my favorite authors work in academia as teachers or professors, and have published fiction. It's not a secret, it's not shameful. She wrote the novel while working on her thesis and kept that a secret so she wouldn't get into trouble. Yet most people working on theses have side projects to keep them sane, ranging from writing fiction to playing MMPORGs to tabletop games to hiking to whatever. Her book was optioned and is being made into a movie, but it's also apparently hard to find and not in print? Because that makes sense?
When she has problems with a (male) student stalking her, she turns to a female professor for help, who doesn't listen to her or believe her and dismisses the kid as a "good student" and implies it's HER fault. Because, remember, all women are catty bitches. Don't forget how corrupt and evil women are. As the stalking escalates, she does nothing to protect herself. She meets with the dude, becomes obsessed with him. The writing becomes especially ham-handed. It's a small town and other people see them meeting and assume they're fucking because of COURSE when a woman has complained that a dude is stalking and threatening her and then meets him privately it's because they're fucking WHY NOT. She frets about nobody liking her, but also doesn't go out often, and when she meets people and makes a connection she doesn't call them. Not because she's afraid of rejection or wev, she's just... passive. Really passive.
There's a long boring chunk in the middle of the book with a fictionalized version of the kidnapping (her novel). Why not just relate the actual events? Why the layers of fiction? Why does anyone in the novel act the way they do? It's a ~~mystery~~. Why are twelve year old girls sexualized so much? (the secondary character describes her twelve year old self as wearing "skin tight biking shorts," talks about her "tanned skinny legs" and "recent bumps" (breasts) and describes herself in pageant costumes at 7 as a "sexy little fairy." The primary character also describes her budding breasts. Later on, she tries, at the age of twelve, to seduce her captor who is old enough to be her dad, because why not. Because ~~Reasons~~. Because It's In The Script. Because Feeeeeeeemales are corrupt and evil.)
Early in the book, a character complains that they "don't like [movie] scripts that disguise laziness as ambiguity." Shockingly, the author apparently fails to realize that she's describing her own book. This book is full of lazy writing, lazy cliches, lazy stereotypes, and characters that don't act or react the way actual humans do. It's a very by-the-numbers book, but missing steps. The girls act brainwashed without ever being brainwashed. The primary character goes to therapy for years but apparently never discusses Stockholm Syndrome or addresses what actually happened to her at all. Both keep their past ~~secret~~ for ~~reasons~~ that are never discussed, never mentioned, and increasingly make no sense at all. The primary character's stalker, a broke unwashed pimple-ridden kid barely passing his classes is apparently also able to easily hack into phones and computers and add cyberstalking to his regular stalking. Because that's a normal skillset that all college kids have, right? And people with that skillset are and remain poor, right?
This book just doesn't make SENSE on many levels. I kept waiting for it pull out of the nosedive it was in and get better, but it didn't. I feel personally betrayed at all the praise blurbs on the book, when it reads like a piece of self published garbage, internally inconsistent and poorly written.
I seem to be in the minority with this point of view. I like thrillers, so it's not just me bouncing off the genre. I appreciate unreliable narrators so it's not just that. I don't understand why this book is getting so much praise. It's just... bad. Don't waste your time with it. I regret that I read the entire thing.