**SPOILER-FREE until noted otherwise**

This book provides a lovely new lens on the human condition, using exclusively letter writing as our window. It wonderfully communicates the “transformative power of the written word and the beauty of slowing down to reconnect with the people we love” as advertised. I applaud the author for creatively finding ways to tell Sybil’s story vial letters/emails in ways that filled the gaps but still felt natural; that cannot have always come easily.

Sybil Van Antwerp lives her life in letters, and as someone who spent her youth in letters and strives to write more as an adult, I adore that aspect. Like Sybil, I have written to famous authors and been delighted to occasionally receive letters back. The introspection on slowing down to write letters is simply not possible in typing, and I loved the reverence of that presented here.

Guilt and grief make repeated appearances (as they does in all our lives) and this is especially well-handled. She conveys her feelings about these losses in a way that is poignant and relatable, and I suspect most readers revere this book most for its ability to connect through the heartbreak conveyed.

Although I did have some disconnects (in SPOILER section below), I was glad to have read this book. I’m not sure if I’ll revisit it, but I reveled in its joy of slow connection and intentionality of written word.

Audiobook: The narrator(s) were very good, but if I had to do it over again, I would definitely choose print. Hearing the addresses of emails narrated repeatedly turns the charm of the epistolary format sour. It just makes sense to read on paper (if able) when the in-story format is letter-writing.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****

The drama with D.M. was badly executed and ultimately gratuitous “plot.” The fact that this stalker knew where she lived and made threatening remarks and vandalized her property, and she was able to diffuse that malignant obsession with one letter that effectively said, “I remember you. Yes, I should have done better on your case” felt unrealistic and unsatisfying. And the fact that we, as readers, are supposed to think it’s a good idea for this judge to have ruled in D.M.’s favor based on sentiments presented by his assistant OUTSIDE of the courtroom, blows my mind. If a judge is basing his decisions on the known facts of the case and the law, one emotional off-the-record appeal from his assistant **who is not legally authorized to represent the parties** should not reverse his intended ruling… even in the 70’s. The guilt that both Sybil and D.M. place on her shoulders is WILDLY disproportionate to how much influence she could have even had in such a case.