The reviews made this book sound a lot funnier than it really was. Not that I didn’t enjoy reading it, it’s just that it’s a preposterous plot, and it could be easy to get stuck talking about it. Which I guess is important since I’m sure you would like to know about the book you are about to read. It’s just that this book is more about the essence than it is about the plot, you know? Like, the author uses the strangeness as a way to get his message across. It’s a very carpe diem message about loving and living the life you were given, but also taking control of your happiness. He does this by creating a story about a man who should have died, but because he didn’t he has a ghost trailing him to figure out why he didn’t die. The ghost falls for this man’s ex, which confuses things. There is also a talking dog. And situations like time travel. Stephen King is quoted on the back and found it quite delightful (I’m paraphrasing). And it makes sense that Stephen King liked it, because it reminds me of some of King’s works, like Lisey’s Story, in that he uses strangeness as a means to an end. It was a fun book to read, but because of its goal to have us experience an idea rather than purely a story, it was a little denser to read than your typical beach book. But that’s what separates literature from Danielle Steel, I guess.
...and so the ghost says, I thought that was my hot dog!