Yay or Nay?: Anna and the French Kiss (Novel)

Mini-Review: Meghan 

This is a book I’ve wanted to look at since I watched LilyCReads review this on YouTube. Needless to say, she didn’t really like it that much. 

I, too, have a lot of comments on this book. More than I possibly thought I would. Hence all the dog-eared pages…

Real-talk though. This was all the comments I could've written. 

THE STORY

Living in Atlanta, Anna Ophilant is forced to attend SOAP (School of America in Paris) at her father’s request. She works at a movie theatre, and may possibly have the beginnings of a romance with a co-worker. This all changes, of course, upon moving to France, where she meets Etienne St.Clair, a classmate of hers, who becomes her best friend, and possibly, something more. This changes when she realizes that he’s taken.

MY THOUGHTS

Actually, I really loved the story. Yes, I think some of it (specifically the school part) is unrealistic, but none the less, I loved it. It reminded me of my time in Europe, where I got the opportunity to explore Germany on my own. The sheer way that Perkins describes the lovely “City of Lights”, made it feel surreal, fantastical, and most importantly like I was actually there. I love books that can do this! Like, listen to this passage! 

“We turn a corner—there it is—the River Seine. The lights of the city bob in the ripples of the water. I suck in my breath. It’s gorgeous. Couples stroll along the riverbank, and booksellers have lined up dirty cardboard boxes of paperback books and old magazines for browsing. A man with a red beard strums a guitar and sings a sad song. We listen for a minute and St. Clair tosses a few Euros into the man’s guitar case…”—Pg. 82

Ah, Paris. 

Or this one…

“It’s a beautiful night. The lights of Paris are yellow and green and orange. The warm air swirls with the chatter of people in the streets and the clink of wine glasses in the restaurants…”—Pg. 74

This. This passage especially brought me back to my Euro-trip days. 

These, of course, are just a few of my favourites. This was what I felt the book did extremely well in. Description and dialogue seem flawless and natural. From the beginning, you’re yanked into its world. 

One line that really had me was when Anna first walked into her school’s cafeteria, saying how it wasn’t like “we” (I say we if you’ve lived in North America) imagine a cafeteria. It’s like a restaurant, she says. 

That may seem like a false statement to you, but I promise you it’s accurate as hell. 

Storytime: In Germany, I went to a certain University. I actually want to go study there one day (hoping my grad applications come through). I did go to their “cafeteria”, and it was, in fact, like a restaurant. They have a whole other thing going on in Europe. 

Trust me on that. 

When Etienne takes her for a late snack at a sandwich stand it’s “not like the limp sandwiches you get at Subway”. Again. True. 

Limp Sandwiches sound awful. And like a dirty joke.

So I think Stephanie Perkins has either done her research or, gone to Paris. I appreciate that. You do get a taste for European style through the book. Although I encourage you all to go see the real thing. 

I also appreciated the character development in the story. Specifically with Anna and Etienne. Throughout the story, you’re introduced to more and more layers of each character. Why they do the things they do, and why these people are shaped as they are. I found the most important theme of this novel was family. Especially in Etienne’s position (no spoilers!). 

On the same token, I did think it could be further explored on Anna’s end. Readers only see the crappy things in her life, and not much more. It seems too unrealistic, especially in one instance, where Anna comes back, and (without spoiling), finds out life has basically gone on without her. Those who’ve read it will know what I mean. She’s been building up to Christmas vacation, where she will go see her friend Bridgette, and her possible-maybe-trying-to-be-love-interest, Toph, perform with their band. 

Toph supposedly takes on the punk look. 

(Oh, I remember the days when I went to go see my friend's band perform. You think I’m joking-- I’m not. I got some free-merch out of it and everything. My friend and I joked that we were our friend’s band’s groupies.)

Well, things go down, and she gets angry and surprised that this has happened. And I’ll be honest, I understand the circumstances of why she acts the way she does. Yet, I wonder why she’s surprised that when she returns, things have changed. She’s been gone for months. You can’t expect to pick up where things left off. 

Which leads me to the biggest issue I have with this book. 

ANNA IS SUCH A COOKIE-CUTTER CHARACTER. 

In fact, much of the story does. It has a certain “fan-fiction” feel. That may be why I was drawn to it at first. I love fan-fiction, nothing against them. Yet, there was some cookie-cutter plot lines and characters, that at first, aren’t too noticeable, but do make you stop and go really? 

