Take a photo of a barcode or cover
adventurous
informative
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Okay. I really wanted to like this book. I'm so fascinated by bog bodies and the unique kind of insight they can give into the past based on the different way they decompose, and the mysteries that surround them. A story based on one sounded really cool to me, and I liked the opening interlude where Lowry talks about the history a lot, as well as the fact that she flips the narrative a bit in the middle based on historical research.
I also like the general thesis of bringing history to life and recognizing that every single person in the past HAD a story. There are also good details, character voice, solid writing, etc., etc.
BUT
In the fiction parts, it quickly became apparent that Lowry had fallen into the same trap as so, so many writers of historical fiction--the need to make a female character with 21st century sensibilities who is Ahead of Her Time. Who thinks thoughts no other woman has thought before, who wants to be more than the role assigned to her.
And there are two problems with this kind of character. The first is that it tosses aside culture as a major element of defining our sensibilities and understanding of the world. It makes the past idea of culture so rigid that we can't imagine someone questioning elements of it without completely breaking out of it. We are all defined by the cultures we are raised in. You can't just strip that out.
The other, bigger problem, is that it creates an assumption about real historical women. They had to have a fictional character from the 21st century supplanted to their time to help them understand that they might be Worth More. The idea that women couldn't and didn't ever act out of normal expectations or question the role of society is a "chronological snobbery" of modern women that makes patriarchy worse.
It also imagines society itself as a monolith. Every village of Iron Age people was not the same, because there were different people in every village. You are disrespecting past culture (and so past people) by simultaneously assuming that someone could exist in this culture and be outside of it AND assuming that culture was so rigid that only *this* kind of character could challenge it.
And I realize that perhaps all of this is beyond the scope of a 200-page novel for children. But drawing this child characters so clearly and giving no complexity to anyone around them is just not the way we should be humanizing people of the past. It is, on the whole, dehumanizing. Estrild's mother is just a sad child-bearing drudge. That's not fair, kind, or accurate to the complex and vivid lives that every person in the past had.
Lowry also makes, in the nonfiction portion of her book, the quite astonishing comment that modern society "would find a place for" Varick, her disabled character, and "see beyond his limitations to his warm heart and keen mind. But not back then."
This was the last straw for me. One, disabled people STILL have to fight for their place and society and to be seen for their full value. Children are still abandoned for disability and illness. This is not a problem we have Solved. Two, imagining that not a single person in the Iron Age would have had compassion for a sickly boy is just unreal to me. I cannot believe this kind of approach to historical people is existing along with Lowry's comments about wanting the Windeby child to "be remembered." Do you? Because it sounds to me like you're just making a bunch of stuff up.
I love writers, I really do (I have been mentoring teen writers for years), but maybe they need to start interacting with more historians before boldly powering out into historical themes and places with only their agendas, their assumptions, and their imaginations to guide them.
I want to end this review with swearing because that's how I mad I am, but given this is a children's book: have some gosh dang respect.
Okay. I really wanted to like this book. I'm so fascinated by bog bodies and the unique kind of insight they can give into the past based on the different way they decompose, and the mysteries that surround them. A story based on one sounded really cool to me, and I liked the opening interlude where Lowry talks about the history a lot, as well as the fact that she flips the narrative a bit in the middle based on historical research.
I also like the general thesis of bringing history to life and recognizing that every single person in the past HAD a story. There are also good details, character voice, solid writing, etc., etc.
BUT
In the fiction parts, it quickly became apparent that Lowry had fallen into the same trap as so, so many writers of historical fiction--the need to make a female character with 21st century sensibilities who is Ahead of Her Time. Who thinks thoughts no other woman has thought before, who wants to be more than the role assigned to her.
And there are two problems with this kind of character. The first is that it tosses aside culture as a major element of defining our sensibilities and understanding of the world. It makes the past idea of culture so rigid that we can't imagine someone questioning elements of it without completely breaking out of it. We are all defined by the cultures we are raised in. You can't just strip that out.
The other, bigger problem, is that it creates an assumption about real historical women. They had to have a fictional character from the 21st century supplanted to their time to help them understand that they might be Worth More. The idea that women couldn't and didn't ever act out of normal expectations or question the role of society is a "chronological snobbery" of modern women that makes patriarchy worse.
It also imagines society itself as a monolith. Every village of Iron Age people was not the same, because there were different people in every village. You are disrespecting past culture (and so past people) by simultaneously assuming that someone could exist in this culture and be outside of it AND assuming that culture was so rigid that only *this* kind of character could challenge it.
And I realize that perhaps all of this is beyond the scope of a 200-page novel for children. But drawing this child characters so clearly and giving no complexity to anyone around them is just not the way we should be humanizing people of the past. It is, on the whole, dehumanizing. Estrild's mother is just a sad child-bearing drudge. That's not fair, kind, or accurate to the complex and vivid lives that every person in the past had.
Lowry also makes, in the nonfiction portion of her book, the quite astonishing comment that modern society "would find a place for" Varick, her disabled character, and "see beyond his limitations to his warm heart and keen mind. But not back then."
This was the last straw for me. One, disabled people STILL have to fight for their place and society and to be seen for their full value. Children are still abandoned for disability and illness. This is not a problem we have Solved. Two, imagining that not a single person in the Iron Age would have had compassion for a sickly boy is just unreal to me. I cannot believe this kind of approach to historical people is existing along with Lowry's comments about wanting the Windeby child to "be remembered." Do you? Because it sounds to me like you're just making a bunch of stuff up.
I love writers, I really do (I have been mentoring teen writers for years), but maybe they need to start interacting with more historians before boldly powering out into historical themes and places with only their agendas, their assumptions, and their imaginations to guide them.
I want to end this review with swearing because that's how I mad I am, but given this is a children's book: have some gosh dang respect.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death
Moderate: Animal death, Violence, Abandonment