|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
195373605X
| 9781953736055
| B098BPBBPR
| 3.68
| 171
| Aug 20, 2021
| Aug 20, 2021
|
Okay, so this collection is brilliant and fascinating, and I am going to flail through trying to talk about it because I’m not great at talking about
Okay, so this collection is brilliant and fascinating, and I am going to flail through trying to talk about it because I’m not great at talking about poetry anyway. And there’s always this slightly complicated dynamic when you’re talking about work by Black creators, in that you want to support and celebrate the work and meet it where it’s at, without appropriating it or trying to make where it’s at all about you and your whiteness. I guess a good place to start with this is that SFF has long had a Lovecraft problem: in the sense that his writing is seen as fundamental to our understanding of horror and has shaped the genre inescapably. (My favourite goddamn boardgame is Lovecraft-inspired) But he’s also, and there’s no way of saying this sensitively, like … racist. Like next level racist. Which I’m not saying to demonstrate my amazing sensitive allyness: it’s just kind of … a fact that, while we’ve got better at pretending it isn’t there, or it doesn’t matter, must be all kinds of fucked up to navigate around if you’re a Black SFF writer. Though, of course, there’s an also a burgeoning collection of work that exists directly to address this (The Ballad of Black Tom, She Walks in Shadows both spring to mind) and I think it is to these texts (as well as to Black art and culture more generally, for example in its hip hop influences), over and above Problematic Uncle Howie, that Can You Sign My Tentacle is most explicitly in dialogue. There’s a lot going on, both whimsical and serious, in Can You Sign My Tentacle but its central conceit is this: what if these unspeakable monstrosities that exist primarily as manifestations of some white guy’s fear of the known were just, like, super fans of Black artists? The opening poem is called ‘Hastur Asks for Donald Glover’s Autograph’. Which, y’know, if that amuses the hell out of you, then this collection will not disappoint. For all the significance of its themes, essentially positing Black significance as both defense against and answer to Lovecraft’s terror of cosmic insignificance, these poems are deliciously playful. Unabashedly weird. It is rare, I think, to find something that engages so uniquely—so transformatively—with the mythos (and I say this as someone who often digs through Lovecraft’s pockets when I’m writing). I think the other thing that this collection serves to highlight—and the author discusses this in the note at the end (something that white readers will probably find illuminating to read first)—is, like, just how fucking privileged do you have to be for “fear of the unknown” to have such an overwhelming effect on you. I mean, the rest of us have plenty to fear from the shit we do know. Couple this with the idea that insignificance in the face of arbitrarily powerful ‘others’ that aren’t like you and don’t care about is, when you get right down it, what living with a marginalised identity is like. And so what you get here are a collection of poems that speak far more to human nature, identity and the monsters we create for ourselves than Lovecraft ever could. It’s always really difficult to play favourites with a poetry collection because I feel if a collection is put together carefully enough the placement becomes, well, kind of its own poem really: there’s another journey here, with its own rise and fall, and its emotional resonances. And this is definitely true of Can You Sign My Tentacle. There is such precision here, not just in the construction of each poem individually, but in how the poem is placed among its fellows. But, for me, some of the highlights include: because who she is matters more than her words; the lagahoo speaks for itself; That Business They Call Utopia, Part Two; time and time again; Young Poet Just Misses Getting MF DOOM’s Autograph. Really, this is just a stunning piece of art. While every poem is unlikely to work for every reader—and if you’re white then they’re explicitly written within and speaking to a cultural framework that doesn’t include you (and, y’know, that’s okay, we’ve apparently got Lovecraft)—there’s still something really bold, charming and very much worth experiencing here. It will take me a while, I think, to fully understand the depth and breadth of these poems. But given how much Lovecraft shit I’ve consumed down the years? That feels fair enough. Merged review: Okay, so this collection is brilliant and fascinating, and I am going to flail through trying to talk about it because I’m not great at talking about poetry anyway. And there’s always this slightly complicated dynamic when you’re talking about work by Black creators, in that you want to support and celebrate the work and meet it where it’s at, without appropriating it or trying to make where it’s at all about you and your whiteness. I guess a good place to start with this is that SFF has long had a Lovecraft problem: in the sense that his writing is seen as fundamental to our understanding of horror and has shaped the genre inescapably. (My favourite goddamn boardgame is Lovecraft-inspired) But he’s also, and there’s no way of saying this sensitively, like … racist. Like next level racist. Which I’m not saying to demonstrate my amazing sensitive allyness: it’s just kind of … a fact that, while we’ve got better at pretending it isn’t there, or it doesn’t matter, must be all kinds of fucked up to navigate around if you’re a Black SFF writer. Though, of course, there’s an also a burgeoning collection of work that exists directly to address this (The Ballad of Black Tom, She Walks in Shadows both spring to mind) and I think it is to these texts (as well as to Black art and culture more generally, for example in its hip hop influences), over and above Problematic Uncle Howie, that Can You Sign My Tentacle is most explicitly in dialogue. There’s a lot going on, both whimsical and serious, in Can You Sign My Tentacle but its central conceit is this: what if these unspeakable monstrosities that exist primarily as manifestations of some white guy’s fear of the known were just, like, super fans of Black artists? The opening poem is called ‘Hastur Asks for Donald Glover’s Autograph’. Which, y’know, if that amuses the hell out of you, then this collection will not disappoint. For all the significance of its themes, essentially positing Black significance as both defense against and answer to Lovecraft’s terror of cosmic insignificance, these poems are deliciously playful. Unabashedly weird. It is rare, I think, to find something that engages so uniquely—so transformatively—with the mythos (and I say this as someone who often digs through Lovecraft’s pockets when I’m writing). I think the other thing that this collection serves to highlight—and the author discusses this in the note at the end (something that white readers will probably find illuminating to read first)—is, like, just how fucking privileged do you have to be for “fear of the unknown” to have such an overwhelming effect on you. I mean, the rest of us have plenty to fear from the shit we do know. Couple this with the idea that insignificance in the face of arbitrarily powerful ‘others’ that aren’t like you and don’t care about is, when you get right down it, what living with a marginalised identity is like. And so what you get here are a collection of poems that speak far more to human nature, identity and the monsters we create for ourselves than Lovecraft ever could. It’s always really difficult to play favourites with a poetry collection because I feel if a collection is put together carefully enough the placement becomes, well, kind of its own poem really: there’s another journey here, with its own rise and fall, and its emotional resonances. And this is definitely true of Can You Sign My Tentacle. There is such precision here, not just in the construction of each poem individually, but in how the poem is placed among its fellows. But, for me, some of the highlights include: because who she is matters more than her words; the lagahoo speaks for itself; That Business They Call Utopia, Part Two; time and time again; Young Poet Just Misses Getting MF DOOM’s Autograph. Really, this is just a stunning piece of art. While every poem is unlikely to work for every reader—and if you’re white then they’re explicitly written within and speaking to a cultural framework that doesn’t include you (and, y’know, that’s okay, we’ve apparently got Lovecraft)—there’s still something really bold, charming and very much worth experiencing here. It will take me a while, I think, to fully understand the depth and breadth of these poems. But given how much Lovecraft shit I’ve consumed down the years? That feels fair enough. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
not set
not set
|
Sep 20, 2021
not set
|
Sep 17, 2024
|
ebook
| ||||||||||||||||
9798857497074
| B0CFD4KLW9
| 4.07
| 307,025
| Aug 15, 2023
| Aug 14, 2023
|
Source of book: NG (jesus wept am I behind on my queue) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or Source of book: NG (jesus wept am I behind on my queue) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. --- So, I think my main take away from Butcher and Blackbird is that I could not be romantically involved with a disorganised serial killer. Like, I lose my shit when my partner leaves a teaspoon out after making a cup of tea. I could not be doing with someone who regularly punches people to death in a fit of feral rage. Just the thought of the mess that would cause is making my toes twitch. I need my murders to be like my cutlery drawer: precise, ordered, in their place, very clean. Anyway, this is a damn charming book, as long as (and this is a serious 'as long as') you're comfortable with the premise--which is that it's two serial killers who fall in love while engaged in a series of murder games with each other. There's a responsibly long list of content warnings in the front (or on the author's website) and you should probably check them before reading because while the violence mostly has a kind of stylised, tongue-in-cheek, hyper-real quality (think The Boys or Preacher) it's also pretty hardcore. Personally, I appreciated that. I mean, not the violence for its own sake, but if you're going to write a romance about a pair of serial killers, then you might as well go for it. And, say what you like about this book, nobody could accuse the author of not going for it. At least most of the time. Obviously there's moral complexities here, especially given the typical gender breakdown of serial killers versus victims of serial killers, and the messy place serial killers occupy in the cultural imagination. But one of my favourite TV shows of all time is Hannibal so I am not the person to unpick them. Or rather, I could unpick them but it would an act of arrant hypocrisy. Then again, Butcher and Blackbird is clearly drawing heavily on those TV-show Hannibal vibes and, while I'm not trying to claim romantic murder for the queers, I think it's worth, y'know, pondering the ponderables when one of the ur-texts of a particular genre or subgenre explicitly exists as an exploration of a specific marginalised identity and what it means when that dimension is lost, forgotten or stripped away. Or maybe it doesn't mean anything because I can over-think a can of beans and Butcher and Blackbird is one of those books that doesn't necessarily benefit from over-thinking. It does, however, benefit for enjoying the ride. And, you know what, I did enjoy the ride. Sloane Sutherland aka Blackbird is a serial killer who preys on serial killers, presenting their corpses in an artistic, eye-less way, strung up on fishing wire, earning her the nickname the Orb Weaver. Having accidentally locked herself in a cage with the decomposing body of her latest target (girl, how? what even?) she is rescued by Rowan Kane aka Butcher, another serial killer who, you guessed it, preys on serial killers. Instantly intrigued, attracted and suspicious of each other, they nevertheless agree to a yearly murder game, as organised by Rowan's equally murderous brother. Needless to say, the murder games bring them together, teach them about each other, and they fall in love--presumably going on to live murderously ever after. I mean (semi spoilers but it's a romance--it's not what happens that's important, it's how) the final chapter of the book is them in full serial killer swing. And frankly I wish more m/f romances ended like this instead of leaving the central couple staring goopily into a cradle since I can't be the only person in the world who would much rather commit a murder with someone than raise a child. Butcher and Blackbird is an interesting piece of work, straddling as it does between contemporary romance and dark romance and managing, in my humble opinion, to blend them seamlessly into something uniquely appealing. It wasn't, in the end, quite the book I thought it was going to be--I was expecting something a touch more thriller-ish--but I ended up liking what it was. For a book about, like, serial killers, there's remarkably little tension here. Rowan and Sloane are mistrustful of each other for barely a chapter but, in reality, there's very little true antagonism between them. The so-called murder game is mostly an excuse for them to meet up over a little light homicide and neither of them, for a single on-page second, seem concerned about ... y'know. Law enforcement? DNA evidence? If serial killing was as easy-breezy as this book makes it seem, we'd probably all be doing it. The murder game itself is also a little lacklustre. Essentially Rowan's Murder Sibling tells them a place and the first to do a murder wins, but what that comes down to, textually-speaking, is a couple of entertaining set-pieces. I mean, I appreciated the set-pieces (they each pay homage to a particular flavour, so to speak, of fictionalised serial killer--one of them being a riff on Hannibal, another the Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc.), it's just when I'm promised a game, I'm looking for a *game*. This might well be my own brand of psychopathy coming to fore but I kind of thought I'd see more genuine competition between Rowan and Sloane or at least a little more, you know, of the logistical side of serial killer identification, tracking and murder prep. Not that I was looking for a how-to or anything, only I think I got a deeper sense of how Rowan runs his restaurant business than how the pair of them did their serial killing. Then again, I think the book has to make some careful choices around its premise. We do, after all, have to be able to relate to both Rowan and Sloane, and most serial killers are ... well not relatable, for very, very good reasons. More to the point, we have to believe they're sufficiently in control of their darkest impulses that they're not going to, like, flip out and murder each other the first time one of them has a rough day. And then, on top of that, there's the whole issue of trauma to navigate. That Rowan and Sloane have been, to an overwhelming degree, shaped by traumatic events is necessary to keep them as sympathetic protagonists but, equally, dwelling on that could have felt exploitative, gratuitous, or just unbalanced the tone of the book--from the delicate to chiaroscuro that it is to dark AF. For the most part, I felt this was very well-judged. As readers we learn what we need to understand about who Rowan and Sloane are, and where their murderous needs have come from, but it isn't foregrounded or explored in detail. I did, at times, feel slightly iffier about Rowan, since--as far as I can tell--his deal is that his father was physically abusive. And I under no circumstances wish to downplay the significance of this (seriously, I'm not about to get hyper personal in book review but I do kinda know what I'm talking about here) but I ended up feeling therapy would have done more for him than a history of murder. Also isn't it kind of time for the "drunk abusive Irishman" trope itself to be thoroughly serial killed. It's, uh, a little bit racist. I also think gender might be playing into this a little awkwardly. Obviously both Rowan and Sloane suffered abuse at times in their life when they were disempowered and unable to seek help, but with Sloane living in the world as a woman that's kind of an on-going issue, culturally-speaking. Given that somewhere in the region of 70% of serial killer victims are, um, women there's something both fucked up and poignant about Sloane's commitment to preying-on-predators. Arguably there are more useful ways to protect victims, but I understood why Sloane's experiences at the hands of a serial abuser would specifically manifest in a vengeance crusade against serial killers. Rowan, by contrast, is basically just psycho-Batman (well, more psycho Batman). And maybe that's hot, I don't know? But essentially Daddy hurt him as a kid and now he goes around murdering people in fits of bestial rage, nominally so nobody has to go through what he went through? Except serial killers and men who beat their children are a different category of terrible human being, and there would be more direct ways to actually make a difference in the lives of children in abusive situations than by murdering people whose victims are--statistically speaking--somewhat more likely to be adult women. Oh fuck, I said I wasn't going to overthink this. But overthinking is kind of my love language. The reality is that both Sloane and Rowan are fantastically likeable characters. Because of the already-discussed need to have them remain plausible as romantic leads we could root for, they're not necessarily super deep and some of the more potentially troubling aspects of their characters are elided. For example, we see Rowan do his murderous rage thing early on, and then his violence is solely used protectively--which, I think, helps the reader come to peace with the fact we're dealing with a violently impulsive criminal here, ain't he dreamy--and neither character seems notably inconvenienced by their apparently overwhelming need to kill, which is sort of like writing a book about drug addicts who only need to shoot up when it's plot convenient for them to do it. Also let me clear, that this is not a *criticism* - God knows I don't want to read a book about realistically depicted serial killers getting it on. I think I'm just interested from a, y'know, semi-professional standpoint about how a book like this is constructed and the choices and compromises it needs to make to be functional. And not, like, gross. Because it's not gross (I mean, okay there's definitely gross moments but they're deliberate). It's genuinely delightful and I had a lovely time with it. I think I also probably gave it more passes than I might have done otherwise because the central characters were serial killers--so a lot of the straight romance bullshit that I normally find confusing at best and alienating at worse, I was able to file under "oh, but they're literal psychopaths so it's fine." I also ended up really liking Rowan but in a way that made me wonder if I have been implicitly operating under the assumption that most straight rom heroes are basically serial killers anyway. I mean, possessive, violent, shredded to filth, and sexually aggressive seems to come as an expected part of the package. But Rowan also brings some hardcore pining, a capacity for genuinely romantic gestures, and a willingness to be consistently outshone by his womanz so, y'know, progress? Also, the chemistry between Sloane and Rowan is chef's kiss. It does get fairly, ah, spicy up in there, as I believe the young ones are saying. I wouldn't say full on dark rom spicy but spicier than your average contemp. To be honest, I was just glad to read a sex scene in a contemporary-adjacent romance that broke the mould a little (since the current trend seems to follow an unwavering pattern of "he goes down to prove he's one of the good ones, she goes on top to prove she's sexually empowered, he flips her over and finishes on top to prove he's still a real man" - eyeroll) but I did find Rowan and Sloane's sexual dynamic (as much as I enjoyed it) intersected in slightly complicated ways with their trauma. I mean, we have a violent man whose childhood was shaped by physical abuse, in the dominant role, and a woman whose boundaries were eroded through long-term sexual abuse in the submissive one. Don't get me wrong, Sloane is very actively consenting to all of it, and I'm definitely not claiming kink is inherently linked to trauma, or that people who have undergone trauma cannot enjoy kink, and definitely definitely not saying it isn't hot, but ... I think, for me, part of the problem was it was only hot? And, wow, is "the sex scenes were only hot" a first world problem of erotic writing. But, purely personally (and this is very much about my personal preference, not about a flaw in the book), if I'm looking for something only hot I won't be seeking it in fiction--so I tend to be most interested in sex scenes when they're doing emotional and character work as much as, perhaps even more than, delivering the spice. Basically with Rowan and Sloane, while I was happy they finally got to bang each other (Rowan makes a big deal about the fact he waited four years for it - classy, my dude), I kind of wish there'd be more emotional development around it. Especially because we have two characters here for whom vulnerability is so terribly, terribly charged. Again, I'm very much not saying the book did fucking wrong. And I can certainly see that there's something emotionally satisfying in the idea that Sloane and Rowan have reached a point where they can give their bodies to each other in perfect trust and harmony (and where the only conversation required is "what's your safe word"). It's just that, as a reader, I'm usually looking for sex to be part of that journey, rather than merely its culmination. The thing is though, while not everything about Butcher and Blackbird ended up hitting for me--the writing is a little raw in places, which I skipped over because I initially assumed it was a debut, the bants (and this is personal taste again) sometimes fell flat or felt like it was trying a little too hard, and it's best if you don't think too hard about the ethical implications of what's going on (Sloane and Rowan are damaged by their trauma in nuanced ways, but each of the serial killers they gruesomely take out is a cartoon monster)--it ultimately worked for me as a kind of ... romantic allegory I guess? Dancing deftly on the border of light and dark, it speaks rather poignantly to the experience of finding love and understanding when you feel like a lonely, broken monster. Which I think everyone does, or has, at some point. Um, right? It's probably a weird thing to say about a book about serial killers but there's a sweet and sincere heart to Butcher and Blackbird; I may have come for the murder games, but it was that, in the end, I stayed for. I also learned that I find involuntary cannibalism hilarious but puppet shows with corpses significantly less so. So that's a thing. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