This is a double-edged sword for me. It really made it hard to decide if I thought this was a “good” novel, or a “bad” one. The passages I listed before I loved, but, in their own way, well, they’re not…real. Ugh, how to explain? Well, it all seems to good to be true. Anna gets to go to this awesome school—but she’s sad about it because it means leaving everything she knows (and her maybe-love-interest).

That’s a story literally everyone knows. Anna’s sad, her dad is and I quote “not cultured, but he is rich.” He’s an author. The rich girl cliché. 

She wants to be a film critic. She goes to all these film festivals, and the book makes a point to point out that she’s “real” and “vintage”. She wears these film T-Shirts, or vintage T-shirts, and scoffs at everyone who’s not…for better lack of a word here…as hipster as she is. Except for a girl who loves films and art…how do you not know Paris is the film appreciation capital of the world (I’m serious, she doesn’t know this, and to me that did bother me. This is your thing, girl! You should know!!)

In fact, most of the other characters in this story are either “side” characters, with little plot-development other than to cause drama (ie. Amanda), or support/shake some sense into our main character (Meredith, Josh, etc.). Even ‘Toph, who I expected to be in a band, well, he takes on the stereotype “punk-rocker” look. 

“He’s slashing at his guitar like he wants to use it for kindling and he has that angry punk rock scream, and his forehead and sideburns are already glistening with sweat. His pants are tight and bright blue plaid, something that NO ONE else I know could pull off, and it reminds me of his Blue Raspberry Mouth, and it’s so sexy I could die.”—Pg. 224

Firstly, I pictured something similar to this: 

Except, with blue plaid and "raspberry mouth". Idk. I used to be one of those kids in high school, I promise you the description in the book is stereotyped.

Secondly, this is Anna: 

Except, older and into boys that sound like a Blue Raspberry Slushie. 

Not gonna lie and say I wasn’t into guys like that when I was in high school. But, I almost died laughing at this. I was thinking “Goddamn, this can’t be him.”

Kinda a let-down. Oh well. 

As for Amanda. Yes, I didn’t like her (no surprise there). But to be fair, I wasn’t given a reason to. There’s nothing more to her character other than “she’s a bitch who hates Anna…for some reason?” 

And Etienne. Well, he’s British (surprise, every North American girl’s dream fantasy). Sometimes, it’s the only thing they mention about him. He’s British. Of course, this doesn’t happen often to him, as I was very impressed with what Perkins did with him. BUT, he is the stereotype gentleman. He takes Anna to these fantastic places like Pointe Zero, where he says this beautiful, dreamy, and poetically lovely line. Yeah, I liked this part too.

“Mademoiselle Oliphant. It translates to ‘Point Zero of the Roads of France’. In other words, it’s the point from which all other distances in France are measured.” St. Clair clears his throat. “It’s the beginning of everything.”

I look back up. He’s smiling. 

“Welcome to Paris, Anna. I’m so glad you’ve come.”—pg 84.

Swoon. 

He too seems like he wouldn’t really exist. Still, though, I wasn’t too taken aback by this. I actually enjoyed the flaws he has—that’s what does make him more realistic. I won’t say what they are because they’re integral (I think) to the story. 

The second half of the novel, after she returns to France is mostly wrapping up the drama. Shit very suddenly hits the fan. And it had me wrapped up in its claws. So good on that, although I think Anna and Etienne both became immature idiots. I don't think that’s worth saying it’s bad because I enjoyed it. Just know, shit hits the fan. 

YAY OR NAY? 

Overall, it’s a yay. 3.5-4 stars.

This book, granted, didn’t make me go “WOW HOLY SHIT I NEED THIS ON MY BEST BOOKS LIST”, but it was a nice way to spend a cloudy Sunday afternoon. It’s one of those books, I think, that’s good for clearing your mind and just letting some good, unadulterated fluff in. Even if maybe everything isn’t “completely” realistic, it’s still hinged on that boundary so you don’t notice it as much. I wouldn’t buy it myself, but I would definitely borrow it from my local library for a week. 

And hey, you can enjoy being sucked into the breathtaking views of Paris and the teenage romance and drama that we all remember angst-ing over in high school. 

Ah yes. Memories. 







Give us a follow @scrutinizingmasochists on Instagram and subscribe to our blog for more sassy reviews!


~Meghan