Reviews with content warning for Drug use - Not Good for Maidens

I received an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I thought a long time about what to write in this review. Admittedly, I was not familiar with the Goblin Market poem (of which this book is a retelling), although it seems that other reviewers are. However, only hearing the word 'goblin' sets of the alarm sirens in my head, and, well ... Instead of saying anything more, let me cite the wikipedia article on the poem, specifically, the section on interpretations: "Some critics believe that some feminist interpretations of the work leave out an anti-semitic nature within the poem. The critic Cynthia Scheinberg believes the Goblins to be "Hebraic", anti-semitic and anti-Judaic characters that the tested Christian sisters Laura and Lizzie must face in order to transition into wholesome and complete young women." Now, we all know wikipedia is not the end-all-be-all of scientific research, but it does feel like a lot of reviewers on here seem to think of the original poem to be some kind of sexy coming-of-age story.

And ... yeah. An underground race of sub-human creatures who lure humans away to kill and eat them? Oh, that's a big yikes. A really big one. And if a portion of these creatures are described as having green skin? Hm. An even bigger yikes. And then their main area of existance is a market, where they trade in blood and tears and locks of hair for cursed fruit? Oh. That's ... I mean, that's not great.

Now, from other reviews on this book, it seems that Goblin Market retellings are ... a thing? And I'm not sure how retelling such a deeply antisemitic could ever work.

It doesn't work in this book.

I'm not sure if the author was aware of the antisemitic background of the poem, but honestly, it kind of feels hard to miss. The goblins in this book are not like the H*rry P*tter ones, but more akin to fairie creatures, built on trickery and brutality. However, they do still very much lure human teenagers underground and kill them. So, in my personal opinion, there wasn't much done to subvert the antisemitic tropes in the source material.

In addition to the antisemitic nature of the goblins, the rest of the novel just felt jumbled together. It's dual perspective, dual timelines: In the past, May falls in love with a goblin and disregards the treaty with the goblins to see her. In the present, Lou (May's niece) tries to save her other aunt Neela (May's sister) after Neela is captured in the market. It is said many times that Lou doesn't believe in goblins, but she sure as hell accepts her reality soon enough. It's weird, because at points it seems like the narrative can't decide whether Lou believes in the market or not? Additionally, we know exactly what happens to May because she tells Lou before we get to read things from her POV, so there's no suspense at all during her chapters. We already know she's gonna get captured. We already know she's gonna kill the market prince.

Also, what was the whole witch subplot about? Felt like a totally separate book, a totally separate story, and honestly, if it would've been left out, the story wouldn't have been altered at all. Same with May's pregnancy. None of these things had an impact on the story at all, nor were they necessary.

Now, to round this review out with: I liked that the author explicitly stated the sexualities of Lou, May, and Neela. It feels like it's too rarely that we actually read the words asexual and bisexual in books. Sure, there's asexual and bisexual characters, but how often do we actually read those words? That was a nice surprise. I just wish Lou's asexuality would've been more integrated into the story and not just used as an explanation as to why she feels alienated from other people her age. For example, the market works a lot on sexual temptation, and I think an asexual character in that environment could've made for interesting interactions. But alas, it was not to be.

Content Warnings

More...