“No one escaped—either because they were someone who lost their shadow, or because they were someone who loved someone who lost their shadow.”

I’m going to start this by saying - with no shame whatsoever - that I checked my shadow a millions times while reading The Book of M. I just checked it. I think I’ll be checking for the rest of my life.

You’ve been warned.

The Book of M leaves scars.

It first starts in Iran, a man in a town square loses his shadow. It’s magical, people flocking to see him dance in the streets. That is, until a few days later when they find him wandering the streets alone, lost. The shadowless lose their memories. The curse spreads around the globe and no one understands the cause. Fast forward 2 years and we find a couple living inside a resort trying to survive as the world has crumbled around them. One day, Max loses her shadow setting the pair on a cross country adventure trying to save memories and lives in the hopes of saving the world.

I still don’t know if I love or hate The Book of M. Memories being linked to shadows is a very interesting concept. We see shadow play in stories like Peter Pan, which Shepherd references in the book. But there’s a magical element here that I still don’t understand.

Which starts a great discussion on the iceberg. As a writer, you’re only supposed to show the very tip of your iceberg. There’s this whole world you build that your readers will never know - though some of it could be used as great talking points during your tour. But showing enough and then showing too much is a fine line. I prefer to air on the too much side. Don’t overload them, but if you’re asking yourself the question then maybe you should add it in. This is also where beta readers can come in and help you decide.

The Book of M airs on the side of too little. Shepherd creates a magical element with the shadowless. As people forget things, they can change reality. Not a bad idea but not well enough explained to the readers. We can’t see the rules - a very important aspect for writers with magic. You need to make sure the reader knows the rules. At some points in The Book of M, we see things change with the memory loss, but not others. Why? What are the reasons? Is Shepherd just manipulating the rules to fit what she needs? No bueno.  

“The memory means more, the more it’s worth to you—and to who you are.”

What Shepherd does master with ease is her character diversity. Do you want to have a diverse cast, then look at this book. Everything reads with ease. Nothing felt forced or overdone. Essentially, she sat down and asked, what can I make this character look like. Instead of automatically going to a white male or white woman, can you as a writer sit down and change it? Is there a specific reason or can they be something different? Done. That’s all you need to do.

And that ending. Well done to my fellow M. Night Shyamalan writer. I love when people pull a twist in the very end. Shepherd does a great job foreshadowing so you can’t be mad, but doesn’t construct a bright flashing arrow pointing to the plot.Claps all around.

As dystopias go, I think we’ve got a straightforward book here. People die, social systems are collapsed, and people scavenge to survive. There’s lots of moving around, plus fighting for conflict. All in all, I think Shepherd did a decent job. It’s just everything else that was a struggle. Her collapsing system leaves one feeling a little bonkers.

In all, I’m going to give it a 3.5 stars. If she wrote another book I’d probably pick it up. Now, I’ll be finishing the Grisha Verse. Whoop. I’m excited though a part of the ending was already spoiled. One problem of being on bookstagram and reading a popular series after everyone else. Oh well….

Happy Reading.

Love Kait

Reading Challenge: 83/100