1529095352
| 9781529095357
| 1529095352
| 2.89
| 18,737
| Jan 09, 2024
| Jan 09, 2024
|
Source of book: Bought for m'self Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without expl Source of book: Bought for m'self Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. --- Welp. I'm honestly not sure where to begin. So, there's a lot of, um, feelings in the reviews of this book and I guess whether you end up having a lot of feelings about it yourself will depend, to some degree, what you think (or have decided) this series *is.* I suspect if you're looking for coherent plotting or sound thinking as regards the philosophy of physics then you're going to be somewhat disappointed. You may also be disappointed if you were looking for a meaningful resolution to the inherent inequities of dark academia as an aesthetic and a genre. You're definitely definitely going to be disappointed if all you really want is to see two cute gayboys of your choosing hold hands under a rainbow. If, however, like me, you can come to terms with the notion that a bunch of things you *may* initially have found interesting about these books aren't necessarily what the series was ever intended to be about then there's a modicum of emotional closure here. Is it worth the slog to get there? If you'd have asked me that question at the 40% mark of The Atlas Complex I'd have told you no. If you asked me at the 70% I'd have told you possibly. If you're asking me now, I'm telling you I just don't fucking know. I should say before I get into it (and spoiler warning for the series and the final book in particular), I do understand why the subsequent Atlas books wouldn't, and indeed couldn't, be like The Atlas Six. A6 was a claustrophobic psycho-sexual thriller with overtones of dark academia and a murder game at its centre. It was full of little mysteries. It had endless leeway to obsessively detail the fucked up interpersonal dynamics of its major characters. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, lightning in a bottle. Literally impossible to follow. And this has nothing to do with Blake's skill as a writer. Once you've done your claustrophobic murder game, you have to expand the world, find another way to up the stakes. And that can be interesting, for sure, but it's never going to be as fascinating, as tense, and as compulsively readable as the initial setup. Again, let me reiterate, this isn't about Blake. I feel the same about The Hunger Games trilogy. The first book gripped me, the second book mildly disappointed me, the third book lost me, even though I fully recognise that what Collins was doing with the second and third books was vastly more ambitious in both scope and complexity than what was going in the original Hunger Games. Or, y'know, maybe I'm just a sick fuck who loves a (fictional) murder game. Anyway, if we take as read--as I think we must--that neither The Atlas Paradox nor The Atlas Complex was going to be, nor were intended to be, "like" The Atlas Six, I can see that the trilogy as a whole is doing some stuff. It has some shit to say. There are themes. There is even some degree of resolution and catharsis on offer for those willing to take it. Unfortunately--as as ever, this is just my perspective--none of this comes together coherently. Partially by design, I think, given we're playing with multiverses here. But also in ways that, deliberate or not, wound up being ultimately pretty frustrating. The second book, for example, is almost completely pointless. Or rather, it exists to motivate Libby's actions in the third book, which don't make a whole lot of sense anyway. But I increasingly feel this series could have worked as a duology and perhaps could have worker better as one. And, yes, yes I know all three books are first and foremost a set of intensely intricate character studies, and what actually happens is much less important than the impact it has on the protagonists. Unfortunately this kind of has diminishing returns over the course of two books of stalling, introspection and avoidance, and what started out as as kind of exuberant maximalism in A6 has become undisciplined and bloated by the halfway point of The Atlas Complex. There's also bit towards the end of The Atlas Complex where Libby thinks to herself: "How ridiculous that Atlas had once sat within these walls reading The Tempest when it had been Hamlet all along!" And I nearly threw the book at the wall, I felt so fucking trolled. Because I'm honestly not the biggest fan of Hamlet, a play about an self-absorbed man who does nothing for three hours, and then murders everyone pointlessly. And this is essentially what we get in The Atlas Complex: a book about six self-absorbed people who do nothing for five hundred pages. And, no, it doesn't help that this was what I was set up for this from the beginning. And, yes, I do understand that it's a book about people, not about events. But it's not until the 50% mark of The Atlas Complex that we get any character development at all, further contributing to my sense that book 2 was little more than water treading. I'm not saying that an Atlas duology (with the second book consisting of a compressed version of book 2 and the latter half of book 2) would be a better series. But it would certainly make me feel less like my time was being wasted. Okay, I think that's all I can say without spoiling the book. Time to get into it. Libby has come back from the 70s thanks to nuclear-powered time travel. This means the archives haven't received their blood sacrifice. The 6 are bodding about doing their own things: Tristram is brooding, Nico is kissing Gideon, Parisa is discovering Dalton is hideously and irredeemably broken, Reina and Callum are trying half-arsedly to influence world politics. The Forum are ... there? As for Atlas, he's MIA, though we learn this is because because Libby killed him in order to prevent him destroying the world. Everyone spends about 200 pages dancing fruitlessly around each other, naval gazing and wondering if they should do Atlas's multiverse experiment anyway. They decide to do Atlas's experiment anyway. Halfway through Atlas's experiment Libby realises this is a bad idea, bounces a graviton particle beam of the main deflector dish, and kills Nico. The Forum try to invade the Alexandrian society. Parisa and Gideon have a big psychic battle with Dalton and the Forum inside Dalton's crumbling mind palace. This is cool but pointless because Callum then shoots Dalton in the head. Tristram's dad abducts him. Callum runs to his rescue and gets shot. Tristram later takes out James Wessex (who is also the guy to whom Gideon's mum was indebted--though she's killed in, like, chapter 2, so add that subplot to the pile of pointlessness). Reina is sad she is maybe not a god and maybe ends up with Parisa. And, yeah. That's it. Which, you know, to be fair, I think would have been okay had it not taken us the entirety of Paradox and most of Complex to meander our way there. But, also, I don't want my frustrations with the format and the approach to diminish my genuine love for these characters, even though it's a love as complicated as the love they have for each other, in that a lot of the time it feels a lot more like irritation. Parisa is wonderful in this book. Just wonderful. She gets moments to shine, moments to acknowledge her own vulnerability and--best of all--moments to grow. To be fair, most of them do, it's just that, for me, she's the character who has the most cohesive emotional arc. Like, I feel I understand all her actions, even the self-destructive ones (like shacking up with Dalton), and, for me, there was a measurable progression from the Parisa we meet in book 1 to the Parisa we part ways with in book 3. Callum, who I've always had a soft spot for, I also felt had got a fully realised and recognisable arc: the scene before his death, where he's surrendering to the general mortification of love and willing to give it all to Tristram, is gorgeously executed and is so completely Callum: He wouldn’t kill Tristan with a knife, he’d kill him with such cherishing. He’d offer to take Tristan to the movies, he’d feed him grapes, he’d brush his hair. He’d make a meal for him, the kind his mother had always insisted on when she was in a good mood, food that was meant to be eaten with leisure. He’d peel an orange for Tristan, share the slices of a clementine, drizzle him with honey. It would be embarrassing and he wouldn’t die of humiliation. He would simply live with the providence of it—the sacred proffering of shame. Although I will note that I felt the impact of this scene was somewhat diminished for me by the fact Gideon expresses very similar sentiments about Nico literally a few chapters later: Nico’s brow arched with prompting and Gideon, wretched and helpless—Gideon, little motherfuck that he was, a true idiot prince—wanted nothing more than to sink to his knees and kiss Nico’s feet. He wanted to buy Nico’s groceries, to write Nico poetry, to sing Nico the songs of his people in terrible Spanish and passable French. He wanted midnights in Brooklyn, golden hour in a galley kitchen, coffee with cream. Of course, maybe this is deliberate parallelism--a more general statement about the humiliating banality of love's power to overthrow you as a unique and rational being--but it just felt repetitive and diminishing to me in the moment. I mean, you can't get two characters more unlike each other than Callum and Gideon--I literally don't think they have a single interaction across three books--and yet they both characterise the experience of love in almost identical terms? Or are both these sections simply sop for shippers--a forced nod towards romantic conventionality in a series that is otherwise deeply cynical. At this point, I don't even know any more. And, oh look, I've drifted back into complaining. But please don't mistake me: to return to my original point, I deeply and sincerely adored the moments of true character development that finally unfurled in the second half of The Atlas Complex. The personal revelations. The honest-at-last conversations between Tristram and Callum, Libby and Nico, that really really fucking needed to happen. Was it enough, though, to give shape to a book that is otherwise little more than a pile of themes and ideas? Again, I just don't know. Thematically, at least, I think you can get something reasonably coherent from The Atlas Complex (though, again, is theme enough to support an entire novel? It feels kind of like trying to build a house on metatext). As I've seen other reviewers point out, ultimately this is a series about damaged twenty-somethings given access to nearly-unlimited power and nearly-unlimited resources, and needs to be understood in that context. In fact, I would go so far as to say The Atlas Complex foregrounds this idea pretty damn explicitly--for example in this scene where Libby and Tristram are talking over wine. “I feel like [said Tristram] we’re in a pretentious film about tortured geniuses.” The series, and the final book in particular, is asking questions about power and trauma and responsibility and choice. It doesn't necessarily care that much about the trappings of dark academia or who is kissing whom. Nor should we be expecting sensible decision-making on the part of any of these barely-more-than-children who have the capacity to alter the fabric of the universe but not necessarily the ability to change the world (oh do you see). And, y'know, by the end of The Atlas Complex each of the six have faced some kind of reckoning with their own power and their own limitations (whether that's their limitations as, essentially, magical superbeings or their limitations as humans who can be hurt just as easily as anyone else). Some of these confrontations are more successful than others (again, I mention my hero, my beloved, my queen of queens, Parisa, but poor Reina is shunted into a corner doing her own political thing for the entire book) but they're all, singularly and in totality, at least interesting. The problem is that when you step back from the charisma of the characters themselves and you think about this as the overriding theme of a three book series it starts to feel a little shallow. I mean, you can ask me "hey, Alexis what would be the consequence of giving a bunch of damaged twenty-somethings access to unlimited power and unlimited resources" and I don't even need to write one book to answer that question for you. I can, in fact, tell you right now: "It would be a fucking disaster." And, once again, credit where due, maybe that's the point (or a point) - but I think, as much as power is given arbitrarily in the world, there tend to be some natural checks and balances applied to most twenty-somethings by sheer dint of their being twenty-somethings. Like, I do think the books have things they want to say about the nature of power and, more significantly, the value of accepting powerlessness. Of choosing something as banal as love. Of living with grief. Of recognising that meaningful change cannot be violently enforced. Or imposed on the many by the few. I guess from a certain perspective, the Atlas series is, at heart, an incrementalist fable. But, again, is that enough to justify three books? Does it payoff what was initially set up? Is it a satisfying or a meaningful conclusion to, um, anything? Well. Maybe? I guess. I will say, however, that while some thematic coherence and a few emotionally satisfying moments can be dug out The Atlas Complex you do kind of have to work for them. And I don't mean in that in a "ahh, the book richly rewards your labour" way. More, it is literally hard work to get through it. Because, for every moment of deft, devastating character writing like this... This was it ... the only meaning Parisa had left in life. It wasn’t a secret society, it wasn’t an ancient library, it wasn’t an experiment that had taken two decades to design, it was waking up every fucking morning and deciding to keep going. The tiny, unceremonious, incomparable miracle of making it through another goddamn day. The knowledge that life was mean and it was exacting. It was cruel and it was cursed; it was recalcitrant and precious. It was always ending. But it did not have to be earned. ...there's some, err, arrant nonsense like this: The question is not whether the world can end. There’s no question that it can, that it does every day, in a multitude of highly individualized ways ranging from ordinary to biblical. The question is also not whether one man is capable of ending the world but whether it is this man, and whether such destruction is as inevitable as it may seem. What is the problem? The constancy of fate. The liquidity of prophecy. The problem is Einstein’s theory of relativity. The problem is closed-loop time travel. The problem is Atlas Blakely. The problem is Ezra Fowler. The problem is the invariability of the particular strand of the multiverse in which Ezra and Atlas meet. I'm sorry, I'm not usually one to critique writing or bad science, but this is utter bobbins. It is meaningless. It is just some words. And there are a lot of words in this book that, unfortunately, end up coming across as just some words. To say nothing of some sections that are genuinely stylistically repetitive, as though (and this is pure, and purely unfair speculation, on my part) neither editor nor proofer had troubled themselves unduly with this book as it passed through their hands. On top of the excess of verbiage, there's a bunch of POVs in the Atlas Complex whose relevance and necessity I found myself constantly questioning--especially because we get barely more than a chapter of them so opportunities for either emotional investment or intellectual curiosity were minimal. I get that Blake is trying to expand the world, and increase our understanding of it, but this is book 3 of 3. I need the focus to stay on the characters I've already spent two books with. It's too late for me to give a fuck about, like, Julian? Who the fuck is Julian? (That rhetorical, he's one of the Ezra Six, but it's too damn late to get me care about the Ezra Six) To be completely blunt, it's also too damn late to be able to get me to be able to care about Atlas and his Sinister Plan to end the world. It doesn't help that he's literally dead for this entire book--killed off page by Libby--and therefore broadly irrelevant. And yet we get multiple sections trying to ... I don't even know what. Contextualise him? Explain him? None of the above? I assume none of the above because there's another trollish-section at the dead centre of the book where we're asked a succession of self-described "book club" questions about Atlas's choices that are, in fact, a set of moral philosophy hypotheticals. Unfortunately, by the time I reached that the point my answer to each and every one was "don't care." So that was either very effective or the opposite of very effective, depending on what you think that section was for, and what you think the book--and the series--are doing as a whole. I won't lie, there's something fairly relatable to me about Atlas's Sinister Plot. I mean, who hasn't occasionally wanted to access a multiverse in which you personally have never existed. I think that's why therapy exists. But it's also why I didn't need multiple chapters exploring what might lead to someone feeling that way - you can get everything you need to know about Atlas from the nature of the Sinister Plan itself. "I want to erase myself on the quantum level" is depression. It's, err, not that deep. (Though, again, maybe's that's the point. Although if so much of what I'm struggling with is, indeed, the point, could there not have been a way to convey the point less ... annoyingly ... laboriously? ... somethingly?) (Omg, this review is too long for GR - continued in comments. HELP). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 12, 2024
|
Jul 12, 2024
|
Jul 12, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
161696412X
| 9781616964122
| 161696412X
| 3.71
| 175
| Mar 12, 2024
| Mar 12, 2024
|
