When four aeroplanes on four different continents all crash on the same day, the world is stunned. The only survivors are a woman who survives just long enough to record a message which has far reaching consequences, and three young children. In the aftermath of the tragedy, these children (collectively known as The Three) become the subject of intense media scrutiny and all sorts of theories about how or why they lived and who or what they really are. Some religious fanatics claim that there are three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse and a sure sign that the Rapture is soon to come. They manipulate this to their own ends, with their machinations affecting the highest powers in the United States. Others claim that the children are aliens or worse.

After opening with a vivid description of one of the aeroplane crashes, the story is then told as a series of Skype interviews with relevant parties, tweets, blogs, newsclips, online chats etc. This means that the reader is given snippets of information at a time, with differing points of view and opinions, helping to fit all the pieces together. It’s an interesting format and one I liked.

As for the story itself, the premise had me hooked from the start, and I thought the book opened really well. However, I don’t think it kept up its momentum throughout; there were some parts that I REALLY enjoyed and others which, although I didn’t actually dislike them, seemed unnecessary and dragged the story down somewhat. I think a bit of extra editing would have made a big and positive difference.

My favourite parts, without giving away any spoilers, were Paul Craddock’s sections – he was the uncle of one of the survivors and events had a huge impact on him; and the way the religious fanatics twisted events to suit their own agenda. These parts actually felt scarily realistic.

I do think the ending let the book down slightly – I don’t know what I was expecting, but I wasn’t overseen on what happened. Nonetheless I still enjoyed the book overall and definitely look forward to reading more of Sarah Lotz’s work. ( )

Could not put it down. Sometimes creepy-scary doesn't do it for me; in this case, it really really does. The voices of the characters were unique. And I love me some ambiguity. ( )

I have never heard my own name spoken out loud so frequently. It felt weird. ( )

Before I ultimately write my own review, I like to run down the list and skim some of the others, just to get a feel of what's being said, as well as the overall consensus. It's interesting how many people ripped into this book for the exact reason I loved it.

This is not a book told in a conventional manner. It's collections of Skypes and tweets and transcripts and excerpts. The story is never direct. Instead, it's teased out, with clues dropped in one section, only to be explored in a completely different area. It's got an international cast.

And it's fascinating as hell.

I absolutely loved this book. I laughed at one review below where they wrote, in bold, I want my motherfucking mystery. I laughed at a second who wondered why this book was considered horror. I laughed, because had they read any of the novel, they would have clued in that there's mysteries wrapped in mysteries, and the horror, while quiet, is subversive. It creeps up on you without you ever hearing it.

So. I loved the characters. I loved the narrative device used to draw out the story. I loved the actual story. I loved everything about this novel.

Sarah Lotz, I now have to read everything you've written. Thanks, because I haven't even caught up on all the stuff Lauren Beukes has written, because she had the same effect on me after reading Broken Monsters.

It's nice to see intelligent horror making a comeback.
( )

2,5 stars really. A much more interesting idea than the delivery indicates. Nevertheless I finishedreading the book without much pain. Not what I would describe as horror. ( )