Reviews

The Changeling by Victor LaValle

Only show reviews with written explanations

valtherizzle's review

challenging dark emotional medium-paced

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

3.25

I loved this book so much when I first started only for it to crash and burn. Vague and not so vague spoilers ahead.

The Changeling is billed as a modern day fairytale cautioning the dangers of the internet/social media. I did not know this going in. I only realized it after reading a few reviews. I would never have put that together myself, however, a few things did click after this realization. It did not enhance my reading experience to learn this after the fact I only want to make my mindset while reading more clear.

While there is a fair amount of talk about the perfidy of social media - an intangible malefactor - there are actual corporeal monsters as well. This is where the 'modern fairytale' tagline derives from: there are literal trolls and witches in this book. I’ll talk more about that later. For now I’ll simply say that in theory this inclusion could have been fine. The tonal dissonance is what makes it feel like a sharp left turn rather than a logical conclusion to a storyline consistently built up.

The first half and second half are two completely different books - to its detriment.

The first half is a slow burn dark literary fiction novel with magical realism undertones. The latter is an adventure mystery with explicit magical happenings. The two do not mix well creating the distinct sensation that you've started an entirely different book once you enter the latter half. If you start the book from the midpoint you'd have a far stronger story merely because you'd lose a lot of half baked plot points and unnecessary red herrings. The first half only mattered up until the point it became clear to me most of it was merely atmospheric set dressing rather than actual foreshadowing or foundational work to build the story off of.

There's a big hullabaloo about Apollo's father disappearing suddenly without a trace from the family when Apollo was only 4. Apollo has horrible, creepy nightmares about his father coming for him in the night in which Apollo wakes scarred (emotionally) from his father's abandonment anew. When Apollo is in his early teens his father leaves him a gift in a manner eerily similar to these nightmares suggesting Apollo's previous dreams were prophetic in nature. As the story progresses you logically begin to fill this into your understanding of the story because it's got a strangeness to it that fits the surrealism surrounding the other aspects - it must be important because it's 'weird' like the other stuff is 'weird'.

Only you'd be wrong. None of that matters. It turns out Apollo's nightmare was just his kid brain interpreting his father's clandestine visits after his mother kicked him out in a way he could understand. His father abandoned him, however, it was at his mother's urging as she prioritized her hurt feelings over what could have been good for Apollo. That isn't to shift the blame totally to her since Brian chose to let her do it, I'm merely pointing out her culpability as it's important to the point I'm trying to make.

My point being this: what originally is presented as a fantastical circumstance - Lavalle goes out of his way to initially frame Brian's desertion as a disappearance in order to drum up suspense that foul play is afoot - is now a normal everyday occurrence for many children with selfish parents everywhere.

It begs the question, why include it at all?

Whoops turns out that was wrong too. Or at least not the full story. Eventually, Apollo's mother admits that his father was actually planning a murder suicide of the whole family and got as far as holding Apollo down in boiling hot water before she was able to stop him. It is heavily implied she killed him in response.

After this next revelation - I'd stop taking notes at this point as I was just ready for it to be over but it's after the 80% mark - it’s apparent this incident reoccurring with added context was actually supposed to be an embodiment of the underlying question underscoring the entire book. Nevertheless this still doesn't absolve it of its overall pointlessness. It takes too long to get to the true reason for its existence as a plot point and once it does come out it's inconsistent with its previous usage as a plot device. Originally it's presented as an unsettling herald of what's to come. Then it's your run of the mill well intentioned but poorly thought out parenting choice. Suddenly it's a paltry attempt to encourage an epiphany in Apollo due to how it paralleled Emma's actions. It should not have been so murky when major narrative arcs were dependent on it to remain solid.

The question at the core of the novel is what would you do to protect the ones you loved? Your opinion on this topic will have a major impact on whether or not you enjoy the book.

Personally, I’m of the mind you should hold those you care about accountable despite your love for them. In fact I’d argue that if you truly love someone, holding them accountable is in itself a reflection of that love. Therefore, while I could understand the actions of some of the people in this book I did not perceive them as the ultimate form of sacrifice they were intended to be. If you’re not the kind of person who could see yourself forgiving a family member for assault or are willing to enforce your boundaries regardless of personal affiliation then you’re going to have a rough time.

For example, following the murder Emma commits, her sister actually helps her escape and lies to everyone about doing so. I cannot comprehend saving my sibling after an atrocity like the one she committed. The fact that it is presented as a courageous act of love is not only untrue it's an unbelievably harmful way of looking at love for another person. If the events of this book did not unfold the way they did then Kim would have allowed a deeply mentally unwell woman who was actively a risk to not only herself but those around her to walk totally free because she loved her. For all intents and purposes that's exactly what Kim does since she didn't truly believe Emma's assertions about the baby not being a baby. Would Kim have felt justified still if Emma had gone on a murder spree? If she would, that says more about her lack of moral fiber than it does about her capacity for love.

