Tyttö ja nauhuri

The book is praised for offering an intriguing glimpse into a specific historical period, particularly the 1970s and the era of President Urho Kaleva Kekkonen. Readers appreciated the meticulous documentation, noting the author's diligent collection of articles, photographs, messages, and work diary entries from her early career. For those interested in the history of journalism, the book provides insights into the working methods of the time. Many found the historical context and the portrayal of the Kekkonen era to be the most engaging aspects, especially once the President becomes a more central figure in the narrative.

However, a significant number of reviewers expressed disappointment, describing the book as superficial, disorganized, and lacking depth. Critics found it to be a tedious collection of names, events, and personal anecdotes rather than a cohesive narrative. It was often characterized as a fragmented and carelessly written account, appearing to be an unedited compilation of notes and diary entries from the author's early professional life. Some readers were also put off by the author's perceived self-confidence and ambition, as well as her portrayal of interactions with powerful figures, which some found irritating or even disturbing when viewed through a modern lens. The content was sometimes labeled as trivial or akin to gossip.

Overall, the book presents a mixed bag, offering both valuable historical context and frustrating structural issues. While it provides an interesting snapshot of the 1970s and the early career of a journalist during a politically significant era, its execution is widely criticized for being unfocused and superficial. This book would likely appeal most to readers with a strong existing interest in Finnish history, particularly the Urho Kaleva Kekkonen period, or those curious about the specifics of early 1970s journalism. However, readers seeking a well-structured, deeply analytical, or traditionally engaging narrative may find it challenging due to its perceived lack of editing and a tendency towards anecdotal rather than substantive content.