Writing a novel that deals with multiple possibilities is usually a high-brow concept that requires a great deal of skill, both in order to make everything make sense, but also to try and say something new and original - after all, there are a lot of great predecessors in this subgenre. Think of Paul Auster's recent 4, 3, 2, 1 (2017), for instance, which while not quite a masterpiece, was pretty damn good.
Kate Hope Day's If, Then (2019) is a competent but utterly mediocre novel, and it probably would score more than one star from most readers. It focuses on four extremely boring characters, who are all either utterly mundane or hackneyed cliches. Consider Day's philosophy professor, Robert Kells, for instance. Kells is the gruff but caring slob with, naturally, a heart of gold, who somehow made it to a tenured professorship with only a single book, Counter-Factuals, based on his dissertation. Talk about an imaginary parallel world!
The novel itself moves painfully slowly through the lives of these infinitely dull characters, turning over each and every stone of their lives. In the meantime, there is the most obvious deus ex machina ever written waiting to explode onto the scene from the opening line. There is even a character named Cass(andra), after the Trojan prophetess whose prophecies no one heeded.
As such, the flatness of the characters and the story, the pointless plot, and the pretentiously sophomoric reflections on "counterfactuals" was just too much for me. I hated this book, even though some people will like (and maybe even love) it.
If Auster's 4,3,2,1 was a novel written by an author who is influenced by continental philosophy, then Day's If, Then is what happens when an author who is influenced by analytical philosophy decides, in turn, to write one. It is, as one might expect, f***ing awful.