Source of book: NG Relevant disclaimers: None Please note:This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fro Source of book: NG Relevant disclaimers: None Please note:This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. --- I kind of don't know how to talk about this book because, um, the author already extensively analysed her own work in an afterword that I probably shouldn't have read. But, like, it was there so I assumed it was important. I mean, in some respects I do kind of admire Wasserstein for being able to talk so academically and coherently about her own work (because I can barely stammer two words together about mine) but, at the same time, it's hard to know what you're supposed to do as a reader when the author seems to have already filled both roles. And please don't take this as me trying to dictate what other authors should or should not do--for all I know, Wasserstein was told by her publisher to fill some page count because novellas are difficult to place so she felt awkwardly compelled to write an essay about herself--and it's not that I'm not interested in what authors have to say about their work but maybe not *in* the work itself? I don't know. I think if I'd read this as part of an interview or a blog post (not that we have blogs any more) I'd have been really appreciative. It's just finishing a book and then being told directly by the author what it's about, what it means, and what you're supposed to think about it is ... well ... it's a lot. Also I don't think it's the author's job to explain what cisgender is. To me, the fact she has to, is sort of illustrative of where either the publisher or maybe the author were with this story. Taking a moment in a longish afterword about literalised metaphors, trans identity, and why (view spoiler)[it's sometimes okay to fuck your clone (hide spoiler)]. it assumes a dynamic between author and reader where the author is presumed inherently obscure and other relative to the reader, and I honestly feel that does disservice to both author and reader. It suggests almost a lack of faith maybe, from someone involved in the production of this book, and that makes me sad. Like it was taken as read, somewhere down the line, that TFGTFH wouldn't, or couldn't, find its own audience--I'm not even talking here about an an audience solely comprised of trans folk, but an audience who would be open to meeting the book (and the author) where they were instead of needing the book to be made safe and explicable to them. I guess where I'm going with this is that I feel books should be allowed to speak to the people they're for more than they should be forced to accommodate the people they're not; and this is probably just me but I feel if you're reading a book about a transfemme PI solving a murder in a technoir Dystopia you can probably also Google the word 'cisgender' if you need to. Anyway, I've already spent two paragraphs on the afterword and said nothing about the story itself. Which is complicated because I actually loved the book. I just wish I'd been allowed to do so on my own terms. These Fragile Graces This Fugitive Heart is set in a post-climate change Kansas where society has almost wholly broken down. Much of the city is abandoned, the government has given up, law enforcement is equally not about it, the gap between the wealth and poor has widened impossibly, oh and corporations run everything because it's that kind of Dystopia. Which is to say, plausible. Our heroine, Dora, is a PI, very much in the trad noir sense. She's competent, cynical, and thoroughly closed down, although that emotional distance is increasingly challenged as she finds herself investigating what happened to her ex-girlfriend, who died of an assumed drug overdose in the anarchist commune where she and Dora used to live together. What follows is brisk and gripping--a whistlestop tour, if you will, through a damaged world and Dora's damaged psyche. The author references her own wariness around literalising metaphors in the afterword, but--for what it's worth--I felt it really worked here. TFGTFH functions both as a decent technoir mystery and as a means to explore and reflect upon its flawed, fascinating protagonist. Especially when, y'know, clones of her start trying to kill her. I'm trying to tread lightly around spoilers (at least for now) because there's a lot of potential depth contained within the relatively sparse page count, and a thematic richness to the exploration of identity and trans identity particularly that is well-worth experiencing on its own terms. I also really loved the atmosphere and the sense of place ("On that side of the highway, the only light came from up the hill and reflected off the low clouds, so buildings and people became gray ghosts in the night") and the strong noir vibes I was getting from the narrative voice, which is as jaded and spare as any Hammett protagonist, telling you just as much as you need to know, but barely. I think there's even a sardonic nod to Neuromancer tucked in here: The sky was the color of corrupted memory. In some ways, however, the strengths of the book are also maybe its weakness. Or maybe I'm the weakness, because I always seem to end up saying this about most of the shorter works I read. But, as ever, I really feel this story could have benefited from sticking around a bit longer. It's got an intriguing cast, from the various members of Dora's old commune, to her clones (well, one clone in particular), to "Smith" the corporate agent she's briefly obliged to work with, and it would have been nice to get to know these characters better. Dora's past with the commune is one of the emotional centres of the story and, while we do learn what ultimately went wrong there, I would have liked to feel those conflicted emotions too, not just understand them as part of Dora. Although I do also recognise that deep access to the protagonist's emotional interior is fairly antithetical to Hammett's style of noir. Dora's memory implant is another element of the story that felt, to me, under-used. Essentially she has an implant that allows her perfect recall for good and ill, and I was so primed to get some full on Blade Runner / Thane from Mass Effect type stuff here, except I just didn't. It just seemed like such a missed opportunity - like a PI with perfect recall, please, give me more of this. And even assuming the author was using the mystery primarily as a means to explore, and reflect upon, character the whole memory implant thing could still have been used to give the reader greater access to Dora's past with the commune. I know I talk about this a lot and then to fail to follow up with it, but I really do want to work with the text in front of me, not lament some version of it that exists only in my head. So I guess what I'm driving at when I'm drawing attention to all the ways, from my perspective, TFGTFH could have been expanded upon, I'm not necessarily trying to claim that it *should* have been, only that it *could* have been. Not because there's anything wrong with the story as it stands--while it's a little compressed at times, it reaches a genuinely satisfying conclusion--but because there was such a lot here that held my interest and made me want more. I wanted more of Dora's past, I wanted more of the wider cast, I wanted more of the world, I wanted more of Dora herself and more of Dora doing, like, PI shit because I'm into that. Basically, TFGTFH is a sharp, complicated, endlessly interesting aperitif of a novella. It's a fantastic tease for the author's skill, vision and ambition. But, and from a certain point of view this is almost a positive, or, indeed, perhaps the whole point, it left me kinda hungry. In short: yes, liked it a lot, strongly recommend. If you like Dystopias, damaged women, Hammett, & philosophical questions about identity this is for you. I'm now going to spoil a major plot point so eject now if that's a problem for you. - - - - As mentioned in the review, part of the plot involves Dora being pursued by clones of herself. One of these clones--who later comes to call themself Theo--she manages to befriend. Now, Theo was a super interesting part of the book to me, just as an individual character in their own right, as a reflection of Dora, and as a way to ask questions about the nature of identity and trans identity especially, since all of Dora's clones present initially as a non-transitioned version of her. There's reasons for this I won't go into (too much spoiler) and, as you can tell by the pronouns I'm using here, by the end of the book Theo has chosen to use they/them pronouns. I was absolutely entranced by Theo's journey into selfhood -- given Dora's trauma and damage, she's not the most emotionally forthcoming character, so having Theo retain their kindness and hopefulness when everything else fucked is incredibly moving and incredibly painful at the same time (since could those qualities also have existed in Dora had she not lived the life she has). But, anyway, as part of this arc, Theo at one point sleeps with Dora. Now, the TFGTFH does not shy away from questions around this - but, personally, while I did not see it coming (so to speak) I also think the book makes a strong case that Theo does consent to it and is capable of consenting to it. And, you know, I'm a romance reader so I'm always going to see sex as, to some degree, doing emosh and metaphorical shit. In this case, Dora's relationship with Theo (weird as it may be to some people) allows to her to reach some kind of peace with her own identity and her own choices. Essentially she can *give* Theo the agency she had to fight for, the freedom she could only obtain through loss. That's quite a gift to be able to share with a version of yourself. That's my take anyway. Your mileage may very well vary and it feels kind of right to me this is a mileage-varying kind of subject. Except this brings me back to the dreaded afterword, where the author kind of goes out of her way to defend the scene as a necessary creative and ethical choice. And that ended up sort of making me feel more uncertain then the actual clone-fucking itself. Like, the text should always be answerable to itself--and, for me, it was. But I also think it's okay if, for you, it wasn't. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
1250847214
| 9781250847218
| 1250847214
| 4.01
| 20,218
| May 11, 2023
| Nov 28, 2023
|
Source of book: NetGalley (like a million years ago, sorry) Relevant disclaimers: Instagram mutuals. Please note: This review may not be reproduced or q Source of book: NetGalley (like a million years ago, sorry) Relevant disclaimers: Instagram mutuals. Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. --- So my personal favourite piece of Arthuriana is the 14th century poem, Gawain and the Green Knight. I think I mostly like it because nobody can super agree what it's about or, at least, what it represents. The basics of the poem go like this: a young chad King Arthur is having a cheeky Nandos with the lads, but he declares that nobody is allowed to dive into their peri peri until something exciting and knightly, worthy of the tales of old, has happened. What a lege. Conveniently, a big green bro rides into the hall and invites everyone to participate in a fun game of decapitation. Top lad Gawain is up for it, on the understanding that he gets to be the active decapitation partner first. Unfortunately, once decapitated, the green bro retrieves his head and invites Gawain to visit him in a year and a day so he can decapitate him back. The rest of the knights enjoy this top bants and life goes on. Eventually Gawain remembers he kind of has an obligation to fulfil and sets out, reluctantly, on his quest. He has a bunch of adventures en route that the poet does not deign to share, and eventually comes to a magnificent castle, inhabited by a fellow top lad, his fit wife, and a random old lady? This new top lad tells Gawain that the place where he's meant to be meeting the green bro for a little flip-decapitation is about two days ride and invites him to stay in the mean time so they can get Dominos. Gawain is well up for this. At which point, his host proposes a new game and Gawain, who has apparently not a learned a fucking thing from the Decapitation Incident, blithely agrees: every day the knight is going to go out hunting and Gawain is going to Netflix and chill, and at the end of the day they exchange what they've respectively managed to obtain. First day, the knight's wife does her level best to bang Gawain but bros before hos and all that. Gawain barters her down to a kiss, which he duly gives to her husband in exchange for the double pepperoni passion he picked up on the way home. Second day, the wife once again tries to sheath Gawain's sword for him, and he, once again, barters her down to two kisses, which he exchanges with her husband for whatever he caught on his hunt (a boar I think?). Third day, however, the wife offers Gawain her underwear (okay technically a girdle is outerwear, but still) which will apparently protect him from any harm like, for example, getting his head cut off. Gawain takes this and instead of giving it to her husband, spontaneously ponies up three entirely heterosexual smackeroos. Finally the day comes Gawain has to go get decapitated and he trots off to meet the green knight. First time the green knight swings his axe, Gawain flinches like a big ol' sissy and the knight takes the piss. Second time the knight doesn't strike and Gawain is like "dude, stop fucking around, just cut my fucking head off." Third time, the knight leave a tiny nick on the back of Gawain's neck as punishment for being creepy with his wife's intimate garments, and it turns out the green knight was the top bro all along, just cursed by Morgan le Fay, who--TWIST--was the random old lady staying at the castle. Gawain goes home, full of shame, having determined to wear the green girdle for the rest of his life to remind him of the importance of being honest with your mates. The other knights are all like cool story bro. Look, it's a really weird poem. And, like, is it about survival versus honour, is it about Christianity versus paganism, is it anti-Arthurian and anti-heroic, is about friendship and accepting each other failures, is it about gender, is it about ethics, is it about masculinity, is it feminist (given the sexual agency of the green knight's wife), is it GAY (I mean Gawain is reasonably indifferent about the green knight's wife trying to bang his brains out and surprisingly blase about snogging her husband when he returns from the hunt). And the green girdle is sort of emblematic of all this. It's this protean garment, that can be tied and untied, and shifts its meaning depending on context and perspective. Sorry this got really long and tangent-ey, even for me. Where I'm going with my bullshit on this occasion is that Gwen and Art Are Not in Love is a gorgeous green girdle of a book: it's intricate and intriguing and multi-faceted, and I continue to watch Lex Croucher's career, especially their ever-growing confidence as writer, with rapt admiration. Set in a kind of Medievalish AU where the legacy of King Arthur is closer to history than myth, Gwendoline (not Guinevere) is the royal princess of a fractured, factionalised, partially catholic England. She has been inescapably engaged to Arthur, the son of a powerful local lord (and Arthurian cultist) since infancy. There is, however, a major problem here: Gwen and Art are not in love (title drop, boom). Actually there are bunch of problems: there's Arthur's scheming father, there's the hot lady knight Gwen has a crush on, there's the seething resentment between Gwen and Arthur, there's Gwen's brother Gabriel, and his determination to be the perfect king irrespective of the personal cost, and, of course, there's the gathering threat to the kingdom. As you can probably tell from the summary, this is a book with a lot going on. It is, in fact, ambitious as all hell and, mostly, I felt those ambitions paid off. Unlike Croucher's Regency-set series (which I deeply adore), where the POV tends to be close single person, this is dual-POV between Arthur and Gwendoline. Given their flaws, their blind spots, and their insecurities, as well as the girdle-esque knot of relationships that lies at the heart of the novel, it's ultimately a story of competing perspectives. Of learning to see things--and yourself--as they truly are. I mean, there's even a cat one character calls Merlin, and another character calls Lucifer. I see you & your feline-themed, multi-purpose metaphors, Croucher: just as the kingdom is torn between its Arthurian past and its Catholic present/future, so must the characters navigate the tensions between who they feel they're supposed to be and who they are, and thus we end up with a cat called Merlin AND Lucifer, comfortably both. Like the Regency-set series, Gwen and Art is also a book about growing up. While, on the surface, Medievalist-ish Arthurian AU would not be something I'd naturally reach for as an allegory for queer adolescence, in practice it works extraordinarily well. It's a deeply fractured world, burdened with a history that has shaped the present in the way the current generation are not responsible for but nevertheless live with the consequences of, where pursuit of selfhood is situated oppositionally to duty, familial harmony, and social good. I mean, I can't speak for anyone else, but that's what being seventeen was like for me. More broadly, there's something about Croucher approaches queerness that I connect with in a very ... a very personal way. I don't know if it's because we're both British or because--if Croucher's sense of humour is anything to go--we were exposed to similar media at impressionable ages but I always feel very seen by Croucher's books. And because identity is (and should be permitted to be) a complex and subjective thing, that feels like a rare and special gift from an author to a reader. I think what Croucher does for me, that's honestly difficult to do, is they approach queer joy and queer pain with equal depth and boldness. Aware as I always vaguely am of The Disk Horse, I feel we're in in this quite specific place at the moment in terms of the "how" of presenting queer identity. I mean, I've spent most of my career defiantly putting queer joy page (something that continues to be devalued by supposedly queer and queer-supporting institutions, especially in the UK) but that doesn't mean I want to pretend to queer pain isn't real or doesn't exist. Of late, though, I've begun wondering if the pendulum might be swinging the other way, at least in the genres I'm interested in, because I've been seeing increasingly strong pushback from certain groups of readers about the inclusion of literally *any* conflict, bad feels, or compromise required from the characters. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that there are books that are, essentially, just chill queer vibes and I'm glad such stories exists, but they're not the "right" or the "only" way to represent queerness in fiction, but I don't think the cultural answer to a past of too much queer tragedy is the complete rejection of all queer pain. Not to put too fine a point, the idea that we are somehow "past" all that is a deeply privileged perspective because, while I love that so many young folks are apparently growing up completely accepted and unchallenged in who they are, that isn't a universal situation. And dismissing texts, or art, or media or, indeed, *people* who are still grappling with pain and shame is essentially to double reject those have already likely experienced rejection. Essentially I think I would like to reach a intracommunity equilibrium where we accept that the celebration of queer joy does not require the abandonment of those who are, or who have experienced, suffering. To bring this back to Gwen and Art, while it can be very joyous to be queer in Croucher's books, it is not always easy--and, maybe I'm just contrary, but I find it reassuring to see that explored with tenderness and care. For me, one of the most devastating and complicated moments in the book (mild spoilers ahead) is when Gwen attempts to come out to her brother (who is also queer) and he (unable to accept himself) rejects her. They do later reconcile, of course, but ooof. What a moment. It's probably one of the hardest hitting moments in the whole story (although it is lightly foreshadowed by Arthur and Gwen *also* attempting to use recognition of the other's queerness as a weapon) just because it goes to places that aren't always easy to discuss or admit to ourselves i.e. that a sense of queer community isn't as perfect or as resilient as we would wish it to be (or are often pretending it is). On a purely personal note, I found it hard to forgive Gabriel during this section of the book but I don't think that was about the character. Given what Gabriel is dealing with on his own account, it's understandable he wasn't in a place to be the perfect brother just then and Croucher really does set up and resolve this particular conflict with skill and nuance. It just reminded me of every time my own fear, shame or pain has prevented me from being there as I should have been for someone else struggling in their queerness. Anyway, in case I'm making this book sound terribly heavy and srs, Croucher, as ever, approaches their subject matter and their characters with a wonderful blend of darkness and light. For all the angsty gripping of my heart I did while reading this, I also laughed out loud several times and I am not, as a general rule, a laugher-out-louder. I smile, I may issue a small chuckle. But Croucher makes me *laugh*. Not necessarily a great compliment, if I'm honest, because I have an incredibly immature sense of humour: ‘The last time you were here,’ the king said finally, ‘you set fire to something.’ *snarfles* To be completely fair, as I try my best to be, I think sometimes the dark/light balance isn't always completely struck for me in Croucher's work and Gwen and Art are not exception here. It didn't diminish my admiration for the book, nor my pleasure in it, but some shit goes down in the final 25% and, while it was clearly being set up to go down from the get-go, it ended feeling both like a lot and not quite enough. By which I mean, the stakes get very high very suddenly and are resolved almost too quickly for the nature of those stakes. What does really come together, however, is the character work that Croucher has done in the first 75% of the book. It is genuinely lovely to see how the characters have grown and developed through their interactions (romantic and otherwise) with each other, and for that growth to manifest in the strength to navigate the crisis that rocks the kingdom. But, you know what? This is obnoxious of me because one critiques the art in front of you, not some art that exists only in your head, but I honestly feel there are two books in Gwen and Art. Book 1 is creating all these personal connections and allowing the characters to grow into the best and strongest versions queer AF versions of themselves (i.e. the first 75% of Gwen and Art) and book 2 is putting that to the test (i.e. the final 25% of Gwen and Art expanded to really pay off all the previous work). Except also: that's just me. Maybe I'm just pining after two books instead of one because I adore all these characters and want to indulgently spend more time with them. Maybe I'm just the kind of helpless nerd who loves a well-built world and wanted more of that. Who knows? Let me make it super clear, though, that the fact there is only 1 book of Gwen and Art is not damaging to the book as it stands. I think it's more that, to me, there was scope here for 2. Especially because there were some plotlines that got wrapped up pretty hastily and some really big moments--like Gwendoline riding into battle towards the end--that didn't get the chance to land as hard as they potentially could. I also felt poor Arthur got short shrift at times, especially when it came to his relationship with his terribly abusive father. It's not that I needed that to be resolved exactly (although it sort of was), it was just it ended up feeling emotionally siloed from everything else going on in the book because it's never something that anyone else interacts with or ever has opportunity to truly acknowledge. And maybe there's an element of dark realism to that--some abuses, after all, never go acknowledged--but I guess I just wanted ... more for him from the people he loves. There's also a moment where the plot demands everyone believes Arthur has betrayed them, while also not allowing him any opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding, which I found slightly frustrating. It kind of reminded me of the political intrigue equivalent of those 80s romances where the hero arbitrarily decides the heroine is a whore on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Arthur does nothing, the whole book, to make anyone suspect him of malfeasance. In fact, he mostly out of his way to help people. I do understand that plots have to happen but I wish there'd been a way to bring about the same set of circumstances without completely devaluing however-many-hundred pages of Arthur's emotional labour. But, honestly. I think most of these minor rough patches are the book falling victim to its own scope and ambition. Like if you are going to write a book about three separate romantic couples, whose participants independently have (non-romantic) relationships with each other too, set that book in a complex and fascinating world, take on a bunch of complicated ideas about gender, queerness, identity and self-agency, engage meaningfully with several pieces of Arthuriana, and then throw in some well-constructed political intrigue AND A WAR something, somewhere is going to give. The fact that Gwen and Art has all this going on, remains structurally and emotionally coherent, and is besides deeply moving and funny as hell, is an incredibly impressive achievement. It took me away too long to make the point, but I meant it when I said this book was a green girdle. It's so clever with its interweaving of its characters and its plot and its themes, and its ending is a delicate knot, full of equal parts of hope and uncertainty, which is my personal favourite kind of ending. Basically, Gwen and Art is a unique, bold and special book, and if a hot lady gives it to you, you should definitely risk decapitation to keep it. PS - I also can't believe I wrote an entire review without finding space to mention Lady Bridget. PPS - Also, this is a "take your meds mate" style nitpick but I am unreasonably irked by the fact the book is called Gwen and Art Are Not In Love and hardly anyone calls Arthur Art for the entire book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
