Disclaimer by Renee Knight

Imagine opening up a novel and discovering you are the main character. An intriguing premise that is brilliantly executed, Disclaimer blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction. Told from two points of view and with several timelines, the book contains two novels—a story within the story. 

Twenty years after a family vacation, Catherine finds a book on her nightstand and is shocked to read about herself and a secret she has kept since that time. When her husband and son are gifted copies of the book, Catherine fears they will recognize that it is about her. Forced to relive the past, Catherine seeks out the author to get answers. Meanwhile, the author, Stephen, reflects on what led to the writing of the book and stalks Catherine with the intent of having her meet the same destiny as his character—an untimely and unexpected death.

The book was initially a slow burn for me, with author Renee Knight building the background of Catherine’s decades old secret side by side with Stephen’s reason for exposing it. The two points of view are cleverly written, with a distinct voice for each main character, one in the third person and one in the first. Past and present tenses are employed to blend their perspectives in this well-crafted tale of how one person’s actions can be construed in totally different ways. As the complex layers of both stories are unravelled, Catherine and Stephen have a profound effect on each other, their careers, and their families. As the book progressed, the pace quickened exponentially with each chapter as the truth was revealed. 

Being an avid reader and a writer of thrillers, I did NOT guess the twist(s) in this book. Like waves on the shore, one twist followed another, burying in the sand everything I thought I knew about what happened all those years ago. A spell-binding psychological thriller about grief and revenge, Disclaimer’s 360 degree turn will leave you with one question the next time you pick up a novel: Should you believe that ‘any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental’?