Reviews with content warning for War - The Power

A very, very odd book. It had me hooked for the majority. I liked all the characters (Roxy being my favorite, followed by Margot and Jocelyn, then Tunde, and Allie was somewhere in there before taking a major drop in the ranking in those final 10-20 pages) and the set-up, premise, and plot were all interesting to keep me interested. I really liked the way it made me think about power dynamics, morality, and gender stereotypes. The way the author processes the different ways women would go about life with "the power" is so fascinating, BUT the ending really fizzled out for me, which was even more disappointing since the build-up to it was so good.

This book had so much potential to be a great, thought-provoking feminist read, but I don't think it can be that book when most of the women say

"yes, let's blow up the world because we can (???????). we have more power than men now, but they want it back so instead of working with them now that we're at an equal level, let's blow it all up, go back 5,000 years, and start all over again".

Not only did it completely blow up (pun intended) a lot of character arcs, but it was also just like a hopeless ending, which is notoriously the worst way you can end a story to me.

Allie's final story beat of becoming the President of Bessapara and choosing between war and peace had me at the edge of my seat, especially with the dynamic change between Roxy (who wants peace) and Allie (who wants war). I thought Allie finding her former adoptive mother and realizing that she was just as awful, if not worse than her former adoptive father, would lead to an epiphany that not all would be grand if women came out on top. Women can be just as vicious and violent and malevolent as men, and nothing will change. Only the reverse would happen. Women would be on top, leaving men with the scraps of the world, and I know historically that is how women were treated, but what kind of victory is that? Why would we create the same world that was so cruel to us? But nope, it seems like Allie didn't take any of this into account and chose war even after all of that. What an incredibly disappointing way to end her story.

Also, maybe someone can explain it to me, but I didn't really see the point of the letters at the beginning and the end of the book. Just give me the story in the middle. I don't need this weird back and forth, especially after giving me that apologetically bad ending.

Content Warnings

nezi's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.0

Fascinating concept but the execution leaves much to be desired. The Saudi Arabia part reeked of white feminism at times. I also disagree with the author on how the events would unfold should such a thing happen. That could just be the optimist in me.

Content Warnings

apersonfromflorida's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

Content Warnings

kmhst25's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark sad tense fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

Praise: A gripping, fascinating read that does a superb job of examining men's crimes against women, by showing them to you backwards. The author was constantly stunning me with her ability to show me my world flipped, highlighting its repugnance. This change in perspective is extremely clarifying.

Criticism: It's hard to truly classify this book as feminist. The basic premise seems to be: if given the chance, women would be 100% as bad as men are. I have lots of objections to this theory, but my top 3 are:

It's hard to believe that all of the women who have experienced patriarchy would turn around and inflict it's equivalent on men. Some women? Sure. The whole world? God, I hope not. If nothing else, women have first-hand experience of gender-based oppression. They know what it feels like, and people are more sympathetic to problems they have experienced first-hand.
The numbers don't support it. Women already have physical power over childen, and while the flat number of people who abuse childen is slightly higher for woman than men, the actual rate of abuse (counts of abuse / the # of people with opportunity) is much lower for women than men.
Additionally, guns and poison level the playing field of violence. Women could easily commit violent crimes in equal number to men using any of the myriad of weapons available today. And yet they don't. Female violence is much lower than male violence, in any category, with any weapon. Why should we believe that a new female-only weapon would completely flip-flop that difference when guns have hardly touched it?
Testosterone exists, and both men and male animals that are deprived of it (i.e., castrated) are less likely to be violent. Ask any vet. Violence and oppression are not the exclusive products of opportunity; there are lots of contributing factors, and none of them are given any credence here.