When I picked up this book, I figured it’d either be great but decidedly middlebrow (i.e. perfect for someone too tired to read anything but through the paraliterary) or TikTokSlop with no in-between. Instead, I got a well-written novel that, unfortunately, was an ephemeral product of the middle class privilege it sought to explore.
The teenage Joni Wilson and her friends are growing up in some quaint British seaside town stagnating in the wake of its bygone heyday of tourism. They’ve known each other since primary school, alternately becoming friends and enemies as part of and as a result of the typical gossip, cliques, and drama that come with maturing and failing to mature. Through this story, Clark examines the emptiness of White (with a capital ‘W’) middle-class life: there is no intrinsic meaning to it, no great political struggles besides switching currencies, no pervasive strife with which to examine the character of the class. The characters just go about their day through high-school dramas and minor Tory scandals. Out of seemingly nowhere, Joni’s burned alive by her three friends.
Her mother cannot find a cause to channel her anger and misery after the burning. It’s an isolated incident; the girls were arrested the following day. There won’t be a ‘Joni Wilson Bill’ to prevent school shootings or drunk driving, to fund leukemia research or mental health resources. Despite being such a terrible, life-altering event, it goes unremarked upon in the national news cycle as it cannot be placed in a larger context.
Years after her death, true crime podcasts (incidentally one is named Cliterati, which would make a great username for a book reviewer) attempt exactly that. The novel is told as the nonfiction account of a journalist visiting the town to set the record straight, to clear up any misconceptions around the case. As the tale progresses, we learn about Tumblr accounts and cyberbullying, pagan fixations and local legend.

I usually find negative reviews unenlightening, perhaps due to the subconscious baggage of that W. H. Auden quote, but I really liked this one. I think you really conveyed what this novel could have been and how it failed to reach that potential.
Thanks! I tend to find negative or ambivalent reviews easier to write since I'm not just saying "this book is great" and can capture the potential, but less interesting to read because I'm hardly likely to read a mediocre book. I don't think I'm familiar with the quote you refer to.
Yeah, it is unfortunate to read a review and not come away excited to read something. But I think yours was interesting in that I've never really put much thought into what makes literary novels "fail." As for the Auden quote, I wrote this pretty early in the morning and couldn't remember if it was well-known or just weirdly lodged into my memory for some reason. This is the one I'm thinking of: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/148783-attacking-bad-books-is-not-only-a-waste-of-time
That's an interesting quote. It really presages the 'takedown' reviews culture that exists right now (a recent Lithub article entitled "The Most Scathing Book Reviews of 2024" is a particularly jarring example), and elucidates why I generally dislike those kinds of reviews. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth when a review is about the critic's verbal pyrotechnics more than the quality of a work. I started writing negative reviews as a way to improve my writing; by focusing on a work's faults at both a sentence and story level, I can hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. I don't post them because they're generally in bullet-point notes format, as advice to myself rather than reviews for others, but it's definitely a useful exercise. I'll never finish an uninteresting book just to write a review, but it encourages me to read that which I probably won't enjoy as much and push my boundaries