1250884926
| 9781250884923
| 1250884926
| 3.56
| 5,916
| Apr 09, 2024
| Apr 09, 2024
|
Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. --- Spoilers ahead. Billed as scif-fi horror, Ghost Station is set in ye hyper-capitalist, space-faring future, you know the drill. The rich live in luxury, the poor are but fodder for vast corporations, as they labour on the outskirts of space, where the danger, isolation and poor working conditions make them susceptible to Eckhart-Reiser syndrome. Basically, contagious PTSD. Our heroine is Dr Ophelia Bray, a scion of the rich and powerful Bray family, albeit one with a mysterious past, who works as a psychologist for one of her family's competitors. Her specialty is helping spacers who have been diagnosed with ERS but when one of her clients commits suicide unexpectedly she inveigles her way onto an active exploration vessel in the hope of being able to treat ERS in the field. Needless to say the crew of said vessel, who have recently suffered the loss of one of their numbers, are less than receptive to having a psychologist on board, still less one with the surname Bray. But then their mission takes them to a previously abandoned planet--a ghost planet, do you see--and once strange things began to happen there Ophelia, her name and her history, are the last thing the crew needs to worry about. So, Ghost Planet is a slow, slow burn which, for me, mostly worked, although I've seen some reviews where the reader grew a little impatient with the pacing and I can, in fairness, see that too. If, however, you like your horror creeping and your dread burgeoning, the book really pulls off an ever-escalating sense of unease, as questions about the crew--their interpersonal dynamics, what happened with their dead comrade--and Ophelia herself keep piling up. For at least the first half of the story, I was genuinely gripped, caught up in the succession of mini-mysteries, and appreciative of the way the narrative spins out the tensions inherent in its various themes: from the personal and abstract (like identity, family, mental health, grief and guilt) to the more political (like capitalism and commodification) to the very literal (being isolated on alien world where strange shit is going down). It's ambitious and intriguing but, in the end--and, as ever, my judgement is subjective--I wasn't wholly sure it pulled it all together in a way that paid off the intensity of the build up. I think perhaps part of the, well, I hesitate to call it a problem because it's clearly a deliberate choice and may well work better for other readers, but something I struggled to balance for myself was the weight of more abstract horror themes with the whole scary alien planet side of things. Ophelia, for example, is the walking embodiment of this. She's a very vulnerable, very flawed character, and her training as a psychologist gives her a degree of self-awareness that allows her to articulate those vulnerabilities and flaws very directly (and, even, to be fair, relatably) Wanting— needing— to be needed, relied on by authority, is her weak spot. It’s what both motivates and terrifies her, which, in psychotherapy world, makes her double the mess. Or She wants to be respected, needed, but at the same time she’s so fucking soft for the slightest display of affection. She despises that about herself. Being aware of it doesn’t help, either. And while this, from a certain perspective, makes her the perfect protagonist of a horror novel (i.e. constantly falling apart at the seams, questioning her own mind a la the governess in The Turn of the Screw) it also makes her a slightly frustrating one, constantly locked in cycle of self-doubt, and solipsistically obsessed with her own insecurities. What's extra difficult about this, is that this is sort of the plot? Or at least the major emotional arc of the book: yes, it's about a weird empty alien planet, but it's also, in a more meaningful sense, about recovery from abuse. It's easy enough to guess Ophelia's history, from almost the second a Dark Event of the Past is mentioned, but there are interesting nuances to it. In this context, the Ophelia we're stuck with for three hundred pages makes a lot of sense, and I feel uncomfortable about my impatience with her. By a similar token, I feel uncomfortable discussing Ophelia as ... I guess ... a professional being, because I feel that intersects with gender in really complicated, potentially problematic ways. Like, I think "professionalism" is mostly an arbitrary standard we apply to people who don't behave how we think we should, without really ever interrogating the why of those expectations. And in the context of a female character (or, y'know, an actual woman living in the world) it can often boil down to gender-coded nonsense like emotion = bad, or self-doubt is weakness, or talking < action. For very good reasons, and as already discussed, Ophelia is very in her feels for basically the whole book, the downside of which we never really see her do very much actual therapy or actually help anyone ever. To be fair, she doesn't get much opportunity (the crew are openly hostile to her initially and then shit hits the fan, so therapy kind of naturally becomes a low priority) but we also see her continually make choices driven by selfishness and guilt, choices that often directly negatively affect the people around her, like going on the mission in the first place (since she's not qualified or experienced in space exploration type stuff), and hiding her past from the crew when it turns out her past might be very, very relevant to what's happening. Again, these choices are understandable, and driven by trauma, but that doesn't make them right. And while I absolutely do not expect fictional characters to always do the "right" thing, nor do I see a character's choices as reflective of the author in any way, I do wish I'd seen Ophelia maybe considering the whole life-or-deathness of the situation a bit more? And, again, it gets complicated because the protagonist being a hot mess is a trope of certain kinds of horror, and Ghost Station, even though it's firmly in SF space, also has some gothic vibes to it. Plus, off the top of my head, I can list reams of fictional therapists who happen to be men who are fucking dreadful at their job (the guy from In Treatment, Shrinking, Hannibal, the list goes on): therapist overwhelmed by their own frail humanity is ALSO a trope. With Ophelia, however, I kept struggling. And, y'know, maybe that's, um misogyny which I am, at least, currently trying to examine. But I also felt that, between her history, her trauma, the mission being a disaster, and her last patient having committed suicide, the book had, maybe circumstantially more than anything, stacked the deck against her. It doesn't help that she is the also the, err, victim of an extremely juvenile-feeling romance arc. Well, arc might be too strong a word, since it's mostly Ophelia staring dreamily at the mission captain (a sexy-gruff bloke called Ethan Severin) and then chiding herself for being unprofessional. As attraction dynamics go, it's not my favourite, especially because it starts off with Severin being fairly harsh and impatient with Ophelia (for understandable reasons--he doesn't want a shrink on the mission, and she's kind of a liability since she isn't trained for the work they do) and she continues to think he's the sex. Like most of the emotional themes of the novel, this is tied into her trauma (she has daddy issues and wants to be approved of by people in positions of authority) but it still grated on me. Of course, I'm a romance reader, so I probably want more from a romance arc than is necessarily accommodated by non-romance genres, but I genuinely felt that this brought nothing to the book, or to either character. We have enough examples of Ophelia being compromised in her priorities/decision-making, it undermines Ethan coming to respect and understand her because maybe he doesn't, in fact, respect and understand her, maybe he just fancies her, and is only going out of his way for her because of that, and it basically substitutes what feels like a relatively clichéd romance-ish dynamic for what could have been a more meaningful platonic/collegiate one. I think part of the reason I'm grumbling about this was that, by the time we reach a point that Ethan and Ophelia are being honest with each other, I felt the book--and the characters--had some interesting things to say about trauma and privilege and survival. It's just it was over-shadowed by all the "he's so mean to me but he's so hot" that had preceded it. And this maybe brings me round to why Ghost Station didn't hit for me quite as hard as perhaps it could have? There's such a lot going on that all it ended up feeling quite abbreviated--like there isn't time for Ophelia to establish herself as, um, useful? good at her job? before they're at alien planet panic stations, the attraction between Ophelia and Severin feels surface-level and fairly dull, and we barely have time to meet the crew (there's the hot captain, the nice one, the annoying one, the angry one, the dead one, and the other one) before things are going wrong and everyone is falling apart. Which feels like a weird thing to be complaining about in a story that is also such a slow burn. But I think I would have been more engaged in the second half of the book, if I'd been given more space to care in the first half. I mean Birch (the angry one) is probably the most significant character outside of Ophelia and Severin. He has genuine reason to hate Ophelia, or at least Ophelia's family, and his backstory is important thematically as well as just as a means of conveying information about the setting. But he and Ophelia have maybe two private conversations and, while I'm definitely not saying she should have been able to win him over with her leet therapy skillz, it makes it hard to differentiate between Birch Is Furious For Legitimate Reasons That Could Maybe Be Acknowledged In Some Way and Birch Is Furious Because Creepy Shit Is Going Down And Everyone Is Losing Their Marbles. I feel a little bad for having spent so long picking at this book; in all honesty, some of it is me trying to figure out why I didn't, end up, responding to Ghost Station as positively as I wanted to. This doesn't mean there isn't a lot to admire here, though. Ophelia, irrespective of my personal feelings, genuinely came across as a complex and nuanced portrait of a person living with trauma both acknowledged and unacknowledged. The writing, in general, is crisp, clean and engaging. The atmosphere is deliciously ominous and the world, with its corporations and space PTSD, fascinating. Just to dive fully into spoiler territory, this is ultimately one of those situations where capitalism is the true horror, ah do you see, and the ways the book goes about exploring that--the consequence of reducing people to a resource--felt both plausible and genuinely chilling. In light of this, I still haven't decided if, for me, the ending was a bit of a cop-out. But then again, perhaps not. After all, those most capable of exploiting capitalist systems to their own advantage--or on this occasion to save their arses--are those already benefiting from them. Which, for all her guilt and trauma, Ophelia is. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 27, 2024
|
Apr 27, 2024
|
Apr 27, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
1953553303
| B093FWJ9ZB
| 4.01
| 21,452
| Jun 29, 2021
| Jun 29, 2021
|
Source of book: Kindle Unlimited Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without expli Source of book: Kindle Unlimited Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Spoilers. Content guidance for bodily fluid, taboo relationships, abusive relationships, violence towards women, death. Look, this is a Pam Godwin book. I don’t know what else to tell you. She is the living embodiment of “our amp goes up to eleven”. And frankly, I live for it. Whether you live for it is, of course, a personal choice. This book, in particular, even by Pam Godwin standards, is a bit of a taboo-adjacent multi-car pileup. The heroine is eighteen. The hero is in his early forties. He’s also her teacher. And a priest. I mean, at some point you kind of go through problematic and come out at “what the hell”, amirite? To be honest, there’s quite a lot in the premise of Lessons in Sin that are my personal immediate squicks: I really cannot be doing with teacher/student for what are probably fairly obvious reasons, and somehow PG contrives to make the power dynamics of that already fucked-the-fuck-up situation even worse by having by the hero directly in control of the heroine’s future, alongside granting him the capacity to discipline her (including physically) at will. Err. Yeah. It’s not okay. But here we are. The basic plot here is that our heroine, err ... Tinsley (Tinsley? Do Americans call their children this?), is the youngest daughter of some kind of rich business-empire-having, faintly sinister family (though they aren’t explicitly the mafia). Her role is basically to be sold off as a trophy wife to secure the family’s interests in some nebulous way but, being a smart and feisty type, she’s not interested in that future for herself. Her main rebellion so far has been giving blowjobs to fast food restaurant employees, which her mother does not appreciate, and thus has had her shipped off to a catholic reform school in the middle of nowhere. Enter Father Magnus Folke, a smoking hawt, former billionaire turned priest, who is placed in sole charge of Tinsley’s education and discipline. Needless to say, Tinsley is determined to act out and get expelled, Magnus is determined to subdue her, it gets all sexy, but also kinda sweet in places, and the final conflict mostly comes down to extricating Tinsley from her own family’s ambitions. Let me get this out of the way first. Magnus Folke is a fucking terrible teacher. Like even aside from rough-banging his own student, he’s a fucking terrible teacher. Like, at one point his best mate, another priest, and also a teacher tells him: “Maybe I don’t agree with all your teaching methods, but when it comes to motivating the unmotivated, fear and guilt are effective tools” What? No. No, they are not. They are fucking terrible educational tools. Have you guys been on a single teacher training course? Like, ever? Jesus Christ. There’s also a moment when a young woman gets a bit breathless trying to keep up with Magnus (who is a gazillion feet tall, because he's a romance hero) and he immediately assigns her extra physical exercise because apparently body-shaming is also a big part of his curriculum. Body-shaming and fear. What a way to raise young women. In all honesty, even putting aside my personal feelings about the tropes and dynamics being explored here, Lessons in Sin was not my favourite Pam Godwin, though it is replete in all the Pam Godwinisms I relish. The snappy dialogue is there, the sexual and emotional tension between the leads, the enthusiastically-consenting heroines, the alpha dick heroes who, once they've got past their treating the heroine badly phase, treat her really well, along with the general flair and panache she brings to a subgenre that--and this is coming from a fan of that subgenre--can sometimes become a bit samey. Like there's only so many ways to write a sparky heroine and a tormented hero, but I genuinely think, as this point, I could pick a Pam Godwin character out of a line-up of women with heart-shaped faces and men with cold grey eyes. For whatever reason, I tend to find her heroines genuinely likeable, and her heroes ... well. She gives them lines that hover so close to the edge of utter absurdity they make me kick my heels with glee: I wasn’t one to readily offer praise, but with her, I would spill the verities of my soul. Verities, my good gawd man, your internal monologue. I think even for a Godwin hero, Folke is singularly lacking in self-irony. He's gone into the priesthood as a means of keeping his depraved desires in check, depraved desires that Tinsley points out later (and this might be one of the reason I appreciate Godwin's heroines so much: they tend to be pretty genre savvy and low bullshit, compared to their heroes who are, frankly, so much the drama they ought to go on RuPaul's Drag Race) are basically just for rough sex. Except I secretly (or not secretly since I discuss it at length on GR) kind of enjoy this kind of hero. I'm not sure I find it sexy, per se, but I really do love drama. The other thing I should probably mention? applaud? is that Lessons in Sin, for better or worse, is PG's wettest work, including the book that is set at sea on a pirate ship. There are a lot of bodily fluids in here, some intentionally produced, some involuntarily so, and I was mildly surprised, since it's not the sort of thing one sees too often in romance. But I'm very here for the normalisation of bodies-being-bodies, although perhaps not quite as here as Father Magnus: Right here in my classroom, I could’ve broken my vow and fucked her with piss on her legs, virgin blood on my dick, and her heavenly tears soaking the hand I would’ve held so tightly to her mouth. I did, however, end up going down a research rabbit hole following a scene in the latter part of the book, where the heroine--at the end of term ball, while wearing a white dress--goes full Carrie and begins to spontaneously menstruate, to the extent that it leaves an actual sizeable puddle on the floor. Like, obviously I'm not an expert on menstruation, but that feels ... that feels quite unfortunate? I mean, physically, not just socially. I'm aware that flow can differ quite substantially from person to person, and according to the internet, that can sometimes mean soaking through sanitary products within thirty minutes or an hour, but surely not bleeding out in the middle of a dance like a wild west gunslinger who isn't getting back to little Mary-Kate any time soon? Anyway, she's fine, and goes onto have vigorous sex with Folke immediately after, and it's absolutely not my place to be second-guessing how people menstruate (fictionally or otherwise). I just think that if someone ejected an amount of blood sufficient to create splash zone from any part of their body I would personally be taking them to hospital, not to bed. Practicalities aside, however, it's always cool to see period sex on page. And I will never not admire PG's commitment to going there. Err, I mean in general, not just as regards any particular sex act or sex occasion. While her books are not for me on so many levels, I still delight in what she does, and I think the fact I read her teacher/student priest book is testament to how much trust I'm willing to give her. All of which said, Lessons in Sin left me ultimately a touch meh. It might just be a case of not being able to get the past the tropes, but I also think there were a few ways in which the tropes proved hard to navigate on their own terms. For starters, because ... how can I say this ... because priests and young people do not have a happy history together, the book has to kind go out of its way to establish that Magnus Folke has an overwhelming fetish for older women only, and that Tinsley is therefore a sexual/romantic aberration for him. Don't get me wrong, I think this is absolutely the right choice, because a hero who serially sexually engages with the young woman in his care is not a hero, he's a ... he's a, you know, an abuser. But ensuring Magnus doesn't come across as the wrong kind pervert, has the side effect of forcing Tinsley into a Not Like Other Girls type role--she's the only young woman he's ever slept with, the only woman he's ever felt anything for, the only woman he doesn't need to brutalise to get off--which ends up feeling ickier than is perhaps intended or desirable. Like, I get Horrible To Everyone But You is a trope for a reason, but Sadistic Misogynist To Everyone Except You reads kinda differently, at least to me. Especially when Magnus also has the "inadvertently killed a woman during consensual kinky sex" back plot--not one of my faves, if I'm honest. Like, I think there's mileage to be had in exploring the reality of kink-gone-wrong, but in practice it tends to boil down to "look how how sad it makes men when they accidentally kill women" and Lessons in Sin is no exception here. Again, I know it's a trope, or at least a convention of the genre, that the heroine will inevitably prove her superiority to all other women in the hero's life, but when the woman she is surpassing is dead, that's just fucking uncomfortable, and is even more uncomfortable when a lot of the language used around Tinsley's specialness in Magnus's eyes (i.e. that she's not like other eighteen-year-olds, she has an old soul etc.) overlaps pretty explicitly (though I think unintentionally) with the kind of language often to justify power-imbalanced relationships between older women and much younger women. There's even some lines about in Alanis Morisette's Hands Clean (which is sung from the perspective of her abuser). If it weren't for