A lot of the book falls heavily into 'men bad, women good' territory. When Apollo sets out to find Emma he encounters allies of hers - a group of other women who have faced similar situations; the aforementioned 'witches'.

This group of women proceed to laugh and berate him for grieving the life Emma ripped away from him. They revel in the fact that they've murdered other fathers who have pursued their wives after their respective heinous acts. He's implicitly admonished at every turn for not listening to Emma. The months he spent in jail after his mental break, the night he almost committed suicide, the physical abuse he withstood, are dismissed as inconsequential since Emma was the one doing the real work.

The fact that literal trolls are not supposed to exist and no one in their right mind would believe a person who maintains their baby is not really their baby especially right after birth when postpartum depression which can cause the inability to bond with your newborn is a well known, well documented condition many women go through is ignored entirely.

Instead these women are lauded as heroes for making such a sacrifice while the men are condemned for reacting like any normal person would. Apollo has been betrayed by the one person he thought he could trust above all us in the worst way possible yet he's the villain because he's the big dumb brute who didn't want to listen to - from his perspective - his severely mentally ill wife.

He is, in essence, punished for prioritizing his child like any good parent would be expected to do. He left Emma to her own devices because he had nothing left in the tank to give with her refusing to take on any childcare in her state. Was he needlessly nasty sometimes? Sure. Can you really say you would never say a mean word to your partner when you're shouldering nearly 100% of the child rearing, you're getting no sleep, you're working yourself to the bone, and your partners' mental state - though not their fault- is not improving?

I'm not excusing it, but I am saying that I was so disheartened to see this book lowkey push the idea that men's grief is somehow lesser than a woman's because in the end men don't really know what 'real' suffering, pain, etc is. Women in a general sense suffer more than men. That's a fact. That does not mean that men don't suffer at all or that men don't suffer more than women in certain areas or specific instances. It was infuriating to read all about how the women deserved a safe space for committing murder but the men who were just as traumatized deserved only contempt.

Men should listen to women more as men are all too willing to tune out our perspective, doubly so if you're marginalized in some other way. However, in the confines of this paradigm, intentional or not, the message Lavalle is implying is that men should follow after their wives not because their wives are capable human beings, but because women are to be irrefutably deferred to when it comes to anything regarding children as women naturally know better when it comes to this topic; an untrue, harmful assertion that women have been pushing back on for decades.

If this weren’t the message then wouldn’t there be men who were targeted as well? Why is it only women are able to see past the glamor?

The women should have compassion as no one could have foreseen a literal troll stealing their child away in the night. Of course, it’s tragic that this could occur and that there is no recourse due to the circumstances. All I’m saying is that extending grace to the women should not have come at the expense of the men.

The ending leaves much to be desired. There are far too many loose threads. Logistics are not considered at all and it is too far out there for me to simply look the other way. This part ties into the biggest downside of this being a ‘modern fairytale’.

A character later in the book says that he hates fairytales because the 'happily ever after' is always assumed without any further explanation. He tells a story he was told about a kid felling a troll. In the end, kids may have more questions and you’re expected to lie because if you were to seriously consider the story then they’d realize there’s no way of telling if the happily ever after part will last as real life does not operate that way.

Is it true that all that wood from the trees the troll chopped will make them rich? What if it doesn't? Will the father be able to send all 3 of his sons to college? The eldest was a coward but he still had birthrights? But how would that be fair to the youngest who created the boon by actually felling the troll? What if the old man, i.e. the kid's father, dies? Who gets the money then? Will they squander it all in court?

In a fairytale none of that matters because the shorthand is that the lesson has been learned or the message communicated in some way so the extraneous parts are just that: extraneous. The ending seems to be Lavalle’s tongue in cheek rally against such unfounded pessimism.

The piece that is missing here and what hurts the book ultimately is that fairytales are short. Even if a person does wonder about those things it's reasonable they're not explained because of the length. This is a novel. He had plenty of time to tie up loose ends. He simply chose not to. And personally I think his point would have been more effective if he left it more ambiguous emotionally rather than practically as that is where I feel most people who also don’t like the ending are coming up short. Being unsure of where Apollo and Emma stand in their relationship is acceptable. Being expected to believe the people will somehow be able to handwave away their baby appearing completely intact like six months after his highly publicized murder case requires a near insurmountable suspension of disbelief.

The atmosphere is a total vibe. The writing style is wonderful. It's matter of fact without being impersonal. Even as I began to dislike where the story was going I still felt immersed in the world. If you can read either the first or latter half and stop there then you've got yourself a great book. Altogether it's a messy, disappointing endeavor.