We Could Be So Good

03 · Reader evidence

What the evidence says

What readers repeatedly liked

• Complex Characters. Characters are described as complex, real, and human; The book is noted for its realistic characters, contrasted favorably against other books; Characters are well-rounded, genuine, fresh, and unique, feeling like real people you would meet in regular life. Supported by 6 sources (source 487, source 492, source 10760, source 10763, source 10764, source 10765).
• Emotional. The book evokes the bodily feeling of falling in love, unlike anything the reader has experienced before; The emotional feeling of the story stayed with the reader over a year after reading; The story is heartbreaking, uplifting, and utterly delightful in its ordinariness. Supported by 5 sources (source 492, source 10760, source 10763, source 10764, source 11306).
• Strong Prose. Writing described as beautiful, lyrical, and insightful; third-person present tense works perfectly for the story; The writing is described as intelligent; Reader was blown away by the quality of the writing. Supported by 4 sources (source 491, source 10763, source 10764, source 10765).
• Rich Worldbuilding. The 1950s Manhattan setting is vivid and personally meaningful to the reader; The 1950s New York setting is superbly depicted with a wonderful eye for historical detail; the city feels almost like a character; The 1950s newsroom setting is well-researched and convincing. Supported by 4 sources (source 10760, source 10763, source 10764, source 10765).
• Character Growth. Andy grows from a clueless son into a capable reporter who steps up to take over the paper; both leads muddle through personal struggles believably; Both leads’ personal growth was praised; The story is driven by both leads’ growth as individuals and a pair. Supported by 3 sources (source 491, source 492, source 10763).
• Humorous. The writing features lots of gentle humor; The touches of humor were praised; The wry, gentle humor was praised. Supported by 3 sources (source 491, source 492, source 10763).
• Tender. The relationship evolves in a sweet and tender way; Reader is enjoying how sweet and tender the book is, noting this is especially notable for a 1950s setting; The character-centered romance was described as lovely and delicate. Supported by 3 sources (source 491, source 10763, source 11306).
• Friends To Lovers. The romance develops through a slow drift from strangers to friends to more; The friends-to-lovers progression was praised as organic and believable. Supported by 2 sources (source 492, source 10760).
• Easy Comfort Read. One of reader’s comfort novels due to the soothing domesticity; Reader describes the book as a very comforting read. Supported by 2 sources (source 10765, source 11306).
• Healthy Communication. The book is cited as having a healthy relationship, contrasted favorably against other books; The leads develop forthright openness about feelings. Supported by 2 sources (source 492, source 10760).
• Cozy. The book is atmospheric and all about the little things, with easy domesticity between the leads; Immersive in a cozy way with soothing domesticity. Supported by 2 sources (source 10763, source 10765).
• Hopeful. The author balances the sadness of forced secrecy with the joy of two people finding each other and building a life together; Doesn’t make it overwhelmingly traumatic or gloomy, with gallows humor and a ‘we have each other’ attitude; Refuses to make the book a sad story despite incorporating heavier themes and historical homophobia. Supported by 2 sources (source 10763, source 10765).

What readers repeatedly flagged

No caution repeated across two substantive sources in the current evidence set.

Where reader reactions differ

• Emotional. The book evokes the bodily feeling of falling in love, unlike anything the reader has experienced before; The emotional feeling of the story stayed with the reader over a year after reading; The story is heartbreaking, uplifting, and utterly delightful in its ordinariness. Supported by 5 sources (source 492, source 10760, source 10763, source 10764, source 11306).

Individual observations

• Likable Lead. The leads are marvelous, compelling, and easy to care about.
• Trauma. Doesn’t entirely gloss over homophobia but doesn’t make it overwhelmingly traumatic; Fear of being outed is present as internal struggle and background realism, not as plot device to torture characters.
• Hea. The review explicitly identifies an HEA.
• Explicit Recommendation. Reader also absolutely loved Peter Cabot Gets Lost by Cat Sebastian.
• Well Paced. The pacing is praised as very good.
• Emotional Intimacy. The care and support the leads show each other—making soup, cuddling, bringing flowers—is lovely and their domestic bliss is the highlight.
• Found Family. The book emphasizes both found and biological family showing the leads they are loved no matter what.
• Weak Communication. The MCs have different approaches to dealing with fear of exposure, creating natural conflict between them.
• Balanced Romance Plot. Romance is a main focus but the setting and plot provide additional substance without being plot-heavy.
• Weak Plot. The NYPD corruption subplot was expected to be more prominent; the book is acknowledged as not plotty, though the reviewer concludes the romance focus made the most sense.

Reader sources

1. Reddit discussion
2. Reddit discussion
3. dearauthor.com – Independent review
4. smartbitchestrashybooks.com – Independent review
5. Reddit discussion
6. allaboutromance.com – Independent review
7. Reddit discussion
8. Reddit discussion
9. Reddit discussion