Title: Luck of the Draw
Author: Rachel Renee Anderson
If you look at the cover of Luck of the Draw and read the blurb on the back of the book, you'll expect that the book will be about all of the sticky situations Brighton Andrews finds himself in once he takes on the slightly slimy challenge of dating three roommates at the same time. However, less than 1/4 of the way through the book, Brighton has zeroed in on Dani, the guarded, slightly crusty roommate. The rest of the novel is the story of Dani coming to terms with her prejudices and her ability to love. I also felt like the jumps in time were a weakness in the story-- the first few chapters take place over the course of a month, then there are jumps of years in there, which made it feel like the story was losing its intensity and momentum.
If you can overlook not getting what you think you're getting out of the book, then you'll probably be satisfied by the story. Yes, it's the second book I've read in two days where the protagonist unexpectedly comes into big money and wants to spend it to do good instead of to live it up (Dani has strong aversions to living it up), but I guess that may be a common theme for Mormons who find themselves struggling with the blessings of material wealth. I felt like the true strength of Luck of the Draw was Dani's character. Brighton was a fairly straightforward nice guy, but Dani was complicated and contradictory. If you give Anderson credit for Dani's contradictions, then I think they make her interesting (for example, she doesn't want to be rich, and hates the idea of marrying a doctor because her dad is a materialistic doctor, but when Brighton shows up in a rusty pickup, she recoils at that too). I wish Brighton and Dani luck in their fictional future together, and I think Brighton is going to need it.
1 comment:
(Lurker visiting from Segullah)
I thought it was a good read, but the thing that drove me crazy about the book was the suggested book group questions at the end. It seemed odd to me to have a book with gambling and then ask (what seemed to me) a leading question implying how wrong it is to gamble.
Post a Comment