If I had not received this book free via NetGalley, I would not have finished it.
Girl in Snow by Danya Kukafka sounds promising, but the reveal is badly paced with obvious red herrings. Even though the mystery lost my attention, there’s potential in Kukafka’s prose—it’s occasionally lyrical with unique imagery. Summary from Goodreads:
When a beloved high schooler named Lucinda Hayes is found murdered, no one in her sleepy Colorado suburb is untouched—not the boy who loved her too much; not the girl who wanted her perfect life; not the officer assigned to investigate her murder. In the aftermath of the tragedy, these three indelible characters—Cameron, Jade, and Russ—must each confront their darkest secrets in an effort to find solace, the truth, or both.
My biggest gripe is that too much time is spent on descriptions and redundant flashbacks. Because the book starts after Lucinda’s death and the sections are titled “Day One,” “Day Two,” and “Day Three,” most of the character-building moments happened before page one. Kukafka flashes back to the core moments of each relationship instead of relying on the strength of her present-day scenes. It’s not satisfying to be hit over the head with expository matter after carefully picking out the same information from well-crafted clues in an earlier scene.
The flashbacks aren’t the only distraction. There’s a curious fixation on gross/unsightly things. As an example, a description of Lee as “clean-shaven” is chased by a paragraph that describes the nicks around his mouth and how he must have looked with toilet-paper squares stuck to all his bloody cuts. There’s nothing wrong with describing a clean-shaven face this way—it’s certainly vivid—but no one is ever described without taking them down a few notches. The vast majority of characters have bad skin, smeary make-up, dripping sweat, pimples around their mouths and sprinkled across sagging cleavage… Not even inanimate objects are safe! Misshapen beads are described as “tumorous.” I think this is all to contrast with Lucinda Hayes’s beauty, but it’s emphasized to the point of silliness. The more over-the-top descriptions are funny when I don’t think they’re meant to be.
This grossness reminded me of Gillian Flynn’s Dark Places. I stopped reading Flynn’s book after a background character was described as having dried scrambled eggs in her hair. (I admit this is a weird place to draw the line.) In college, I ran across an article that suggested every character should have something ugly about them. This was to warn writers against creating physically ideal characters that are hard to relate to and hard to imagine. It’s easier to picture a crooked nose than a “perfect” nose—what does a perfect nose look like anyway? It’s a good piece of advice, but Kukafka takes it too far.
These two points are the kind of complaints that would have been less noticeable if the overall story had been more compelling. A taut mystery provides a lot of cover for errors in craftsmanship. Since I wasn’t particularly concerned about who killed Lucinda Hayes, the energy that should have gone into asking whodunnit all went to nitpicking.
Overall: 2.4 (out of 5)
Taking on three points of view to solve a murder is ambitious and two of the characters (Cameron and Jade) have unique, if unlikeable, voices.
NB: This book was provided for review by the publisher, Simon & Schuster (via NetGalley).
Image Credit: Goodreads
5 thoughts on “Review: Girl in Snow by Danya Kukafka”
Well, if I had been tempted you’ve saved me the trouble of requesting this one! Sorry you didn’t like it but I admire your thoughtful descriptions of the reasons why it didn’t work for you
Happy to help! 😀 With first-time authors, I really try to be more constructive than snarky.
Good point about lack of interest in the plot allowing time for nit-picking – I often find that I get more and more critical of style etc if the author doesn’t keep me fully invested in the actual story.
Oh good, I was worried that line might come across as a bit mean, like I was saying: “If there was a good story I wouldn’t have to be nitpicky!” It’s nice to know other people feel the same way.
The best thing: Finding a story that’s so good you don’t even notice typos.
(Is there something about Kindle versions that makes them more likely to have typos? This applies to “finished” publications too, not just ARCs. I’ve been reading more on my Kindle and it’s a rare book to not have an error.)
Yes, I sometime think publishers look on the Kindle version as the poor relation and don’t put the same effort in – it can be really annoying.