your maturity, none of this would have happened If you weren't so wise beyond your years I would've been able to control myself. Of course, Alanis speaking about a relationship where she's specifically underage, and there's a huge difference between an age-gap and a crime. But Tinsley/Magnus felt messy (even if not strictly illegal) for me personally, precisely because she's just legal and he's literally her teacher: but, again, this a self-consciously taboo dynamic and your mileage is going to vary. I think, for me, though, it wasn't so much the taboo that was the issue (as a fictional construct, I should add, real life is a very different matter) but the knock-on consequences of the work the book had to do around keeping that taboo on the right side of wrong. It also means that Lessons in Sin strays far closer to "cured of kinky sex by love" than I'm used to with PG. I mean, I'm probably being slightly unfair because it's clear by the end of the book they both like it rough, except Magnus does the whole "with you, and only you, I don't need it that way" and I always find that a bit eh. For starters, most of the other PG books I've read end on note of "with you, the love makes it even KINKIER", which I completely adore. But, while I think it's reasonable that you'd be willing to share certain acts in a loving context compared to a less trust-based environment, I'm not super comfortable with romance pushing the idea that love can make you like things you don't like. To me, it's just as important for the genre to affirm that it's flatly okay not to be into certain things, as it is to celebrate what you are into. The other thing about Magnus's kinky 180 is that it makes him look a bit daft. I mean, imagine shaping your whole life around your medical-grade fetish for having abusive sex with older women only to discover you didn't, in fact, have that fetish. Moving away from the Magnus of it all, I also slightly struggled with Tinsley's lack of agency throughout the book. Like, she's an eighteen year-old, she has no power, no resources of her own, she's literally at school. While she is herself very aware of this, I never felt she really got away from it. Like, she starts the book doomed to become a businessman's trophy wife and she ends the book about to become Magnus's wife: in the immortal worlds of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, that's just geography. And, yes, of course, we're meant to believe that Magnus loves her and therefore won't treat her like a trophy wife, that he'll let her do things like go to college and start an animal sanctuary but the "let" in that sentence feels kind of uncomfortable to me. It doesn't help that once Tinsley and Magnus are parted as part of the plot downturn, she has literally nothing to except wait and feel sad, until he turns up, having shucked the priesthood, and delivers an HEA to her of his own making. She gets to consent to the HEA, of course, but to a large extent it doesn't involve her. Also she's eighteen, Magnus is in his forties, they've known each other for a year: should they really be getting married? How will she feel when she's thirty and her husband is sixty-something? That's not quite as hot, is it (although, to be fair, I've known some incredibly hot sixty year olds, so maybe I shut my mouth). This could just be my own commitmentphobia spilling over the book like, well, like a bodily fluid but I honestly don't think anyone should be getting married at eighteen. Like there is not one choice I made, or would have made, as an eighteen year old that I would make now. As a final note on Lessons in Sin--and this about me and my expectations, not the book itself--I was very much coming into it with my Sierra Simone/Tiffany Reisz glasses on, totally stoked for kink and Catholicism, and all that jazz. However, those are not the vibes. Magnus has zero actual faith to speak of. He joined the priesthood specifically to put a check on his kinky impulses and that's it. I'm not saying that's a flaw in the book, at all, it's an entirely legitimate creative choice for any author to make, but I personally felt it rendered the "priest" element of the story a bit toothless. Without faith to wrestle with, Magnus might as well have just been a teacher, you know? Anyway, that's Lessons in Sin. And don't get me wrong: for everything that didn't work for me about the book, I still absolutely ate that shit up with a fucking spoon. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 24, 2024
|
Apr 24, 2024
|
Apr 24, 2024
|
Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||||
1541603087
| 9781541603080
| 1541603087
| 4.30
| 2,135
| Sep 13, 2022
| Sep 13, 2022
|
Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Welp, I’m so late on all my NG reviews, that it’s gone past fashionably late and into just … like … a fucking mess. This is technically a re-read since I read this forever ago, did not quite have the time to formulate my thoughts in a way it deserved, then continued to lose the plot for many months, so here we are again. This is a thoughtful and fascinating re-evaluation of the history of—for lack better language (and the limitations of language is something the book itself wrestles with continually)—gender-nonconformity. Since the author notes in the book that they find the constant jokes at the expense of historians somewhat hurtful, I’ll do my best not to dwell on the degree which it feels to me, as someone who does have an academic background in the field, that conventional historical approaches to marginalised identities seem more interested in erasing them than exploring them: as Heyam themself observes, no historian has never been required to prove that a historical figure is straight or cis, simply because we take it as read that acting in accordance with the western cisheteropatriarchy is a natural state of being. In any case, part of the stated aim of Before We Were Trans is to explore examples of gender non-conforming / gender disrupting behaviour across history in ways that are less focused on looking for “proof” of indisputable transness or cisness (whatever those things mean and whatever proof of it would look like) and more about formulating, as the subtitle states, an approach to gender that allows for nuance, ambiguity, complexity and—frankly—messiness. I think, for me, it was the honest exploration of messiness that I found most personally valuable. I think, ironically—and I’m aware I sound like an episode of Black Mirror here—that one of the most difficult aspects of social media is a tendency towards kind of moral binaries, especially when it comes to the complex spaces of identity i.e. that identity is a kind of zero-sum game. Heyam touches on this directly when they discuss their own experiences in wording a commemorative plaque for Anne Lister, inadvertently becoming the subject of a great deal of hurt and hostility for including a reference Lister’s gender non-conforming behaviour (they did, after all, describe their desire for women in specifically masculine terms and dress in masculine-coded clothing) while leaving her attraction to women implicit in the description of her entering a life-long commitment with one equivalent to a marriage. This led some people to interpret the plaque as a rejection of Lister’s lesbianism and an attempt to co-opt her for a trans/nonbinary agenda. Which is exactly the sort of discourse I find most harmful since—while I would never want to cause hurt or grief to others—it seems to me, for Lister in particular, the answer can very comfortably be both? Which may not be the case for other figures, who left behind more definitive statements regarding their self-perception. In presenting their own take on approaches to gender non-conforming behaviour in historical context and by historical figures, Heyam is at pains to widen spaces of interpretation instead of narrowing them, referring to nearly all of the people they reference by gender neutral pronouns, imposing no conclusive identity upon them, noting the way categories of experience overlap (including the ever-contested butch woman / trans man boundary) and careful to emphasise the impact of different cultural contexts, alongside the danger of assuming western ideas of gender and gender binaries are universal. That the history of gender is inextricable from the history of colonialism is a stark reminder that ideas about gender are also inextricable from ideas about power. I have seen a few reviews that are inclined to read Heyam’s tone as defensive. Personally, I read it as cautious, as well it might be. This is a complicated, emotive space, one that scholarship is only just beginning to admit reconsideration of, queer people of all sorts have personal investment in, and which has genuine potential to re-shape our current thinking. Before We Were Trans is not, however, a work of polemic. I’m not saying it doesn’t have an agenda—all historical work is carried out with an agenda—but it is an exploratory agenda, rather than one that wishes to seek, demand or present definitive readings. It is, of course not, not for me to challenge other people’s interpretations nor to deny whatever feelings Before We Were Trans might have inspired. But, to me, to draw out of the text a rejection of fluid and/or nonbinary gender expression in favour of binary trans ones or to treat gender disruptive readings as antithetical to feminism or other elements of queer identity, seems to actively reject Heyam’s own stated goals for the book and ignore the consistent care with which they navigate these very fraught topics. As to the form of the book itself, it’s a fairly slim but not necessarily light read, moving thematically rather than chronically through historical examples of gender disrupting behaviour, either from specific individuals (for example the case of Thomas(ine) Hall) or specific cultural contexts (like World War I interment camps or the floating world of Edo Japan). Of course it is not possible for Heyam to fully de-centre western perspectives—nor do they try—but I personally appreciated this invitation to consider questions of gender, gender expression, and gender disruption from a more global point of view. I think Heyam had to walk something of a tightrope here, in order to neither exclude or erase groups of people, while not attempting to speak for them (or over them) either. For, you know, people like me, it seems fairly clear that Heyam’s book provides (and is probably intended to provide) a useful starting point, but should not be taken as any sort of comprehensive or definitive statement on the experiences of gender nonconforming people across the world. In general Heyam has a brisk personable, style that neatly navigates both the need for accessibility and precision. I will say, I sometimes found the sheer breath of the book overwhelming—I’ve read it twice now and I still don’t feel like I’ve got a grip on every topic or story touched upon. I can see the advantage of the book not looking like a massive, intimidating tome, but at the same time Heyam took me to places I wasn’t super familiar with and introduced me to people I hadn’t heard of before and while I’m not necessarily saying I needed them to talk slowly for the ignoramus at the back, I did think the book could have potentially benefited from a more measured pace now and then, and perhaps a touch more detail about some of its subjects. After all, Before We Were Trans is dealing quite explicitly with the “lesser knowns” of gender nonconforming history (i.e. those who we might not be inclined to classify as trans to a modern understanding precisely because their lives were ambiguous or complex) which means this could, in fact, be the first time some of these stories have been made available to people without access to research archives. On a purely personal note, Heyam occasionally lost me a bit when their explorations touched upon fictional portrayals of trans and nonbinary people. This is obviously a topic way beyond the scope of the book and most of the time Heyam is speaking entirely personally, but their choices feel frustratingly limited in a book that is otherwise interested in expanding boundaries. Don’t get me wrong, like all confused queer teenagers who grew up at a certain time, I love The Left Hand of Darkness with all my heart, but it came out in 1969. Modern SFF is full of books that centralise trans and nonbinary protagonists, and sometimes they don’t even have to die! Similarly, Heyam’s recommendation for a fab read with a nonbinary protagonist is The Lauras, a novel which—while it admittedly defies bodily or genital classification of its main character—also contains multiple graphic assaults upon the main character. Again, I’m not saying that it is wrong for writers to address these topics—sexual assault is the reality of many queer people’s lives—nor I am denying Heyam’s right to feel spoken to by this or any other book, but it sort of feels like handing a newly out lesbian a copy of The Well of Loneliness. I was also not super thrilled that the bit of the book that Heyam chose to quote as part of their pitch in favour of this work as a welcome to nonbinary identity was, um, one of the assaults? This felt especially jarring because, while Heyam does not diminish the traumatic experiences of the historical figures they’re discussing (the previously mentioned Thomas(ine) Hall is repeatedly subjected to invasive examination), they go out of their way not to dwell on them or textually replicate them. Obviously the difference is that Alex (the protagonist of The Lauras) is fictional but I’m not sure that necessarily changes the impact upon an unprepared reader. Our respective tastes in queer fiction aside, I am full of admiration for Before We Were Trans, and Heyam’s passion for their subject. Given the complexity of the entire topic, and the ambitious scope of the work itself, it’s a very readable book that I genuinely found educative and illuminating. Most importantly, however, it contributes to what feels like an extremely necessary, and hopefully on-going conversation, about sex and gender as mutable categories that have historically been subject to disruption just as they are today. In fact, let me give Heyam the last word(s) as they express it far better than I could: This is why it was so important to me to insist that the stories in this book are trans history. They are histories of gender not being binary, fixed, or tied to the body. They show there have always been people who disrupt these norms, and there have always been societies in which they aren’t norms at all....more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 2024
|
Mar 2024
|
Mar 14, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
1645660206
| 9781645660200
| 1645660206
| 3.20
| 948
| Sep 07, 2021
| Sep 07, 2021
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* I don’t know what to do with this book to be honest. All the trade reviews suggest it’s a visceral work of exhilarating genius. And most of the, you know, regular people reviews (such as the sort of reviews I myself write) are ambiguous at best. I feel, if I’m honest, ambiguous at best. Ultimately I think I admired this book more than I, um, liked it? The basic premise here is super engaging: the remains of all-female (later femme and nonbinary) crime squad get back together for one last job in a world of capitalism and cloning, and controlled by AIs. The first 50% is a getting the team together type situation, often with violence, and second half is them doing the job—something something Dimmuborgir something something—more by accident than design. Also an AI called Pimento, whose name people remark on twice, but is never actually explained? I don’t even know. I think some of the things that felt … artificial? … to other readers didn’t bother me at all. I’m never going to find a cast of almost entirely LGBTQ+ characters forced or unnecessary: that’s the sort of thing that’ll sell me on a book, not put me off it. I have no issues with the c-word or an exuberance of fucks. The fact the AIs draw all their pop culture references from the 20th and 21st centuries, and talk slightly in meme? Whatever. Body horror, gore, and explosions? Yeah, I’m cool. Even the writing style—a combination of the excessively highfalutin with everyday—I mostly dug. It's just nothing quite managed to come together for me. Or maybe (and this is highly possible) I was just too inept a reader to fully grasp everything this book was doing. But whatever the underlying cause, my failure to … uh … get it … meant that nothing landed the way it should have, be that the major beats of the plot (like why was everyone after the SPOILER and what it did it mean when they got the SPOILER) or the emotional climaxes, like Constance having any sort of on-page encounter with Elise, despite the two once having been desperately in love, Maya choosing to kiss Verdigris or accepting that Rita, who she’d been obsessed with and devoted to for the entirety of the book, was a manipulative sociopath. Don’t get me wrong, I cared enough about the characters in their ferocious brokenness that I was super glad when these things happened but I never quite understood … what was underpinning their happening when they did happen, if that makes sense? I mean, given that clones are considered disposable and can be constantly brought to life, trauma memories of their previous death erased, Maya has been hopelessly entangled with (and, let’s be very clear, also complicit in) Rita’s bullshit for at least two centuries: and all it takes is someone to possess Rita’s (mostly dead?) body and lay down some home truths about Rita that Maya basically knows anyway to finally crack Maya’s loyalty? It didn’t feel like … enough, to me? And as for Rita herself, I think the book kind of did her dirty in that she’s sort of the villain in a way, more than the AIs at any rate, because she’s a fox in the henhouse, someone you think is broadly working to the same aims as you with the same values, when in fact she’s completely self-serving. OR IS SHE? Like she treats Maya terribly and abusively, for sure, but before the disastrous job that broke up the Dirty Dozen they seemed to be doing the kind of chaotic violent shit they all wanted to be doing anyway? It’s only the final job, the job they attempt to see through a second time over the course of the book, that went astray and got people killed-for-real. Once Maya has abruptly understood the nature of the job and understood the nature of Rita she (spoilers ahoy) she expresses a sense of betrayal over the whole thing here: “I spent two hundred years running around, shooting people for a piece of shit who wanted to [SPOILER] What the fuck? What the fuck?” But, like, we also learn that Rita was essentially in her last body (her clones degrading for some unspecified reason) … so under the circumstances why was it bad or wrong for her to want to SPOILER. Like this is a world in which death has become broadly meaningless—or at least something you choose—in the sense clones can be re-made endlessly and bodies preserved with enhancements: why was Rita supposed to just accept an arbitrary death when nobody else has to? Plus, given the book ends with all four of the main characters becoming SPOILER, why was it okay for them to do that, when we’re supposed to apparently agree with Maya that it was selfish of Rita to pursue the same? And, yes, okay Rita’s pursuit of SPOILER wasn’t something she was open about and got people killed in horrible ways but the reason she claims to be reuniting what’s left of the group is, in fact, out there. Is, in fact, true. And does, in fact, come to pass. Also, none of them are happy in their post Dirty Dozen lives. Constance, in particular, is choosing to age and die because she can’t bear a life without one of the people they lost. And and and AND while Rita certainly manipulates them all to come along, with Maya’s assistance, she is not the one who ultimately blackmails them to go through with SPOILER; that’s someone else, who locks away access to their clone patterns. That seems a lot worse than Rita’s crap if you ask me. Not that I’m saying either approach is okay. And, look, I’m not defending Rita or her actions here, nor am I denying her relationship with Maya is profoundly not-okay: she’s clearly a terrible human being, but they *all* are, is the thing. They’re all hopelessly shaped by trauma, despair, and their own worst impulses: it’s what makes them so fucking relatable. But, while I didn’t need a definitive answer about the who and why of Rita, we never get any kind of reckoning with her: she kinda does the closest thing to dying off page and that’s mostly it. Possibly that’s deliberate—people like Rita we never really get to work out, we can only squint over their pieces in aftermath—but it felt deeply emotionally unsatisfying to me, either as retribution or explanation. What’s especially frustrating is that when the book does choose to open its heart, it’s really breath-taking. There’s a scene between Maya and the wife of a member of the Dirty Dozen who chose to live and die that’s absolutely gorgeous. Sad, tender, full of grief and beauty, it held me rapt in ways the rest of the book did only fleetingly. And, you know, maybe that’s on me, I prefer people holding hands in rooms to blowing each other up with grenades. But couldn’t we have both? The All-Consuming World is so clearly a book with things to say—things I normally really want to listen to—but it feels like it often so chooses to say them in the most obstruse way possible. Again, I’m more than willing to blame myself as a reader for this, but it seemed like I spent the whole book wanting more of some things, and less of others, and consequently the pacing seems utterly out-of-whack: too fast or too slow, only completely right in this one scene with the grieving widow. This brain-fucking combination of too-much too-little extends even to the writing itself which is clearly unique and brilliant in its capacity to bring wildly oppositional concepts into fleeting poetic harmony. But also I just, sometimes, wanted something to be expressed simply and with sincerity? I could, speaking purely personally do with less of this: How Ayane’s name alone is sufficient to extirpate the haunting from her eyes. (In all seriousness, what is EXTIRPATE doing for that sentence? Nothing. It is doing nothing. Apart from making you go get a dictionary because nobody, and I mean nobody, has the word extirpate on speed dial in their brain. It is an ugly, stumbling word that disrupts both the rhythm and meaning of the sentence). And this: Around them, the concert hall colors elegiacally: phthalocyanine blue shadows, viridian luster, an oil painting drowned in the bathyal deep. (Three of elegiacally, phthalocyanine, viridian and bathyal in a single sentence feel like they’re doing something; four just turns the whole thing into lexical mush. Also what does an oil painting drowned at a particular oceanic depth have to do with the elegiac? I think it’s just gonna be wet). And more of this: This is love too: sacrament, unconditional surrender of the selfish ego […] Love’s work, reminds that memory of Reyha. And sometimes, it is hard work. The work of a funeral. The work of fielding condolences, writing thank-you notes, keeping a son alive, keeping yourself alive, keeping sane when you wake up in bed alone for the first time in more than twenty years. It is the work of saying *yes to the ghost of your dead first love, yes, I accept you’re not coming back, that you choose the grave over me, that it is okay, that I’m here, that we’ll do this together one last time, that I love you, always, always.