Hannah B.'s Reviews > Funny You Should Ask

✨Funny you should ask I hate it✨

If you don’t like books with flashbacks that culminate to nothing. Don’t read it. If you don’t like books with random “articles” and “interviews” thrown in between the actual plot. Don’t read it. If you don’t like books about “great writers” who when you read their “great writing” you’re like um no? Don’t read it.

Now that I know this book was heavily *inspired* off of a GQ article (about Chris Evans) that the author fails to mention in her acknowledgements, I hate it all even more. I dislike the article because I again found it weird and unethical and weird and I don’t like knowing this shit really happened. Please don’t feel up the people you’re interviewing. And in the book she kept referencing how he was probably too drunk but she still wanted to get that sound bite.

I checked my arc against a finished copy and the author still didn’t mention Edith Zimmerman or that GQ article anywhere in the book/acknowledgments. The rest of my review is also checked against a finished library copy. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt but alas.

✨

Their relationship presented in the article felt unethical and the writing style was a mix of flashbacks, present, and useless “articles” and “interviews” and “blog posts” thrown in to break up the plot for no reason. I really don’t like when those things pop up in books. I stuck with them at the beginning because I was still interested in the “plot,” but then I realized nothing they revealed was actually useful to the overall story and I skimmed the rest. I mean the plot didn’t reveal anything either, let alone the flashbacks. Why do flashbacks get incorporated when the big “fight” scene in the past is just. so. boring?

I did like the beginning (until the faked dog death and then I was one button press away from full on meltdown) and I was interested to see what really happened in the past. But the more I went along, I felt like her article was unprofessional and awkward and made me feel weird. She kept talking about all of these stereotypes, when her article did its best to perpetuate them? And she was so sad and angry that she had friends with private jets because she didn’t know if her career was “earned” or not.

Plot twist it was not because what else did she have to write about? I can’t imagine she had three collections of essays published. Essays on WHAT. She proves none of her skills to me, which is another tough sell in books: writers, songwriters, etc always just seem so forced and awkward in books and the secondhand embarrassment is cruel to me. She was so whiny about her writing especially when she thought he didn’t like it.

✨

I suppose the dude was more decent, but I still didn’t like him. He sounded nice in theory but the execution was lacking. The whole marriage thing and friends with benefits thing was just not what I wanted to see from him and it made him Not Hot. He was kind of a dick but so was she so they belong together in their phallus palace I suppose. We also finished this book with them knowing each other for a collective six days in ten years. I didn’t buy that.

This book was based on a much shorter, insubstantial in its own right article and it shows. Maybe the article really did happen like the journalist said, but that didn’t make this book any more logical. And it doesn’t have to be but it just had a weird feeling. I was more stressed out at her being invited to after parties and passing out and getting drunk.

I felt zero chemistry between the characters by the end and I disliked both of our MCs which is impressive. She’s angry that people got the wrong impression from an article she intentionally wrote to give the wrong impression and I just………

✨

On that ……….. note, there’s a lot of stilted speech (especially during the sex scene) where they’re like “can…I…..please…….Alaska…….ninety…..seven…..” and she’s like I don’t know what he means but okay and I’m like no not okay I don’t know what’s going on???? After this book I ban ellipses. Funny…you…should…ask…I…am…in…pain…

✨ ”It’s not a problem,” he says. “With you, I…” / “You…?”
✨ “I just…these fucking…goddamn buttons,”
✨ “There…Please…Gabe…Please…”
✨ "Don't," he chokes out, stilling my hand. "I...you…can't..."
✨ "Fuck," he groans. "Can I...can we…..please..?”
✨ “Gabe…” / "Don't...stop...Please..don't..."
✨ "Yes..." My head goes back. "I need...yes..."
✨ "Fuck, I'm..."

^Those all happened in the five page sex scene. It took 90% for:




I’m also very confused because the author recently wrote an article about the importance of sex scenes in romance and that leaves me even more confused…this sex scene was an afterthought at 90%…and…lukewarm…at best... It’s nice to know the author loves sex scenes, but where is this proof in this pudding?

The pining was pretty good but the payoff was stale. Vague is en vogue here. The words “orgasm,” “climax,” “peak,” “come” were never used during the sex scene. “Got off” and “coming” were each used like twice at various points. No “cock” was ever mentioned. I think “length” (mentioned once at 91%) is as good as it got. There’s like nothing regarding her body. Wait! We got: “Hands. Hips. Lips.” Oo baby, oo baby. 👁🫦👁 Le sigh.

The author does this so many times at all times and I never knew what she was talking about and she also referenced things that happened to these characters as if we knew what they were and then like three pages later she defined them and I’m like……………..I just wasted five minutes rereading past pages to see if I missed the information!

The way I read the ellipses sections in my head was a mix between Bella Swan’s pauses and Anthony Bridgerton’s heavy breathing. Imagine how detailed the sex scene was! Imagine it! Are you imagining it? Bc I guarantee whatever you’re imagining is hotter than the book’s one pathetic attempt at sexual ellipses.

✨

Yes. I am one of those angry Goodreads reviewers she mentions in the pointless filler interludes. Funny you should ask.

The only thing I liked by the end (besides the fact that I was done) was his reveal of what happened in the past. It didn’t warrant a breakup and ten years of pining but it was funny. But even then, it wasn’t even revealed in a flashback so my previous point of them being useless still stands. I can see why people like this book, but it checked all the wrong boxes for me.

⭐️/5 🌶🌶/5


P.S. From 30% to 60% this book tricks you into believing it killed a dog (that you saw as a puppy) and that’s fucking sick.

I cried but not bc of anything revolutionary the book did. No I lost it at “wow what a cute puppy ten years ago but time is crazy and now the dog is dead and wow just kidding this dog is actually alive but your dog is still dead have a great life bitch.” I gave the book the benefit of the doubt and kept reading to see if the dog actually was dead and thank god it wasn’t but I was triggered and had a terrible time I can’t believe they expect people to be okay with that. That’s a big gamble. From 30% to 60% and now all that in between % has been tainted and now I’m just pissed off.



Thanks to the publisher for my advanced copy! All opinions are honest and my own as always ✨


***SPOILER***









And to circle back to “great writers” in books not being great writers, I politely ask how the fuck she got the assignment of interviewing him in the first place???? SHE HADN’T EVEN SEEN A BOND MOVIE.

Also who the fuck was reading a third collection of her essays? What did she have to write about??? I absolutely don’t understand.










I am pain.







Me talking to the plot: