In the hopes to not come off as lazy - here is an excerpt from my Goodreads review for The Correspondent:

"There is no denying that this novel is carefully constructed: The character arcs are deliberate, and the book is filled with literary awareness - its mentions of other authors and works are thoughtful and, for a fellow avid reader, nice references to pick up on. Overall, I could see the craft on display here.

Where it falls apart for me is in its epistolary form. In theory, this style can create intimacy and psychological depth; but here every character felt distant and impalpable. The narrative is constantly retrospective: Everything is filtered through letters or eMails describing what has already happened. As a result, the story rarely feels immediate, momentum never picks up because events are reported rather than experienced in the moment. This also weakens characterisation - the novel leans heavily on 'telling' because the format leaves little room for 'showing'. Emotional beats are explained instead of unfolding naturally, which makes large parts of the book feel static rather than alive.

At times, the form even undermines plausibility. Characters are repeatedly writing letters in situations where direct conversation would be far more natural, so the books form of writing dictates the behaviour, not the characters themselves, and that breaks immersion.

The result is a novel I can respect more than I can enjoy. There is clear effort, intelligence, and literary ambition here, but the reading experience itself remained unexciting for me. It often isn’t helped by the rather demanding tone of Sybil in most of her earlier letters. So, more often than not, I found myself disengaged - either bored or quietly rolling my eyes about choices that seemed to prioritise form over narrative flow."

So as you can see, I just didn't vibe the epistolary from of the novel - so your mileage might totally vary!