* Like that is stunning. It is brutal and brilliant, and the language chosen—its rhythms, its peaks and valleys, the way it begins in short concrete sentences detailing pragmatic tasks, and then accelerates towards this explosion of abstract, impossible, enduring emotion—is working perfectly to convey and enhance the meaning of what is being expressed. And, listen, I’m aware this is very very much a personal taste thing; I appreciate the artistry and the intent that has gone into prose like this. I just think that, for me, about 20% less would have been the sweet spot. Take this kiss for e.g. Verdigris kisses her then. She tastes of cool water, salt-sweetened and sunlight-warmed. Of being young, of a youth that Maya knows she never fucking experienced yet there it is, a florescent memory of staggering through early life’s myriad tragedies: first loves and their fumbling sweetness, disintegrating faiths, the dregs of childhood sublimated into the construction of the adult pneuma. All those things, those hominid rights, evoked without advance notice and with searing clarity. Okay, so I love this? At least, I love the beginning and I love the end, and I love what it’s saying, and I love what it builds to but … like …does hominid … hominid? really bring anything to this sequence? I mean, I understand we are animal beings but—call me old fashioned—I don’t personally want a chimpanzee evoked in the middle of a kiss? To be honest, I’m not mad keen on pneuma either: since it’s a word that, while it may have a specific philosophical meaning to the ancient Greeks, is mostly recognisable to the modern reader in the context of, y’know, pneumatics … hydraulics … which is, again, not a useful set of images to bring to a moment of such significant and fragile emotion in a text so shaped by violence and dehumanisation. To take it even further, what “the dregs of childhood sublimated into the construction of the adult pneuma” is attempting to encapsulate for us is the way our childhood experiences feed into the creation of our adult persona. I get that, but metaphorically speaking the phrase encompasses a really jolting transition from water-type images (dregs) to air-type images (pneuma), and places that already fairly challenging idea directly alongside a second equally challenging image, which is the notion of something ephemeral (pneuma) being constructed (and obviously one can construct things ephemerally but, once again, it’s word that evokes physicality in the context of a word that does not). Then, on top of all of this, we have “sublimate” to deal with. Are we talking sublimate in the psychological sense rather than the chemical sense, but the thing about the chemical sense? It’s explicitly the process by which a substance is transformed from a solid to a gas without passing through a liquid state – so, y’know, non-applicable to the watery dregs of childhood. And I realise I’m probably taking this both too metaphorically and too literally at the same time, and probably the whole point is to have these contradictory images and ideas jostling against each other in pursuit of some ultimate meaning, but I actually feel on this occasion, as on others, it more sort of … impedes meaning? Distracts from meaning? Oh I don’t know. There’s an afterword in the back of the book where the author explains that The All-Consuming World started as 20k of a “strange idea … mostly in pieces” and they sent it to their editor, who worked with them to turn it into a book. Putting aside the fact that I’m pretty sure that if I sent 20k of a “strange idea … mostly in pieces” to my editor, they’d be unlikely to say “this is definitely a book I want to buy” and far more likely to say “what the fuck Alexis Hall, you’re fired” I do find myself retrospectively wondering if maybe this would have worked better a shorter, more focused piece. But that also feels like useless speculation. Especially because The All-Consuming World is the book that … well exists. And while it left me personally conflicted (and a little confused), there was a lot to appreciate here and—for a different reader—perhaps to love. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 08, 2024
|
Jan 08, 2024
|
Jan 08, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
0374608229
| 9780374608224
| 0374608229
| 4.02
| 1,459
| Mar 19, 2024
| Mar 19, 2024
|
Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without Source of book: NetGalley (thank you) Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* I seem to have started pretty much every review recently with “I don’t quite know how to talk about this book” but … the thing is, I don’t quite know how to talk about this book. In the positive sense, given that I basically highlighted, like, the entire thing and have been thinking about what I read since I read it. I think, honestly, at this point, I’m just relieved that Judith Butler isn’t randomly a TERF now. I mean, I don’t know why I’d think that, given their past work (plus it’d be a pretty weird stance for a nonbinary person to take), but too much of my life at the moment seems to consist of Googling “is [someone I admire] [who was probably born a generation or so before me] randomly a TERF now?” with dread in my heart. The other thing I find, not complicated necessarily, but worth thinking about, is who a book like Who’s Afraid of Gender is for exactly. Like is anyone who disagrees with the book’s premise (i.e. that trans and nonbinary people deserve dignity, liberty and the right to self-actualise, that anti-gender rhetoric is not only logically inconsistent but harmful, and that gender itself is contextual and philosophically complex) going to read it? And if you do already agree with everything Butler is saying, is there any point in reading it? Are you not then just allowing yourself to live in a comforting echo chamber? On top of which there’s the fact that attempting to engage sincerely with gender critical discourse often feels like a losing proposition because—and Butler is very very quick to point this out—its neither consistent nor itself sincere. In fact, it’s pretty much the public debate equivalent of mudwrestling a pig. You know, you’ll just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. For a little while, as I was reading Who’s Afraid of Gender, I genuinely wasn’t sure if I was watching Judith Butler mudwrestling a pig, spectacular though the mudwrestling was. Except then I had a long conversation about it with my partner—and read aloud several sequences from the book—and H said, “no, this is not Judith Butler mudwrestling a pig. This is Judith Butler pointing at a pig going, that’s a pig and it’s covered in mud.” And you know something? This is completely right. 5 stars. Would share swine identification and filth assessment session with Judith Butler again. Pig-themed lulz aside, the fact this book is necessary is depressing as hell. We should not be so culturally in doubt of what’s a pig and how muddy it is. Although, as Judith Butler touches upon in the book, one of the problems we’re facing in the world right now is a strain of manipulative anti-intellectualism which promises truth and plain speaking but is actually about control, fearmongering, and obfuscation. So I think what I’m getting at here is that I hate Butler had to write Who’s Afraid of Gender, but I fucking love that they did. The other thing that’s notable, and intriguing, about Who’s Afraid of Gender is that it’s (I believe?) the first piece of work Butler has published with a non-academic press. And while there’s probably a natural limit to the accessibility of Judith Butler, this very much feels like a book that’s intended to be read, not taught. It is, in fact, very readable. There’s a warmth to Butler’s writing here, alongside the expected intellectual ferocity, that—for me—made Who’s Afraid of Gender as reassuring as it was brilliant. And yes: if you’d told me at the beginning of 2023 that my comfort read of the year would be Judith Butler I’d have … well, looked at you funny I suppose. But, God, this book ended up meaning so fucking much to me. Because, the thing is, I know the discourse around “gender” is flatly wrong and deeply harmful. It’s just the sheer relentlessness is so exhausting. The experience of reading Who’s Afraid of Gender, then, is sort of like Judith Butler has turned up to hold your hand and explain, straightforwardly, eloquently, and indomitably, why all this is bullshit. It wasn’t something I thought I needed—I thought I understood things pretty clearly—but it was. It absolutely was. The central conceit of Who’s Afraid of Gender is that gender has become a sort of phantasm upon which all manner of social and global anxieties can be heaped, and then leveraged by fascist-leaning ideologies to advance oppressive and patriarchal agendas. Over the course of the book (which is a slim little number, considering the weight of its ideas), Butler not only exposes the apparently endless contradictions put forth by gender critical thinkers but neatly dismantles … I mean, like, everything? The Catholic Church. The Supreme Court. Donald Trump. Trans people’s participation in sports. TERFs. Kathleen Stock. Biological essentialism. A certain UK children’s author who continues to believe she understands everyone else’s gender identity better than they do. The whole notion that there has ever been an immutable idea of what a woman “is” that could be returned to if we dispensed with gender: The category of “woman” does not say in advance how many people can participate in the reality it describes, nor does it limit in advance the forms that that reality can take. In fact, feminism has always insisted that what a woman is an open-ended question, a premise that has allowed women to pursue possibilities that were traditionally denied to their sex. The book covers a lot of ground, including a chapter on gender as a weapon of colonialism that I personally found super fascinating. The casual but comprehensive murder of JK Rowing that Butler performs in about three brisk pages is also, I must confess, darkly satisfying, but also just kind of sad as well. Like, what are the 2020s that Judith Butler is having to stride across the battlefield of discourse taking down formerly beloved children’s writers like when somebody gets bitten by a zombie in episode of the Walking Dead. In all seriousness, though, Rowling is a good case study for Butler, precisely because Rowling has a highly developed capacity, considering her power and privilege, to occupy spaces of victimhood. For example, while Butler notes that online bullying is, of course, unacceptable they also draw attention to the false equivalence has been tacitly accepted anger expressed at JKR online and the fact that JK Rowling is actively engaged in denying a socially, legally and medically disenfranchised group of people their very existence: Imagine if you were Jewish and someone tells you that you are not. Imagine if you are lesbian, and someone laughs in your face and says you are confused since you are really heterosexual. Imagine if you are Black and someone tells you that you are white, or that you are not racialized in this ostensibly post-racial world. Or imagine you are Palestinian and someone tells you that Palestinians do not exist (which people do).Who are these people who think they have the right to tell you who you are and what you are not, and who dismiss your own definition of who you are, who tell you that self-determination is not a right that you are allowed to exercise, who would subject you to medical and psychiatric review, or mandatory surgical intervention, before they are willing to recognize you in the name and sex you have given yourself. Sorry for the long quote. I wasn’t kidding when I said I’d highlighted most of the book. Kathleen Stock, another British TERF, who briefly positioned herself as brutally censored by militant supporters of transgender rights, Butler has even less time for, simply on the grounds of flat out poor scholarship. Stock’s valid concern is that no woman should be subject to possible rape, and I agree that everyone should share that concern. And yet, if securing women against rape in prison were her main focus, should she not [before focusing on violence enacted by trans women in women’s prisons] consult the statistics on male prison guards engaging in precisely that activity, which, given their magnitude, should, according to her logic, lead to a policy in which no man ever works as a prison guard in any women’s prison? Perhaps she has signed petitions to this effect or written on this policy, but I am not finding it in my research Anyway, I have barely scraped the surface of everything that’s important, incisively reasoned, and decisively communicated in Who’s Afraid of Gender. Butler is a powerful advocate for freedom, feminism, and the right to self-actualise. Not always an unchallenging read, it is nevertheless a vital one for everyone who needs to feel seen and fought for right now. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
1668009048
| 9781668009048
| 1668009048
| 3.86
| 470,180
| Oct 24, 2023
| Oct 24, 2023
|
Source of book: Bought by meee Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explici Source of book: Bought by meee Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* I have no idea how to talk meaningfully about this. I mean, I’m a fan of Britney Spears, in the way I’m a fan of most of the things I like, which is to say I’m invested in the art, and don’t consider the person who created it to be my business (although, of course, that’s slightly more complicated when you’re talking about music which is not so easily extricable from the performer unlike, you know, art or books or whatever). What makes this extra disorientating as far as Britney is concerned is that—as far as I can tell—her life was very much treated as everybody’s business in ways it absolutely shouldn’t for literally years. In the end, though, I felt I kind of, I don’t know, almost like I … owed her (insofar as one can owe anything to a public figure) to read her own damn words? Pay her money that would actually belong to and be used by her. Rather than just listening to her music and trying to ignore the abuses that have been heaped on this one woman artistically, culturally, legally and at the hands of her own family for almost her entire life. It's a fairly short read, though not exactly an easy one. And while there’s a few juicy and/or agonising anecdotes in there (all of which are already highly publicised—Britney’s bathroom floor abortion, Timberlake’s fo shiz, Jamie Spears’ “I’m Britney Spears now”) assuming you’re even passingly familiar with the life and work of Britney Spears, it’s not going to tell you anything you don’t already know or have already guessed. What is important about it—and what, honestly, I found quite moving—is that it comes across like the first thing that has existed in the public domain (bar a collection of highly quirky and specific Instagram posts) that feels true Britney herself. Or rather true to whatever sense of Britney Spears as a person I have semi-parasocially constructed in my head based on the inescapable nature of the publicly available information about her and bog-standard human empathy. And, of course, the book is the work of a ghost writer. But whoever they are (and Britney does thank them obliquely in the book itself) they’ve done, as far as I’m concerned, a really impressive job. It feels like Britney trusted them. And as a consequence, the book is engagingly written, doesn’t overstay its welcome, and captures something—to use another complicated word—authentic? There’s a simmering anger here, understandably, but also the same soft-spoken gentleness familiar from the spoken interviews Britney has conducted over the years (sometimes with extraordinarily hostile interviewers). She speaks (writes? One of the strengths of the book is that it really does come across as Britney sharing her thoughts unmediated) with clarity and certainty, and without self-pity or pretension, about the various double-standards, cruelties and injustices that have shaped her life. It’s harrowing and infuriating and painful. It’s, frankly, astonishing she survived it. I also kind of got the sense, rightly or wrongly, that Britney didn’t actually want to dwell on any of this; the problem is her life is just a cavalcade of it. I mean not, don’t get me wrong, necessarily moreso than anyone else’s: then again, I can’t think of many people who’ve had the entirety of a sportsball stadium boo them for breaking up with a boy. She does, however, go out of her way to offer us glimpses of happier moments: her collaboration with Madonna, Mariah Carey’s LIGHT (a story that could have made its subject ridiculous, but was told so terribly kindly) the time Oprah Winfrey told her publicly that her sexuality was nobody’s business, the time Paris Hilton, of all people, came through for her. Some of my favourite sections touched upon her joy in singing and performance. She’s too humble to boast of her accomplishments, other than being a damn hard worker, but it’s also clear that she’s always had a vision for herself, one she had power and confidence to execute—before that power and confidence was stripped from her. The night before we recorded “… Baby One More Time,” I was listening to Soft Cell’s “Tainted Love” and fell in love with that sound. I stayed up late so that I’d go into the studio tired, my voice fried. It worked. When I sang, it came out gravelly in a way that sounded more mature and sexier. There are a lot of—far too many—reasons to feel sad and angry on Britney’s behalf. It has always, if I’m honest, slightly killed me how eager we have culturally been to diminish Britney, not just as a person, but as an artist. As if she always been nothing but the rote-performing mannequin her own family tried to make her. Instead of someone with real talent, passion and agency. Right at the beginning of the book, Britney tells us that singing is her truest voice, the one that allows her to express herself most fully. It’s fucked all the way up that we couldn’t even let her have that. I hope for her sake, as well as selfishly for my own, that she finds her way back to her art, her selfhood and her voice. And if this book is all of her voice she’s willing or able to give at the moment or for the rest of her life: I’m glad I listened. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 30, 2023
|
Dec 30, 2023
|
Dec 30, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
1662509456
| 9781662509452
| B0BGQ5ZCMD
| 4.01
| 5,333
| Nov 15, 2022
| Nov 15, 2022
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* This is another one of those short stories that it’s impossible to talk about without negatively impacting the reading experience for others. Put it this way, though, Undercover is quintessential Muir: oblique worldbuilding that gradually coheres into something meaningful, toxic lesbians being gloriously toxic, a general air of wilfully unaddressed horn, a twist you saw coming and then a twist you didn’t. Moreover (like The Six Deaths of the Saint) the story is expertly crafted to use its own form and structure to advantage: it feels right for its length, rather than straining at the limits of it. In other words, I enjoyed the godalmighty fuck out of this. It didn’t fully blow my socks off the way Saint did, but my socks were definitely left in a highly precious position by the final pages. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 29, 2023
|
Dec 29, 2023
|
Dec 29, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
Vo, Nghi
*
| 1662510098
| 9781662510090
| B0BGQ925R4
| 3.63
| 4,898
| Nov 15, 2022
| Nov 15, 2022
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* I know I make a deal about not having favourites but Nghi Vo has become one of those authors who I will follow into the fire. She could publish her shopping list and I would be there for it. All of which is to say, there was a lot I loved about What The Dead Know but it mostly felt like things I already love about Nghi Vo rather specific to What The Dead Know itself, if that makes sense. The plot here is that a couple of charlatans, posing as mediums, are hired as the entertainment at girl’s finishing school in smalltown Illinois. A sudden storm forces them to spend the night, forcing to the heroine to confront for real this time the voices of the dead she usually just pretends to hear. The story showcases all of Vo’s strengths: buckets of atmosphere, an intriguing setting conveyed in a way that makes it feel both familiar and strange, fascinatingly flawed characters who—because of race, gender and/or queerness—are constantly forced to reckon with their place in the world, and, of course, absolutely fucking exquisite prose: [The house] lifted up to the sky with two low wings fanning out to either side, its diamond-paned windows picking up what little light they could and gleaming like coyote eyeshine in the dimming day. *swoonful sigh* The other thing I love about Vo’s work—and that feels quite unique to her, even though it probably shouldn’t—is the way she depicts significant relationships between queer-coded characters that never feel secondary to their romantic relationships. And don’t get me wrong, I know romantic relationships are important too—I’m primarily a romance writer for God’s sake—and I know there’s a degree to which it feels like mainstream media still has a lot of catching up to do in terms of depicting queer characters with fully realised romantic and sexual lives. But I think the price we pay for this sometimes is that we lose depictions of queer connectedness that *aren’t* sexual or romantic. And that’s … lessening. Because queer lives are at their richest when they’re at their most expansive. Oh, I should also probably note at this point, before I get well-actuallyed in the comments, there’s nothing explicit in the story to suggest that either Maryse or Vasyl are queer. I just, rightly or wrongly, got major queer vibes from them. Ultimately, though, I think What The Dead Know suffered slightly for me in its proximity to The Six Deaths of the Saint. This is not, in any way, to compare Vo and Harrow as authors—they’re both brilliant and I love them both—it’s just The Six Deaths of the Saint is a notably remarkable short story. The format and the content are perfectly aligned. Where What The Dead Know felt like a whole book, or at the very least a novella, mutilated into the loose shape of a short story. The ending is wildly rushed in a way that retrospectively unbalances the beginning (even though the build-up was absolutely necessary and, actually, I wish there’d been more of it). And while the villain’s arbitrariness is part of the point there was just too much happening in the last 20% of the story—chases, secrets, ghosts—for the emotions and the themes of the final revelations to land properly. Don’t get me wrong, What The Dead Know is still a fantastically bleak, chilling and intriguing read. It’ll just leave you aching for the novel or novella it so desperately wants to be. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 28, 2023
|
Dec 28, 2023
|
Dec 28, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
166250957X
| 9781662509575
| B0BGQ9B7LF
| 4.33
| 20,460
| Nov 15, 2022
| Nov 15, 2022
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Fuck off. No, seriously. Just fuck off. Fuck *right* off. This short story is so brilliant, so beautiful, so overwhelmingly, painfully, devastatingly perfect that I had too many emotions for toxic masculinity to cope with and now I’m angry. I mean, no, I’m not sincerely angry. I’m humbled to live in a world where this exists, and I got to read it. I don’t want to tell you anything about it because I want the experience of reading The Six Deaths of the Saint to be to you what it was for me. Like… it’s an exploration of exploitation. It’s a story about finding yourself. It’s a story about making choices when you’ve had all your choices stripped away. It’s story about greed and cruelty, and hope and freedom. It’s a love story of almost unbearable tenderness. It might be one of my favourite things like, ever? Ever ever ever. Stop reading this. Go and read that. I’m busy. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
1662517157
| 9781662517150
| B0C9JYHY1D
| 3.80
| 12,651
| Nov 01, 2023
| Nov 01, 2023
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Silvia Moreno-Garcia you say? Free with KU you say? [image] Anyway, this is a short story; and I’m not sure how to talk about short stories in general without wrecking them for potential readers. But I’ll do my best. I guess I’d describe this as a dark fairytale. It’s about a young woman called Judith who lives with her more beautiful sister and pines after a handsome hunter. As you might expect from anything written by SMG the writing is absolutely exquisite: The kisses he’d planted on her mouth lingered, deep as cuts upon her flesh, and their memory made her ache. But, ultimately, for me, the story felt a little … meagre? Not because of anything it lacked exactly but because fairytale characters resonate as archetypes (the cruel sister, the downtrodden heroine, the handsome stranger, the evil witch) and the cast of The Lover feel very specific. Judith, in particular, both reflects and repudiates fairytale tropes (she is good but not virtuous, she is mistreated but doesn’t require rescue); there’s something flawed and real about her that, ultimately, left me wanting to know her better—and spend more time with her—than the format of the story (both its length and its framing as a fairytale) could allow. For example there’s moments in the text like this: [Judith’s sister] spoke to her like a lady speaks to a lowly maid. But then they’d been estranged for a long time, long before Judith loved Nathaniel. Grandmother had taught Alice the place she must occupy in life, always two steps above Judith. And, by the end, I couldn’t tell if I was more fascinated or frustrated by this sort of thing. I loved the way it challenges the idea of unloving relative of traditional fairy tales. Like, Alice isn’t jealous of Judith’s beauty or virtue, she isn’t just inherently spiteful or abusive, she’s been taught her cruelty by someone else—someone no longer in the picture whose motivations remain somewhat abstract. I mean, we know Alice is beautiful and that is currency in a world that is shown to be patriarchal at best, misogynistic at worst, so it makes a cold sense that grandma would “preserve” Alice’s beauty at the expense of Judith. And while Alice makes Judith do all the work, Alice did essentially sacrifice herself in matrimony to a man we’re told was old and unpleasant to a secure a future for both of them. It’s even suggested that she doesn’t share marital intimacy with her next husband—a man she chooses for herself, at least partially based on his attractiveness. Given she’s already borne two children for someone she would have no choice but to give her body to it’s hard not to … read a bunch of complicated, painful things into Alice and her history, even if she’s also vain and thoughtless and a pretty crap sister. I mean, I think in Alice’s place I’d probably be all those things too and worse. Except none of these hints and implications—while I’m glad they were there, complicating Alice’s role as the nasty sister—cohered into anything more than hints and implications. And I ended up feeling the same way about all of the central characters—like they’d been partially peeled away from the archetypes but just kind of left there. I also think that it’s quite difficult in general for dark fairtytales with these themes to shake the shadow of The Bloody Chamber. I enjoy fairytale retellings in general, especially those with a gothic twist, and I enjoyed this because it was SMG and I can’t imagine her creating anything I didn’t admire the fuck out of, but I also don’t think it did anything that Angela Carter hasn’t already done, and done way harder. I mean the reality is, with any story carrying Red Riding Hood DNA, the options are kill the wolf, fuck the wolf or become the wolf, depending on what you think the wolf represents. Something I’m not sure The Lover had fully figured out by the time it was finished. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
1947534297
| 9781947534292
| 1947534297
| 4.17
| 11,668
| 2016
| May 08, 2018
|
Source of book: Bought by meee Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explici Source of book: Bought by meee Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Well, this is exactly what it says on the tin. It’s a thematic recounting of all the ways Britian fucked India. It is, very explicitly, a piece of polemical writing—the author originally debated this subject at the Oxford—which is both its strength and its weakness. Polemic, by its very nature, admits of neither subtlety nor complexity. And, unfortunately, colonialism is deeply complex. Not *morally* complex, I hasten to add. But in the realpolitik sense of living in a messy, fucked up world where your ancestors have already committed a bunch of atrocities that are now inextricable from the history of other countries and other cultures, and cannot be undone or straightforwardly compensated for. I initially picked this up as a kind of mental reset after reading Lawrence James’ Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, which… I mean. Look, this is not an area in which I have any claim to expertise, and obviously you can’t do good history from a place of performative self-flagellation, but I found James’ book uncomfortably, like, chill about whole, uh, situation. Like, it’s focused on the British side of the story to a degree that feels actively erasing of the colonised and, occasionally, lapses into a tone of what I can only call … nostalgia? Y’know, for the good old days of imperialism and exploitation. I mean, he actively describes the principles of the Raj as “unfashionable”. And … um. As far as I’m concerned there are two issues with this—the first being that, actually, no the colonialist mindset hasn’t diminished as much as I’d like, look at the fucking British government, and the second being… holy shit, how Jacob Rees Mogg do you have to be to try and pass off any sort of cultural reckoning with an imperialist past as, like, political correctness gone mad or a Twitter trend. I’m mentioning this now (rather than just reviewing the book, which I frankly can’t be arsed to) because if it hasn’t been for Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, I wouldn’t quite have understood who Inglorious Empire was trying to talk to, since if you already agreed with it, then it’s not telling you anything you don’t know, and if you don’t, you’re probably not open to having your mind changed on the subject. And, look, I know that there’s no such thing as a neutral recounting of history but I think what’s complicated about a book like Raj is that it presents itself as neutral while being—whether the writer recognises it or not—kind of pro-Empire? Inglorious Empire is very open about its agenda and its perspective, but given we don’t seem to be in a cultural place to recognise our own agenda, and the biases inherent our perspective, then I can see why exactly it’s needed. Why it carries an edge of revelation even though it’s not telling us anything we don’t already, on some level know. Although it turned out that I didn’t already know. At least not the sheer scale of Britain’s exploitation of India. This is a horrifying, uncomfortable-making and yet still fairly brisk read about something nobody in present day Britain should be thinking about with the romantic longing and thwarted entitlement of King George in the Hamilton musical. YIKES. Some of it is, of course, highly speculative (for example Tharoor insists that Indian unification would have happened naturally without the intervention of Britain, something that I … I mean, I don’t know, that’s quite a major assumption presented a probable fact) and Tharoor works exclusively in sources that support his claims, disregarding and occasionally actively misreading others. And while, as I’ve already mentioned, the book is very direct as regards its own rhetoric, its refusal to acknowledge literally anything good, enacted by literally anyone British, in the entire history of the occupation, creates a different set of issues. Like, I can see why Tharoor makes this choice (as a nation, we’re already far too ready to give ourselves a pass on the greatest atrocities of colonialism by pointing at trains or social policy) but at the same time it contributes to the erasure of people whose contributions to history have been consistently erased and continue to be erased (the one thing James and Tharoor have in common is that I can count the number of women they mention in their books on the fingers of one hand). By a similar token, he takes bit of a potshot at EM Forster, claiming that Passage to India “echo[s] the idea of Empire, mostly notably in his depiction of the impossibility of friendship between an Englishman and an Indian.” He quotes the final lines of the book, where Aziz and Fielding hold each other affectionately and lament the impossibility of their being together. Tharoor continues: Forster’s Indian protagonist, a middle-class doctor with a traditional Muslim family, was not the social or intellectual equal of his Englishman, Fielding, and perhaps true friendship between them would have been impossible even in a non-imperial India. But Forster, whose book omits all mention of the Indian nationalist movement, and who caricatures his only major Hindu character, seemingly cannot conceive of either the kind of Indian (like Surendra Nath Banerjea) who had won entry into the ICS or the kind (like Jawaharlal Nehru) whose critiques of Empire were challenging the foundations of the Raj. Okay, so I’m not going to get into Forster’s portrayal of Aziz—I absolutely don’t have standing to discussion whether it’s a meaningful portrayal of a middle-class Muslim in occupied 20th century India—and I realise it’s complicated to imply there is a definitively “correct” reading of any text, but this exchange is really not about Anglo-Indian relations. It gay. It gay AF. And I think this moment kind of encapsulates the limits of polemic: by its very nature, it can admit only one point of view. Nevertheless, Inglorious Empire presents a point a view that absolutely needs to be understood. This is a powerful, erudite, important book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 26, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
0994047169
| 9780994047168
| B0CCZRFGTD
| 4.26
| 5,363
| Nov 15, 2016
| Dec 15, 2016
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* This is a trans memoir that exists as deconstruction of memoirs and trans memoirs in particular, spinning experiences of transfemme identity, race, found family, intergenerational trauma, love, sex and violence into … I think the term—originally coined by Audre Lorde—is biomythography? All of which is to say, Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars is a piece of writing that feels true in every sense but the actual. And that is, y’know, very much the point. Let me just quote the opening wholesale to show you what I mean: I don’t believe in safe spaces. They don’t exist. I do, however, believe in dangerous stories: The kind that swirl up from inside you when you least expect it, like the voice of a mad angel whispering of the revolution you are about to unleash. Stories that bend and twist the air as they crackle off your tongue, making you shimmer with glamour, so that everyone around you hangs on to your every intoxicating word. The kind of stories that quiet mad girls dream of to bring themselves comfort after crying themselves to sleep at night, that made your poor starving grandfather cross an entire ocean in search of the unbelievable riches someone once told him were waiting on the other side. The book opens with the heroine, the eldest child of Chinese immigrants, leaving her family’s crooked house in the town of Gloom in order to make for the City of Smoke and Lights. Once there, she finds something like a home on Street of Miracles, where other dangerous femmes have created a community in defiance of a world a world that does not always treat them kindly or understand who they are. Honestly, it's kind of impossible to talk about the plot of Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars because it's not important. This is not a book about what happens. It's a book about what things mean. Whether that's a group of vigilante femmes seeking retribution for the murder of one of their own, dealing with a body full of killer bees, watching mermaids dying on a beach, or receiving an orgasm from a ghost. It's all woven together from stories--ones that speak to the heroine's experiences, one that speak of the experiences of the people around her--from poems, and from letters home to her sister. The effect is dizzying but in the best possible way. Profoundly moving. And as blissfully freeing as one would expect from the greatest escape artist in the world. Confabulous as it is, this is not a story that shies away from violence, cruelty, and exploitation, nor the impact of those things on deeply vulnerable people. But it's also about learning from hurt and finding in hope in the power to make choices. Even if--especially if--those choices run contrary to what it's assumed you should want or what your story has to look like. In case it isn't obvious, I am passionately in love with Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars. It's this gorgeous, unapologetic act of pure exhilarating defiance, even to the form it takes, challenging almost every assumption a reader might have about what a book is or should be. Y'know, just as the heroine challenges the expectations and limitations the world brings to...yes, yes, you get it. In any case, I don't think I've ever read anything quite like it. And, while I'm not a big re-visitor of texts in general, I'm pretty sure I'll spend the rest of my life coming back here to drown in the exquisite fury of the prose: And then she kisses me, a kiss that is deep and ferocious. A kiss about the shock of the impact of bodies, slamming together. A kiss about warrior femmes, bodies painted bright for combat, about writhing snakelike on the dance floor of the battleground. About catching the fist before it hits your face and twisting back the arm that tried to hurt you till it breaks. About refusing ever, ever to forget all the femmes that fought and died before us, about screaming their names to the distant stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 25, 2023
|
Dec 25, 2023
|
Dec 25, 2023
|
ebook
| ||||||||||||||||
1793307504
| 9781793307507
| 1793307504
| 3.85
| 109,026
| Jun 06, 2019
| Jan 06, 2019
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. *************************************** Please note: content warnings for discussion of sexual abuse throughout this review. I’m basically trying to clear a KU backlog so I can cancel my KU subscription on account of the fact I think I’ve read everything on there that isn’t porn. And, let’s be honest, some of the porn. But I’m not going to review the porn on GR. Not because I’m ashamed of the porn but because the porn wasn’t actually very good. I guess this particular book rocked up on my radar belatedly (I mean beyond the fact of being free to read on KU) because it was one of those books that was massive a few years back and I always get curious about that kind of thing. In any case, The Kiss Thief was clearly not for me (for a supposedly racy book about a mafia heiress, it’s oddly conservative) but I also gulped the whole thing down like a virgin heroine faced with her first cock. So make of that what you will. Our heroine is Francesca Rossi, a mob boss’s daughter. She’s supposed to be marrying her childhood sweetheart (also, incidentally, a mobster) and has been raised to be this perfect wife, mother, hostess figure because … uh … traditional gender values? Oh, and there’s also this wooden box in the family that contains three notes that are supposed to lead you to your true love, a plot device that carries variable weight as the story continues. Francesca—determined to take her romantic future into her own hands, kinda—opens the box early, discovers a note that tells her “tonight you are going to be kissed by the love of your life” and decides to make it come true when the book opens by kissing her the aforementioned childhood sweetheart. Unfortunately, she’s kissed instead by Wolfe Keaton at a masked ball instead. And this sets off a chain of events that ends up with him forcing her to marry him because he has leverage over her father. So. Wolfe Keaton. Even by the standards of this subgenre of romance, Wolfe Keaton is one the most charmless heroes I think I’ve ever had the (dis)pleasure of encountering. I think pretty much the only thing he has going for him is that he doesn’t actively object to Francesca going to college (unlike her father). But here’s a sample of this guy’s interior monologue: I promised [my mistress] nothing. Not even orgasms. They required minor work on my part and, therefore, were a terrible waste of my time. Or: My sexual frustration was getting the best of me. I could barely walk straight without thinking of dipping my cock into the nearest open mouth in my vicinity. It’d been days since the last time I sank my dick in a wet pussy, and the last encounter with the fairer sex was lacklustre, to say the least. I mean, wow. You sound SUPER FUN, mate. I think it’s meant to be one of those situations where the hero treating all women terribly (he has a reputation as a playboy but fuck knows why given he’s clearly extraordinarily bad at sex) is supposed to highlight just how special and important to him the heroine is (or becomes) in that he can be convinced to treat her … adequately? But the man is just such a dreary dickweed I couldn’t find it in me to care. It probably didn’t help that his general awfulness, rather than making him come across as someone hardened by life and ready to be softened by love, just made him seem desperately insecure in a kind of slightly pathetic way? Like he doesn’t go down on women because he feels it’s degrading, the sheer physical act of being on your knees in any context apparently representing a shameful loss of power. And, yes, yes, power is a significant theme in the book—and people do, in fact, end up on their knees fairly consistently to demonstrate their emotional growth—but come on. How insecure can you be, my dude? How fragile is your masculinity? Go back to the redpill subreddit where you belong. On top of which there's the whole ... how do I put this? Basically, Wolfe is one of those heroes who r-words the heroine in an extremely graphically described way. Obviously the role of, err, that thing in romance is complicated, has a long history, can be very trope-driven and goes to some complex places as regards gender, power, and erotic taboos. I want to make it really clear I'm not juding its place in the genre, writers who like to write it, or readers who like to read it. I'm just not personally a fan, especially when it's a contemporary-set book, rather than a histrom where you have some kind of excuse for the hero having unevolved views of women, an obsession of virginity/fidelity (historical marriage was about land rights and succession, after all) and zero anatomical knowledge about how AFAB bodies work. I also (and again I'm speaking personally) have issues with how to redeem a hero after there's been such a significant act of r-word (not that there are insignificant acts of r-wording exactly--just this is very much of the old school "and it was a bloodbath"). I have read romances that, to various degrees of success, have attempted to grapple with this (To Have and To Hold or Whitney My Love springs to mind) but Wolfe doesn't so much grapple as do cunnilingus and be slightly less of an almighty wankhead. He feels guilty for about 5 seconds, mostly for the physically painful component of the sexual abuse he inflicts, and then goes back to dribbling on about his pride: "I took her purity and knew that in order to fix this, I would need to give her some of my own pride." I mean, let's not even touch the virginity/purity stuff (despite the fact it speckles the whole book like stachybotrys chartarum). The thing is, I never felt any genuine tension around Wolfe's r-wording of Francesca - in the sense it's mostly treated as an oopsie daisy character development moment for Wolfe or a relationship hurdle for him to 'fix'. Sort of the equivalent of your partner eating the last Greggs donut or being slightly rude to Auntie Jemina at a family gathering. When it's, y'know, very much not that? It doesn't help that the narratives goes out of its way to frame this, um, encounter as Francesca's choice: she literally begs Wolfe to fuck her as proof she's not cheating and assumes (probably correctly) that since he won't believe her re the cheating he's unlikely to believe her re the virginity. There's even a moment halfway through the, um, event when he--noticing they're both literally drenched in blood--realises that she is, in fact, a virgin and didn't cheat on him, tries to stop and Francesca insists he sees it through. Which he does for some reason? It's hard for me to imagine being in that situation with someone in the first place, but if I were, I find it even harder to picture that I'd keep on fucking--irrespective of what they were telling me to do. Obviously you need to respect other people's right to consent to stuff. But you can withdraw your own at any time. Entering someone's body with your dick is not a "well I've started so I'll finish" kind of deal. Eesh. Anyway, what's messy about this framing of the ... the r-word scene is that I think we're meant to interpret what's going as, y'know, bad/rough sex. Not the r-word. We are, in fact, constantly reminded that Francesca asked for it. And I suppose to some degree it comes down to what you believe the r-word encompasses. Obviously this is fiction, not reality, and talking about the consent of fictional character is, from a certain perspective, a bit daft since you have to exist to consent. But this situation is wholly coercive for Francesca: she's essentially being forced to marry Wolfe because he has leverage over her father and she's choosing to have sex with him on this occasion not because she wants to but because she feels she has to for her own protection and the protection of her family. That's not enthusiastic consent. That's just consent. That's barely consent. And the fact that you can get people to consent to things they wouldn't otherwise consent to if you wield sufficient power over them doesn't give them any sort of culpability for your subsequently abusive actions. Nor make any sexual acts you perform in that context any less ... rapey. Basically the book treats what happens between Wolfe and Francesca as kind of a mutual power play? Like she forces him to brutalise her to prove her innocence which, in turn, makes him face up the fact he's fallible and has misjudged his wife-to-be (though not, apparently, that he maybe shouldn't enact sexual violence on people). All of which kind of contributes to a presentation of rape as something survivors bring about as a means of humbling their abusers. Which. Ouch? Yikes. Also I'm not even going to touch on how this book thinks the hymen works. Anyway, I've kind of centred this entire review on a single scene. The reality is that, while I did feel kind of pulled along by The Thief Kiss, and I could recognise the ways in which someone-not-me might find it a really engaging read, it was ultimately pretty orthogonal to my personal tastes and values. Not that everything I read has to reflect my values, of course, but I did struggle with the conservatism (yes, part of Francesca's arc is acquiring independence but she only gets it because her husband gives it to her), the language around virginity and purity, Wolfe being basically appalling, and ... actually, now that I come to think about it? The mafia stuff? Like the sweet, blue-eyed angel man who has been Francesca's best friend since childhood and she assumes will be her husband is a legit murderer? Her father is not only a murderer but involved in drug (and possibly people?) trafficking, political corruption, and money laundering just to skim the surface. Again, I'm not saying I need every character to be a saint but the other mafia romances I've read have, at least, sort of touched on the whole mafia thing? Even if it's just to play up how hot it is (in fiction, most likely less so in life) to earn the love of a deeply dangerous man, and how safe/hot it can feel to be the person he isn't going to murder any time soon. The Thief Kiss is kind of like if The Sopranos kept forgetting that Tony Soprano is a genuinely bad person. Although part of this might just be be that Francesca's father feels very inconsistently characterised throughout. His love for Francesca, his misogyny, and his criminality fluctuate according to plot necessity. I also wish the device of the chest with the notes had been explored with a bit more depth and coherence. Having just whined solidly for multiple paragraphs about shit that didn't work for me, I did like that Francesca's relationship with Wolfe, at least once it evolves past all the sexual assault, both plays into and pulls against the notes. Like the first note Francesca essentially decides to make true by kissing the man she thinks she loves on her own terms - except then Wolfe "steals" that kiss from her only to be a man she falls in love with him anyway, oh do you see. And the final note talks about Francesca's true love sheltering her from the storm which leads Francesca, once again trying to control her destiny in the most literalistic way possible, standing in a storm, waiting for Wolfe to come rescue her and thus "prove" his love. As it happens, pretty murderer Angelo shelters her INSTEAD, and then kisses her in the rain, and Wolfe confronts her over this with: “Are you fucking kidding me? I sheltered you.” I stabbed a finger to my chest, advancing toward her and losing the remainder of my self-control. [...] I grabbed her shoulders, plastering her to the wall, forcing her to look at me. “I sheltered you from your father and Mike Bandini and Kristen Rhys. From every asshole who looked at you the wrong way because of your age or your lineage or your last name. I put my reputation, and career, and fucking sanity on the line to make sure that you were safe, and accomplished, and happy." I... err...I didn't hate this. Could have done without the physical violence but that's, you know, Wolfe for you. In all seriousness, though, I genuinely dug this on-going exploration of what love and fate are, at least regards these two characters. If you squint, you can make a case that Francesca's growth arc is learning that the signifiers of love that we hang so much cultural weight upon - perfect first kisses, your lover racing towards you through a rainstorm - are less important than a flawed and complicated reality. Where it falls down, however, is the second note is some vague bullshit about feeding Francesca chocolate? Wolfe ticks this off the list by buying her a lot of chocolate, which she doesn't in fact eat because she's on a hunger strike at the time on account of the whole being forced into marriage with a horrible person thing: a gesture that has zero thematic resonance or emotional impact. It's not a big deal really but I guess I just wish the second note in the box had been doing the same work as the first and third. But I'm probably not being fair to the sexy mafia book by being more interested in the exploration of the central motif than, say, the story or the characters. In short (heh), this is the sort of book that will probably either super work for you or super not work for you, simply based on how much you enjoy sheltered, virginal heroines, aggressively unpleasant heroes and a mafia setting that really is primarily just background. I managed to push myself to a sort of "eh" position on the grounds of wanting to recognise the elements of the book that were so successful for so many people. I get what it's doing, I appreciate how hard it goes in pursuit of that, and if this is the sort of book you think you'd be into, I think you'll not be disappointed. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0985280735
| 9780985280734
| 0985280735
| 4.02
| 1,490
| Apr 01, 2008
| Mar 13, 2012
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* Um, this was … fine? I was looking for something light and easy, and it’s definitely that. There’s also no banging in it which might be why all the reviews keeping make these little weird references to, you know, “clean” execution and so on and so forth. Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether we get to witness fictional fucking or not in a romance novel but could we maybe find better language with which to describe books that eschew the horizontal hokey cokey? No on page sex, for example, strikes me as doing the job pretty effectively. And carries no implication that books with on page sex are not clean. Are unclean. Are dirty. Are immoral. Come on, it’s 2023. Sex is sex. You can have it if you want it. You can not have it if you don’t. Let’s not get weird about either choice. Anyway, this is a sweet straightforward story about a sweet straightforward heroine who falls for a nearby human male and then they get married. It’s nice. Well, it’s mostly nice. There’s also a fair of bit of violence here and there, because apparently three men nearly assaulting the heroine is coolbeans but if she’d chosen to have consensual sex at any point that would have been beyond the pale. I’ve used the word “straightforward” about sixty times now but, for me, that was mostly where the strength of the story lay: the heroine wants to meet a nice man and marry him, partly to get away from her abusive father but also because that just seems to be where her ambitions begin and end, and she does. There’s nothing particularly deep or complicated there but why does there have to be? It’s a big genre. As long as there’s also space for heroines to be astrophysicists or gay or able to access premarital sex, not everyone needs to pull against the cultural context of the time/place they’re living. A shared future of domesticity and mutual support is just as meaningful a dream as long as it’s chosen. The nice man is question is called Stover Steele which, y’know, is an impressively romance hero name. I don’t think he’s described as having a specific scent, but you can just tell it’s woodchips and pine. In any case, he seems like a decent enough man. I wouldn’t personally marry him but I’m pretty sure he’d go a funny colour and start clearing his throat a lot at the thought of marrying me. He is raising his three younger sisters, though, all triplets. They’re by far the best characters in the book. And I bet they’d be chill at having two daddies. Where the book and I diverged was mostly down to, you know, picky personal taste stuff. The heroine—Katie—is perpetually in a mess. Like getting pushed off bridges. Falling on her face. Nearly getting assaulted. Clearly she’s fairly emotionally resilient considering the way she was raised but the book doesn’t seem willing to cut the poor girl a break. For better or worse (and mileage will vary here depending on what you enjoy reading) this the kind of book where the women mostly stand around and the men take action around them: even Katie’s mother is “saved” from her abusive marriage only because some bad men are kind enough to shoot her husband en route to taking revenge on the man who disrupted their previous attempt to assault the heroine (and the bad men are themselves only re-contained by the intervention of a second good man after Stover has tried to take them out). “She rescues him right back” this is not. Unless we’re counting “rescues from domestic labour” which I guess maybe we can. I would love to be rescued from domestic labour. As well as suffering from bridges, flowers, mud, her father and potential sexual assault, Katie is also the victim of a mean girl in town who has literally zero personality except for wanting Stover and hating Katie. I kept sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop but no: all shoes were present and correct. There is no arc here. The mean girl is mean the end. And at one point Stover convinces Katie to kiss him because the mean girl is watching and this is, apparently, a way for Katie to get her back. Which, um. Bit of a weird way to get a girl to kiss you? Like, why leverage presumed female rivalry rather than trust in the legitimate desire that Stover is well-aware Katie already feels? Possibly this was meant to be playful from Stover or empowering for Katie (or indicate slight insecurity on Stover’s part that he has to suggest an ulterior motive for the kissing they both clearly want to be doing) but it ended up reading not so romantic to me. Even though the kissing itself—and there’s a lot of kissing The Prairie Prince—was quite lovely. Anyway, this ultimately turned out to be an awkward coffee date of a book for me. Our mutual friend KU had cluelessly set us up, we wanted to make it work for their sake, and so—despite having nothing in common and no natural chemistry—we were very polite, tried to see the best in each other and mostly succeeded. Neither of us have anything to complain about. We had an okay time together. But we’re not sending any follow-up texts. And, in an ideal world, will probably never meet again. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 24, 2023
|
Nov 24, 2023
|
Nov 23, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
173644588X
| 9781736445884
| B09Q287DMB
| 4.43
| 79
| unknown
| Feb 22, 2022
|
Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent fr Source of book: KU Relevant disclaimers: None Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author. And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful. ******************************************* This is a sequel to The Double Vice. While it stands alone and does a good job (perhaps too good a job because the directness of the recapping at the beginning made me slightly impatient) of filling the reader, I would still recommend reading the first book, y’know, first. Basically this is … more of The Double Vice. Meaning it contains everything I really enjoyed about The Double Vice and all the things I personally found less successful about it. The writing continues to be an uneven mix of pulpishly brisk, a little rough around the edges, and—at its most polished—delightfully sharp: She glared at him. “Why are you always in a fix? Didn’t they teach you anything at that High Hat Academy?” The world-building, similarly, is as deft, detailed and convincing as it is in the first book—guiding the reader expertly through the marginalised communities of prohibition era New York. And the mystery, once again matching its predecessor, is extremely engaging and well-constructed. A little more ambitious, perhaps, than The Double Vice for it's actually two mysteries (who is contaminating a crimelord’s liquor supplies, what caused the death of wild child socialite Rosalie Frazier). One of them, admittedly, is fairly transparent compared to the other (I’m not sure how I feel about a crimelord who can’t spot the obvious traitor behaving traitorously right in his face) but they dovetail beautifully. Where, I think, a second book can offer opportunities to enrich the first is in returning the reader to people and places that feel familiar. The Blind Tiger is no exception to this. I found myself genuinely thrilled o be back with Dash Parker and his queer compatriots (shoutout to Finn Francis, who is a delight on any page he graces), as well as privy to the latest scandal from the theatre next door as heard through the wall of Dash’s apartment, and whatever slick suit Dash happened to be wearing today. I also appreciated that Dash has not escaped the previous book entirely unscathed. We find him plagued by nightmares, unstable and erratic, and rejecting intimacy with his on-again-off-again-now-mostly-on-again boyfriend, Joe. Unfortunately, while I appreciated this emotional arc for the hero I noted felt a little under-developed in the previous book, it didn’t, in the end, quite come together for me. While both books have excelled at dialogue (mostly), sense of place (always), and presenting an intriguing mystery for the reader, they tend to come unstuck a little around emotional dynamics. And, you know, this is—on one level—fine. They’re mysteries, not romances, and the mysteries are absolutely fantastic. Plus, as a protagonist, Dash tends to have a lot more to deal with than smoochies. However, I do feel that Dash’s romantic relationship with Joe is supposed to be important or it wouldn’t be included. In a world of crime, shame, oppression and secrecy, intimate connections are a form of resistance. Moments of hope and joy that cannot be stripped away from people who otherwise have very little. All of which just makes me wish these sequences landed better. For example, there’s a really lovely scene in the final third of the book where Joe finally confronts Dash about his erratic behaviour and the fact he’s been so distant. It ends with Dash confessing that he doesn’t feel he truly belongs anywhere and Joe asserting that Dash belongs with him, which is hugely significant for both of them (and does far more to establish their relationship than the lacklustre bonk scene in the first book). Except it also doesn’t feel quite earned. As I think I said in my review of The Double Vice, Dash is ultimately a utilitarian protagonist – yes, he is in danger sometimes, and in over his head fairly often, but mostly he is there to move the plot forward and, because of this, he’s rarely directly vulnerable to the reader (even when he’s admitting to trauma flashbacks). And maybe this is entirely intentional, either because noir protagonists tend to be rather oblique—the Continental Op isn’t exactly wasting paragraphs on his feefees—or to grant additional weight and meaning so the fact that Dash confides in Joe and only to Joe. The problem is that, while I see both of these as coherent narrative possibilities, the scene itself still kind of came rather out of left field. I can also, if I squint, see that Dash’s emotional distance as a protagonist could perhaps have been building to this confrontation, where he admits he fears is not likeable (nor loveable), but I wish both The Double Vice and The Blind Tiger had just done a tiny bit more work to put that on my radar as intentional and part of Dash’s journey over the course of the books. It also probably doesn’t help that (and, yes, I know I’m the last person to take someone else to task for phonetically rendered dialogue) Joe’s Irish brogue doesn’t feel quite … convincing to me? It ends up coming across as very “top o’ the morning to ya”, for example in lines like this: “Ya,” Joe muttered, “I can’t believe ya told ’em, lassie.” Or: “Wait a moment, lads,” Joe said. “What cockamamie scheme are ya cookin’ up?” It might just be because I’m more familiar with a range of Irish accents than I am the various American dialects that feature in the book, which means I trip over Joe when I don’t trip over other characters. But the only voice it seems possible for me to read his dialogue as written in seems to be that of a cartoon leprechaun. This does not make him a great love interest from my perspective. And has had the side effect of driving me fictionally into the deadly arms of Nicholas Fife, the gangster introduced in the first book, who only gets sexier in this one. God I need more therapy. On the one hand we have a strong, gorgeous, dependable, kind and loyal man with an awkwardly presented accent. On the other a purring murderous touchy-feely criminal with a set of peacock lamps. And I am fucking mad about him. Seriously, he can put a straight razor to my throat or creep into the bath with me any day of the week. (My own dreadful in taste in men aside, I do actually think he has far more on page chemistry with Dash than Joe, not that I really think Dash should date him.) In any case, irrespective of any flaws these books may or may not have, I really admire what this series is doing and am consuming it with unabashed glee. Me to Nicholas Fife: [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 2023
|
Nov 19, 2023
|
Nov 19, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.68
|
Sep 20, 2021
not set
|
Sep 17, 2024
|
|||||||
4.07
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
|||||||
2.89
|
Jul 12, 2024
|
Jul 12, 2024
|
|||||||
3.71
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
|||||||
4.01
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
|||||||
3.56
|
Apr 27, 2024
|
Apr 27, 2024
|
|||||||
4.01
|
Apr 24, 2024
|
Apr 24, 2024
|
|||||||
4.30
|
Mar 2024
|
Mar 14, 2024
|
|||||||
3.20
|
Jan 08, 2024
|
Jan 08, 2024
|
|||||||
4.02
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
|||||||
3.86
|
Dec 30, 2023
|
Dec 30, 2023
|
|||||||
4.01
|
Dec 29, 2023
|
Dec 29, 2023
|
|||||||
Vo, Nghi
*
| 3.63
|
Dec 28, 2023
|
Dec 28, 2023
|
||||||
4.33
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
|||||||
3.80
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
|||||||
4.17
|
Dec 27, 2023
|
Dec 26, 2023
|
|||||||
4.26
|
Dec 25, 2023
|
Dec 25, 2023
|
|||||||
3.85
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
|||||||
4.02
|
Nov 24, 2023
|
Nov 23, 2023
|
|||||||
4.43
|
Nov 19, 2023
|
Nov 19, 2023
|